1. Let them know that it is not abnormal to experience doubt. This does not mean that your children will experience significant doubt, it just means that doubt is a common issue they will experience, to varying degrees, in a fallen world. Typically, your child’s struggles with doubt will not start until he reaches adulthood and begins to stand on his own two feet in many ways, including in his faith walk. But if you have helped your child understand that doubt is something common to all Christians, he won’t be scared to share his struggles when they arise later in life.
2. Share with them some of the doubts you struggle with. Of course, this is assuming you have brought your children up in the faith, showing them the strength of your faith as well. However, from time to time you should feel free to let them see you wrestling with God. This lets them know you are real, especially when they are older and more reflective. Showing them your doubts may embarrass you somewhat, but it can also go far in demonstrating that your faith is not shallow, but rather is marked by thoughtfulness. Sharing your doubts from time to time legitimizes the faith you do have, so they will be less tempted to think you are just a naive follower when they are older.
3. Help them prioritize their faith now. Make sure they don’t believe all issues are equal. Help them see the difference between negotiables and non-negotiables, essentials and non-essentials, cardinal and non-cardidal issues. Ensuring they understand the distinction between doctrine and dogma prevents the “house of cards” problem so that, even if they come to question one particular issue (i.e., creationism, inerrancy, premillenialism, Calvinism, etc.), they do not find it necessary to reject their faith completely.
4. Facilitate a love of Christian heroes. With all the exposure to cultural heroes (actors, musicians, models, etc.) so typical today, it is important that your children see the characteristics of godliness exemplified by real-life Christians. These examples should come from inside and outside the Bible. Reading about the heroism of Perpetua and her servant in their martyrdom is very difficult (and may be “R” rated), but your children need to know about people who actually lived out their faith with the same resources available to them today. Learning about Augustine’s life of sin before he was converted may be something you think you need to protect your children from, but perhaps they will remember the common struggle with sin when they are older and not feel so alone (which is the most fearful thing when one is doubting).
5. Allow for a great deal of mystery. We live in a western world and we love systematic theology. We want all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed. But often, when we provide answers to all of our children’s questions, we don’t allow them to develop a respect for God’s inscrutability. He is beyond figuring out. His nature and his ways are mysteries to us. From “Why did God create the dinosaurs?” to “Why does God allow Satan to have so much power?” these questions need to be left unanswered (at least dogmatically). Allowing for and rejoicing in the mystery of God will help your children, giving them the freedom to worship in mystery and truth.
6. Ask the difficult questions. Many times we attempt to protect our children from hard issues that we think may cause them to doubt their faith. However, this is not wise. In fact, parents should be the first ones who bring up difficult issues, working through them with their children. “Why do you think God would take Spot away when he knows how much you loved him?” “It has been so long since Jesus rose from the dead, I don’t think he is coming back. What do you think?” Of course, you are guiding them to talk through things they may not have thought of otherwise. If you push them on these things early, they will be better prepared to hold on to their faith when their professor in college asks them similar questions in a much more hostile environment.
7. Make sure they know the heritage of their faith through church history. We all need to know that the anchor of our faith goes deeper than mom and dad. Again, times of doubt are intensified because we feel alone. However, these feelings of loneliness can also create doubt. By cultivating knowledge of church history, it will help your kids trace their faith origins back to the very beginning, making the picture of their faith much clearer when times of confusion arise.
8. Continually teach your children an apologetic defense of the faith. It is never too early to start your kids in apologetics. The most important doctrines of our faith are the simplest to defend. Your kids should know about all the arguments for the existence of God, the resurrection of Christ, and the reliability of Scripture. Often, this can be done by parents taking the antagonist role, then allowing the children to come up with the answers. I remember a time when Katelynn, my oldest, forgot a pencil that she needed for school. I asked her why God, so powerful, allowed her to forget something so important. She prayed for the pencil to miraculously appear in her bag; when it did not, I told her, “I don’t think he exists.” She responded, “Dad, that is dumb. If there was no God, there would not be a pencil to begin with.” Simple, correct, and profound.
