Neural Gourmet Archives | Feed Your Brain
Neural Gourmet Archives | Feed Your BrainI think it's been a long time since I've taken a class in experimental design. Honestly I can barely remember the teacher or the classroom, or even who I sat next to. One of the things, however, that has stuck with me and continued to do so was one line in the book - "Once you accept a hypothesis, anything can be interpreted to support it's conclusion".
A good experimenter is always supposed to accept the null hypothesis first, or in other words, the hypothesis that posists the opposite of what the experimental hypothesis does. If your experimental hypothesis is that nicotine makes fluffy bunny rabbits super strong (that's probably not a very good experiment idea, by the way), then the null hypothesis is that nicotine does not make fluffy bunny rabbits super strong. Good scientists accept the latter until there is ample data to show that they're mistaken. Bad scientists do the opposite.
So why am I babbling about hypotheses and fluffy bunny rabbits? Well, I had a realization I made a while ago reinforced recently when a study funded by the Templeton Foundation came out regaring prayer and recovery after medical procedures. The results of this study indicated that prayer offered no benefits (and in fact, people who were prayed for tended to fare worse on recovery measures, though it did not appear to be statistically significant) for recovery. Hmm... interesting that a study founded by the Templeton Foundation found that prayer by strangers had no positive effects... but that's a different story.
I've been "discussing" (I use the term loosely) the study and it's results with some of my "friends" (yup, that one too) that range from bad Catholics to fundamentalist type Baptists to hardcore militant atheists. On the religious side of the spectrum I've been getting the response that the study doesn't show anything because either:
On the atheist side of the spectrum, I've been hearing that this study offers proof that either:
All of those responses strike me as... inadequate. Not that I'm looking for an accurate picture of what to take from the results of the study, but I think the responses I've been getting illuminate a bigger problem in the swirling ebby of theological debate - namely; we are quick to accept the hypothesis, whatever that may be, before we have any good reason to do so.
At this point we're ready to interpret anything to support our beliefs. Tens of thousands dead in Iraq? God works in mysterious ways / God does not exist. New Orleans drowned? It was a city of sin and debauchery and angered God / God does not exist. President Bush re-elected? Proof of God's existence / God does not exist (I guess the atheist position gets a bit boring, but at least it's consistent!).
It's been my experience, that any reasoned "discussion" on the topic can only be undertaken by those who have "accepted" neither hypothesis. You might ask "But, you are an atheist, and you have accepted the hypothesis that God does not exist, so how can you have a reasoned discussion?". I would probably respond by saying that I used to be much worse than I am now, and to point out the difference between knowledge and belief. The people who *know* God exists / does not exist are the people who will be eternally relegated to flinging poo at one another. I don't think anyone can *know* whether or not God exists - anyone who says they can or can not either a) has not thought through what it means to know something or b) has a nasty methamphetamine addiction. But belief is an entirely different matter - one can certainly believe or not believe. For instance, I do not know whether or not God exists, but I don't believe that he does. The difference between that and the typical fundie / militant atheist position is that of proof and certainty. So in that sense, I think being either an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist, is the "wisest" (I also use that term loosely...very loosely) position to take.
Be wary of the confirmation bias, my friends.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Bravo!
I would suggest you stop trying to talk to fundamentalists. Let them stay in darkness. They are incapable of reasoned debate on scientific issues.
I'm new to your blog. Just added it to my RSS Feeds.
I'm a Secular Humanist and I know I am too critical against the existence of God. I would be one of those people who says, "I know God doesn’t exits."
You are right, I can't know whether God exists, I can only believe he doesn't. Technically we are all Agnostic, because we don’t know either way.
http://www.thinkleandro.com/2006/03/you-are-either-theist-atheist-or.html
I know I have to improve in my position, and what you wrote is going to help me do that.
Thanks!
It's a preponderance of evidence against gods combined with the utter failure of any god to ever provide evidence of their existence; so much so that I would classify myself as a strong atheist but there can never be definitive knowledge on this subject. I just really, really, really suspect there aren't any gods.
What I do regret though is that in the U.S. we've become so focused on comparing and contrasting ourselves with Christianity. It's understandable and necessary in that there is a very vocal minority being manipulated by the far right into selling out their faith and practicing what amounts to bigotry, but all the same I wish we were able, collectively, to speak and think more abstractly. To that end, I'm really happy to see people like Daniel Dennett trying to understand religion as a naturalistic phenomenon.
Thanks for your kind comments. I do think there is a big misconception among many, many people about the somewhat nuanced differences there are between knowledge and belief - and I know I'm still trying to get a handle on them myself.
But now I'm going to start feeling self-conscious, knowing that someone's actually reading my blog 
I mean, let's face it. We've got these great big brains in our heads that are so good at discerning patterns based on the most minimalistic of data. It's so easy to discern patterns when there aren't any actually there and we all do it. I think the difference between, say, a paranoid conspiracy theorist and a scientific skeptic is that the PCT is just looking to acquire new patterns whereas the skeptic is looking to test those patterns out against other patterns, to see how well those patterns or beliefs correspond to the real world. And I think in the end that an honest atheist has to be a skeptic too. Otherwise they're just doing the same thing that the conspiroids are doing.
Oh, and you're quite welcome. People are reading your blog because you have something interesting to say. You're worth it. Now, as to why anybody reads my blog...?