9. Take your child on a missions trip. Kids in the U.S. have a strong sense of entitlement, believing they must have everything their friends have (and more!) or they are suffering abuse. The skewed points of reference they normally encounter (friends, neighbors, people they see on TV) create an inability to see the blessings they do have in their lives. Taking your child on a missions trip early (say, around age 12), reorients their perspective and gives them a good dose of reality.
10. Give them a chance not to believe. I remember hearing Billy Graham talk about a conversation he had with his son Franklin when he very young. He said, “Frank, your mother and I have decided to follow Jesus. We hope one day you will do the same thing.” And he left it at that. You children need to know they are free to not follow your same path so they take ownership of their own beliefs, rather than feel forced or tricked into believing the way you do. This disarming approach is very important for the future reality of their faith.
11. Prepare them for suffering. There is nothing that causes people to lose faith more than unexpected or “meaningless” suffering. This is where good theology is of utmost importance. When your children get older, they will surely suffer a great deal in one way or another. If they perceive that their suffering is something that was not supposed to happen, if they believe it is not God’s will for people to suffer, they will be very confused later in life, not knowing how to square what they believe with their life experience. But if we have taught our children well, giving them a strong biblical theology of suffering (i.e., we live in a fallen world; they should expect pain and difficulty), then disillusionment will not be a source for doubt.
12. Teach them to take care of their bodies. Many times doubt is brought about or intensified due to poor physical health. Your children need to know how vital the connection is between the spirit and the body. When one suffers, so does the other. A good eating and exercise routine will do much to prevent this type of doubt – which may be the most unnecessary of all sources of doubt (and depression).
123 replies to "Twelve Ways to Prepare Your Children for Times of Doubt"
@ James,
1. Moral and ethical systems are not falsifiable. They are only better or worse depending on whatever one believes to be the goal of ethics and morals. The goal, whatever it may be for each persons worldview, is neither testable nor falsifiable. Despite this I think you would agree that ethics plays a great role in the progress (or regress depending on your view) of society.
2. Are you saying that statements like “other minds other than my own exist” or “the physical world is real” are not basic beliefs? If not how would you suggest testing these in a falsifiable manner?
@C Michael Patton:
1. Yes, so moral and ethical systems cannot be “disproven” (Just in case: theism is neither a moral nor an ethical system, it’s a hypothesis about the universe.) “Ethics plays a great role in the progress […] of society” is a hypothesis worth experimenting on. 😉
2. So: billionaire, or madman?
One of the wonders of science is that untestable hypotheses can properly be dismissed out of hand for what they are: a total waste of time.
James,
“One of the wonders of science is that untestable hypotheses can properly be dismissed out of hand for what they are: a total waste of time.”
So the epistemological grounding for the whole scientific theory proves that science is a waste of time? I would not go there. It’s much easier to admit that there are properly basic beliefs that need not be tested as they cannot.
Again, can you scientifically prove the law of non-contradiction? Is this learned or assumed. Nurture or nature?
Ugh, more quibbling about the limits of observation and pretending that it’s somehow some deep critique of the scientific method, or makes science somehow insufficient, requiring a bunch of a-priori holes which you’ll then attempt to drive a belief-you-were-taught-as-a-child shaped truck through. Observations are limited. Hypotheses are imperfect. The math describing the world is messy and complicated. Life is messy and complicated. So what?
The claim that the world is real, and you’re not in the Matrix is falsifiable: Look for evidence that you’re living in the Matrix. Start with quanta, that seems to be a promising line of inquiry. Given enough rigor and time, you’ll have a preponderance of evidence one way or the other.
But that’s a real problem, not the philosophical brain-in-a-vat problem. You’re looking for a response to the impossible “we keep changing the definition of the Matrix such that it shrinks smaller and smaller, it eventually becomes a belief without any possibility of ever having evidence to support it,” problem. I’m telling you point blank that’s a silly game.
(As an aside, assuming you were a brain in a jar has no effect on the workings of the scientific method at all. Science will still allow you to create an incredibly accurate description of life inside the jar, everything is implicitly caveated: “in this jar”.)
Further, you’re still missing the distinction between falsifiability and verifiability. Can you falsify A = A? Sure, show me where A != A. I know what that would look like—it would be a mind-bender, but I have some idea of what to expect, because set theory actually came close to doing just that (and some mis-interpretations of quantum physics still do), but it turned out that the set theory itself was poorly defined, not the law of non-contradiction.
So there’s evidence in favor of the law of non-contradiction, and we haven’t found any examples of contradiction.
1. I am not CMP. Different Michael
2. “Ethics plays a great role in the progress […] of society” is a hypothesis worth experimenting on”
Your missed the point here. The point was not concerning whether or not ethics plays a role in society. The question was whether or not one can falsify a choice in regards to what one thinks the goals of ethics should be (e.g. greatest good for the greatest number, congruency with some divine law, or personal happiness)
3. “The claim that the world is real, and you’re not in the Matrix is falsifiable: Look for evidence that you’re living in the Matrix.”
If you are living in a Matrix with no real free will and everything that you think and feel is determined how would one be able to know it and see the evidence of it? Wouldn’t we, just like the people in the movie, completely miss the incongruities and glitches? You don’t really provide any concrete way to falsify the hypothesis that we are living in a Matrix or a brain in a vat. What evidence of this would expect to see if it were true?
“You’re looking for a response to the impossible “we keep changing the definition of the Matrix such that it shrinks smaller and smaller, it eventually becomes a belief without any possibility of ever having evidence to support it,” problem. I’m telling you point blank that’s a silly game.”
Not sure what you mean
“Can you falsify A = A? Sure, show me where A != A”
If all that is required is to show how something could theoretically be proven false then “god” would seem to qualify. One could, hypothetically, show that god cannot be by, for instance, showing that the concept is logically incoherent.
Yes, noticed that after I hit “submit” and the timer expired, apologies.
I believe I’ve already agreed with you that a “goal” cannot be falsified in and of itself. However, that does not mean all goals are created equal. Disproving the assertions behind a goal could make the goal incoherent, but it can’t falsify it. To put it another way, if your goals include accessing latent psychic abilities, riding already-existing unicorns, or getting into heaven, you’re gonna have a bad time.
You can also falsify the claim that a particular set of ethics or morals is the optimal way to reach a particular goal. Christianity, in particular, seems to be spectacularly bad at not breaking “God’s Laws”… Orthodox Judaism? Same laws, but not so much.
The fact the universe appears to be quantized is one such piece of evidence that we are, in fact, living in a simulation. But again, that is actually attempting to answer the question “am I a brain in a vat,” which isn’t a question you actually want answered. You’re looking for a pseudo-intellectual diversion big enough to stuff a religion into.
Let me put my rejection of the question into the language of the unemployed: The brain in a vat problem, particularly when offered as an attack on evidentialism, is absurd.
Yes, “god exists” is a falsifiable hypothesis for most definitions of “god” (certainly for the theistic ones). It should be experimented on.
[…] C. Michael Patton. Twelve ways to prepare your children for times of doubt. This does not mean that your children will experience significant doubt, it just means that doubt is a common issue they will experience, to varying degrees, in a fallen world. […]
I have nothing against any of these suggestions. But I would suggest one more thing. We all have innate knowledge of God. But we are sinners at heart and we want to do whatever we want.
So on practical level, going to college and wanting to have sex with someone will cause more doubt than anything intellectually speaking.
I’ve seen almost any objection there is and haven’t seen anything earth-shatering. It’s more the emotional response stuff I think is the issue. Your father was harsh so you turn into an atheist. You experienced some loss so you wonder how a good God (who never promised you everything would be wonderful) could exist. You don’t want people to think you are stupid so you take up atheism because all the cool kids are doing it. Stuff like that. Intellectual arguments come after, in my estimation of most cases, as a post hoc rationalization.
@Geoff,
[citation needed]
😉
James,
You said: “god exists” is a falsifiable hypothesis for most definitions of “god”. Please clarify. Most propositions about “falsifiable god hypothesis” that I’ve come across hasn’t made a lot of sense.
Thanks.
“The math is complicated”…
I’d say.
You can’t empirically observe numbers. You can not prove the existence of numbers with your “science.”
“Let me put my rejection of the question into the language of the unemployed: The brain in a vat problem, particularly when offered as an attack on evidentialism, is absurd.”
I am not making an attack on evidentialism per se. Rather an attack on a form which would argue that there are no basic beliefs (which you earlier asserted). I feel completely justified in believing that the universe is “real”, other minds other than my own exist, or that the universe wasn’t created 10 seconds ago with the appearance of age. None of these can I prove evidentially or even falsify one way or the other if I were to present it as a hypothesis.
@Carrie Hunter,
I can empirically observe that when I have one apple, and you give me two apples, I now have three apples. I just generated evidence for 1 + 2 = 3. It’s kindergarten-level stuff, which we all do and take for granted. But who ever said science was the exclusive domain of the hyper-educated and badly attired?
(I’m also pretty sure that the observation of sets came before formal set theory.)
@Francis,
“There is a being in existence who ‘created’ the universe and inspired the authors of the book known as the Bible into writing down laws, advice for life, and paeans to the being. This being will punish or reward us at some undetermined date in the future on our ability to follow those laws and advice.”
You should see evidence of a created universe. You should be able to discover a mechanism for the being to influence the authors of the bible. You should see him return at some point. Ideally you would find a way to repeatedly contact this being: “Direct a neutrino stream at a concentration of anti-protons with a high ratio of inverse technobabble and bam: God radio.”
We’ve never seen any such evidence; never any such results. Further, theologians are seemingly content to jerk around with intellectual diversions rather than do anything like those investigations—you can easily hypothesize reasons why they don’t conduct those studies, but naturally you’d have to conduct a study to validate it. 😉
@Michael T,
Nonsense. Every instant of your existence in this reality is evidence both for your existence and for this reality. Every interaction with a “mind other than your own” is evidence for “minds other than your own.” Do you remember life from more than 10 seconds ago? Hey, that’s pretty strong evidence that there was life older than 10 seconds ago.
It is an unscientific assumption to believe that you were not pre programmed with memories and created 10 minutes ago. However, it is a properly basic belief…just like morals, other minds (not simply brains), and the law of non-contradiction. All of these assumptions form a bedrock of everyone’s belief and are necessary preconditions for any scientific inquiry. As well, transcendence is a presupposition to all knowledge or free will. But the latter are more complicated, so the former need to be thought of first to establish the admission of properly basic beliefs. But once this is conceded, God is really not even a step away. At the very least, the whole idea that I only am required to believe what science can prove (a statement that science cannot prove) goes out the door. At this point one is not simply on epistemologically shaky ground, but grounded in mid-air.
This is why all arguments for atheism are self-defeating and why atheism is the most anti-intellectual position one could ever assume.
“Nonsense. Every instant of your existence in this reality is evidence both for your existence and for this reality.
Nonsense. It is evidence that I exist, but not for the existence of anything else. There are numerous scenarios under which reality as I experience it is not actually reality at all. This shouldn’t be that controversial. Somebody on a hallucinogenic drug experiences a reality that is not actually as things truly exist (for instance thinking they can fly).
“Every interaction with a “mind other than your own” is evidence for “minds other than your own.””
Nonsense. It is again evidence that my mind exists, but for all I know everyone else is in my mind. I can’t get outside of my own mind to prove otherwise.
Do you remember life from more than 10 seconds ago? Hey, that’s pretty strong evidence that there was life older than 10 seconds ago.”
Nonsense. The fact I think I have memories prior to 10 seconds ago just shows how good the creator was at making things appear as if there was age. It put those memories there so that I would think the universe was really really old.
Now as to being falsifiable the hypothesis that, for instance, the universe was created 15 billion years ago is falsifiable in one sense, but not in another. It can be shown whether or not, according to science, the universe was created 15 billion years ago. However, the statement that science gives us an accurate depiction of the age of the universe is ultimately not falsifiable. It is quite possible for the universe to have been created at some intermediate point with the appearance of age leaving no trace of evidence for science to detect to show that this was the case
@C Michael Patton, @Michael T,
I thought I had telegraphed the entire game two days ago:
[You are trying to make] science somehow insufficient, requiring a bunch of a-priori holes which you’ll then attempt to drive a belief-you-were-taught-as-a-child shaped truck through
You’re looking for a response to the impossible “we keep changing the definition of the Matrix such that it shrinks smaller and smaller, it eventually becomes a belief without any possibility of ever having evidence to support it,” problem. I’m telling you point blank that’s a silly game.
Every moment of existence in this reality is also evidence for this reality. Ipso facto. Throw however many restatements of the “brain in a vat” problem as you like (that’s where your hallucinogen argument ends, BTW), that does not change that. You must ultimately be able to present evidence that the evidence is wrong, and that this is not, in fact reality.
Every interaction with what appears to be another mind is evidence in favor of the “other minds” hypothesis. In order to overturn that hypothesis, you must show it to be flawed in some way. You must present evidence that other minds do not, in fact, exist.
Same story with “made with age”.
Eventually, all these protestations get weirder and more conspiratorial, and are labeled appropriately: crank psychology, crank physics, crank history. You’re demanding I take TIME CUBE seriously, because epistemologically it isn’t that different from taking Jesus seriously.
Oh dear.
1, 2, or 3 … none of them have physical properties which you can empirically observe James.
All you did was show the symbols we have assigned to the immaterial concepts of numbers.
The apples you mention are physical. The numbers you used to tally them are not.
You can not observe the physical properties of the number 3 because it doesn’t have any.
Not everything that does exist can be observed physically. Science itself can not ascertain what the number 3 sounds like or looks like or feels like. It doesn’t make a sound, it has no physical appearance and it lacks any texture which you can rub your hand over.
The existence of numbers if foundational to all the sciences yet there is no scientific method that can be sued to observe them.
[…] Twelve Ways to Prepare Your Children for Times of Doubt […]
@Carrie,
Numbers are an abstraction of set theory, which is an abstraction of the relationships demonstrated in the physical world. If the abstraction is valid, then it will not conflict with the physical world.
If you treat numbers as some metaphysical truth, then Russell’s Paradox is a description of A != A. If you don’t, then it is simply a demonstration that naive set theory was an incomplete abstraction of the real world, and needed to be revised (which it was with ZFC).
Sorry James you merely described something about numbers and how they function. You have not given physical evidence for their existence.
Which I’m sure you will say you don’t have to because we see how they parallel truths within physical reality.
Which I don’t discount that immaterial things do parallel truth found in the material world. But see my worldview allows for that. Your’s however does not.
You have to borrow from a system that allows for the existence of the immaterial (in this case numbers) to even begin to build your system that disallows the existence of the immaterial altogether.
If you can’t understand what is being said here then I have failed to be clear or you simply haven’t addressed the consequences of the ideas I have set forth. You haven’t thought about what is being said. Quick to give an answer slow to consider the propositions set forth..
@Carrie,
Where do you think numbers came from, exactly?
It doesnt matter if the are self creating. It dosent matter where they come from in relation to the point I am making.
The point is you can not prove their existence using the methods you are suggesting we use to know the truth about reality.
That wasn’t what I asked. I asked where you thought they came from.
Yes, abstract concepts like numbers don’t have any existence apart from the systems they are describing. That’s a feature, not a bug.
How can you not see the absurdity of that James?
These numbers have to exist even apart from the system else you would not be able to build the system to begin with.
When you say they exist within a system that does nothing to offer physical evidence of them or of the system for that matter. The very system to which you appeal doesn’t have physical properties either. Yet you freely punt to these things as though it solves the dilemma.
What are the physical properties of Godel’s incompleteness Therom? Doesn’t have any.
The point is not everything that exists has observable physical properties. That being the case numbers and the systems in which we find them can not be proven by what you think are the only methods for finding truth.
[…] From C. Michael Patton: […]
James,
I don’t know if you realize this. But you haven’t exactly explained how “‘god exists’ is a falsifiable hypothesis for most definitions of ‘god'” (perhaps I wasn’t clear enough?).
Rather, you are foregoing the more important question of “Is ‘god exists’ a falsifiable hypothesis”, and went directly to placing “god exists” as a valid, falsifiable hypothesis within your framework, and just ran with it.
As I said, most propositions about “falsifiable god hypothesis” that I’ve come across haven’t made a lot of sense. Do you mind addressing this question?
Thanks again.
@Francis,
I gave an example of “god exists” restated as a falsifiable hypothesis, and showed some ways it could be falsified. What are you looking for, specifically? A percentage of god hypotheses that are falsifiable? (I don’t have one, and I was overstating to say “most,” though I’ve said in other comments here that I consider non-falsifiable hypotheses to be silly.)
“Most propositions about falsifiable god hypothesis haven’t made a lot of sense, can you address them?” Can I address other people’s propositions about god hypotheses? Nope, afraid not. Can I address a complaint you have about my view that god hypotheses are at least sometimes falsifiable? Sure, but you have to state the complaint ;-).
@Carrie,
When I asked you where numbers came from, I was asking you for a history of how human beings invented our number system. What steps did humans take in the creation of math? Was it all handed down on stone tablets from the sky?
Or did people look at the world around them (observe), attempt to develop an abstract way to describe that world (hypothesis), and revise that abstraction when it proved incomplete in describing the world (test and repeat), until eventually deciding on [naive set] theory. And lo, when the theory was shown to be unworkable, they did revise it. And there were many blessings.
Seriously, numbers are nothing more than a representation of sets, which is 1:1 to the real world. Becoming so used to them that we mistake them for a-priori truths, rather than just a convenient shorthand with near-universal application doesn’t impart them with some mystical existence. It just means we’ve taken them for granted for so long that we’ve forgotten that at one point in our lives we had no idea what a “3” was, or why 1 + 2 = 3, and somebody had to convince us, with evidence, that 1 + 2 = 3.
James where they come from is of no consequence in relation to anything I have said.
Just do this. Prove to me using the scientific method the statement you made is true:
“Seriously, numbers are nothing more than a representation of sets, which is 1:1 to the real world.”
Give me at least one physical property of that statement that I can observe using the scientific method.
If you can not then I have no reason to believe you, using your own criteria that is.
@Carrie,
Sure. The full hypotheses is:
– Numbers are an abstraction of sets of “things” (broadly defined) with physical existence
And the true question is whether that is testable within a scientific, observe, hypothesis, test. (Don’t whine about restatement, that’s plainly the meaning I’m driving at).
So, the first thing to do is look at existing observations—our existing evidence for the hypothesis. Hence the history lesson. Every class of numbers has such a connection to the real world: either an abstraction of sets directly, or, worst-case, an abstraction required to handle the manipulation of a set with physical existence.
A conclusive experiment as to whether numbers are an abstraction of sets of “things” is one which can detect if a number cannot be representative of a group of “things” in the real world.
You don’t seem to understand that by reclassifying numbers as a conceptual shortcut around descriptions of the real world within an evidence-based framework, numbers don’t need to have independent existence. They still “work”, and their workings are validated by the physical universe. If their workings aren’t validated by the physical universe, then they change.
Now, since you seem to think I don’t get it (as opposed to “considered and rejected it years ago”), please describe what you think a number is, and explain why that is the case. While you’re at it, please explain why Russell’s Paradox is not a problem for your view of numbers.
Or, you could explain why you think it’s worth either of our time for you to play silly word games with “exist” as it relates to abstract concepts in order to crowbar some non-falsifiable version of Jesus into a finite universe.
@James
You gave me not one shred of physical evidence for a number other than to say they correspond to things in the real world.
I think numbers are immaterial things which subsists in minds. In the context of my asking for physical evidence of them, it is irrelevant to what they correspond to in the real world. The point is they are immaterial thus can not be touched or smelled or felt etc.
Numbers are immaterial James. Immaterial things have no physical properties. They don’t magically grow physical properties because they correspond to the physical world.
In all you have said, you have only said “numbers are real because we use them”. That conflicts with your very basis of “evidence” and your “method” used for knowing truth about the world around us. You have yet to show how that is incorrect.
@Greg
There is nothing I have said that contradicts my previous comments on another discussion.
I said I personally lean heavily towards a presuppositional approach. Here you can see that played out.
What I also said was, I am not going to harp on someone who is engaging in another method especially while they are in the middle of engaging in another method. Other methods can be helpful Greg. I personally don’t use them, but I have seen people have great success with them.
To both of you, at the end of the day, in light of everything that happened in my state, engaging in this discussion is something that has been relegated to a very low priority.
By no means do I wish to diminish the importance of the subject, but I realize after repeatedly stating the same thing to you James and being met with the same response each time, and that because you Greg like to find a way to argue about the smallest iota it is unwise for me to continue.
In light of what is going on today with relief efforts, my time today and for the next few weeks will be better spent with that.
Hi James,
In science, we propose a testable hypothesis, make sure that the hypothesis is valid under the framework in which it will be studied, then study it. It’s this first step that you glossed over. In fact, you did not give an example of “god exists” stated as a falsifiable hypothesis, but gave an example of how “god exists” as a false hypothesis may be proven.
On the other hand, the reason why you didn’t justify how “god exists” serves as a falsifiable hypothesis, may be because, as you said, “though I’ve said in other comments here that I consider non-falsifiable hypotheses to be silly”. Hence “god exists” MUST be a falsifiable hypothesis, and it MUST be a falsifiable hypothesis under your particular framework.
The validity of your philosophy notwithstanding, I see no more than a carelessness in throwing around the term “hypotheses”, and arriving at a conclusion that you intended before hypotheses were even made.
@Francis,
Do you feel as though “God exists” is a statement about the universe in which we live?
@Carrie,
My point, which I’ve stated, is that I do not believe numbers have an immaterial existence, because “immaterial existence” is just another phrase for “assertion”. If it exists, you should be able to prove it. If you can’t prove it, then you can only assert it.
The whole point of an evidential approach which restricts itself to things which can be tested is to restrict what you believe to things you can actually prove. For those interested in the psychology, I recommend empathizing with the apostate perspective: when you do reject religion, you cannot help but feel like a sucker. So you naturally look for methods to not get suckered again, and a radical evidentialist epistemology which depends on scientific processes is about as stringent as you can get.
Good luck with your efforts.
“You must ultimately be able to present evidence that the evidence is wrong, and that this is not, in fact reality.”
“You must present evidence that other minds do not, in fact, exist.”
Actually not at all. Why believe the evidence in the first place? Why should I trust my senses or science? The burden is on you to show that the system is reliable. Unfortunately absent basic beliefs the only thing to show the validity of the the system is….well….the system. As long as there is a way (in fact multiple ways) for the system to be flawed and lead to false results then one should have very limited confidence in the ability of the system to accurately portray reality.
[…] and Pen, perhaps the reason many adolescents and young adults have faith collapses is because they aren’t properly conditioned on dealing with doubts. Must reading for Christian […]
@Michael T,
Wait. Are you actually suggesting that it’s better to use bald assertions than potentially bad data, because you can’t be 100% confident in the data, but you can in your assertions?
Hello Christian, hello Atheist.
Atheist, you claim that the existence of God cannot be proven simply because you see no signs of his existence. Have you thought about the fact that even though there may not be signs of him today, God could show himself tomorrow? Can you honestly say you have concluded anything on the existence of God, other than what you have observed today? That you would not change your mind if God revealed himself to you tomorrow? You try to convince Christian to admit the obvious, that God is hidden. Christian constantly refuses, avoiding to deal with the truth. God is hidden, and you are frustrated by the fact that Christian does not ackknowledge that.
Christian, you bash Atheist with the argument after argument of that proof of God is evident. It is evident you cannot. You feel frustrated and saddened knowing God’s word saying Atheist is facing God’s wrath resulting in eternal death. You want nothing more than showing him that, but you cannot get through. You cannot produce the evidence Atheist is asking for. You simply cannot take God by the hand and lead him to Atheist, which is the only evidence that would convince him. Then there is the inconsistency in Atheist’s argument disproving God based on what you can show him today. If Atheist only understood that if he just waits until the day of his return. This must be frustrating for you as well.
Atheist, Christian, it appears to me as if the two of you are talking about two different matters. That you are talking past each other.
Atheist, Christian, meet my friend Faith. She is mysterious, she cannot be analysed, she is neither true, nor false. She is different from her sister Hope, in that Hope sometimes can be false. Faith is never false, but she is never true either. She never speaks. Faith can never convince anybody else about her existence and that makes her hard to handle. But for those who accept her for what she is, she is a great comforter. Christian, Atheist, please let her in, spend a little time with her and let her work her magic before you show her to the door with your methodical, super sharp brains. She is very shy, timid and fragile but once you sat down with her your life will change. In her presence I can comfortably soak in ideas that cannot be logically proven, I can rest assured that she will not keep me there against my will. I can familiarize with alternative views that may have scared me in the past, and even some that sounds impossible or even crazy. She will not hold me responsible for convincing her about anything. She is not demanding, but radiates of peace. Please invite her, if only for a minute. It is worth it.
@Greg,
“Properly basic belief,” “a-priori truth,” and similar terms are euphamisms for “bald assertion.”
Now, I’ve already explained that the brain in the jar as a philosophical problem is absurd. If you’re planning on re-hashing that discussion—or starting one that has no where to go but there—then you’re wasting your time and mine.
If not, you can use “The earth revolves around the sun” as an example of a non-assertion.
@ James,
“Wait. Are you actually suggesting that it’s better to use bald assertions than potentially bad data, because you can’t be 100% confident in the data, but you can in your assertions?”
The bald assertion is unavoidable unless you prefer circular reasoning (i.e. using a system based observation to prove that senses used for observation are reliable).
“Now, I’ve already explained that the brain in the jar as a philosophical problem is absurd.”
You have really done no such thing. You made some bald assertions of your own, but not really proven anything.
@Michael T,
You are saying that rather than simply take the lifetime of evidence I already have at face value, I must instead assume that the evidence must be corrupt (because you have read about a fiendish, hypothetical conspiracy in which it may be corrupt without my knowing it), and must therefore just assert, without evidence, the same conclusion I could have just as easily made with the evidence.
Why am I doing this, again?
Oh, that’s right, so I can convince myself of other assertions, for which there is no evidence.
Random thought: Do you happen to earn your living selling pre-owned automobiles?
@Greg: You are amazing. I just love reading your posts. Thanks for taking on the task to sort people out. You are (no, you are perhaps not, but you come across that way to me anyway….) like the USA incarnated. Brill. Can’t wait til you’re done with James. I’ll come back in about 800 posts. Peace out bro. 🙂
“You are saying that rather than simply take the lifetime of evidence I already have at face value, I must instead assume that the evidence must be corrupt (because you have read about a fiendish, hypothetical conspiracy in which it may be corrupt without my knowing it), and must therefore just assert, without evidence, the same conclusion I could have just as easily made with the evidence.”
Yup – If you’d like for there to epistemic justification for the reliability of your senses (and science along with them) that is. Otherwise there is no non-circular reason for trusting science to give you accurate answers.
“Do you happen to earn your living selling pre-owned automobiles?”
Worse….Attorney
@Greg,
Do you have any evidence that numbers exist as something other than a formal system invented by humans to describe the physical world? If you don’t, then numbers *are* just an abstraction.
@Michael T,
The use of multiple sources of input that can be used to provide independent evidence while simultaneously providing validation for each other is standard practice, it simply requires care. In order to adequately test new high-precision clocking, for example, you will typically get as many different high-precision clocks as you can afford and use them to calibrate each other so they are all telling the same story. Then you use that mutually-dependent story to justify statements about your new clock.
If the mutually-calibrated clocks are all telling the same story, and the new clock is not, then you can say with some degree of confidence (depending on how close the m-c clocks are to each other, how often that happens, etc.) that the new clock is wrong. Likewise, if they are all telling the same story, then you can say with a degree of confidence that the new clock is right. And then you repeat the test. Eventually you have enough measurements to describe the new clock’s performance.
Unless you can identify a flaw, you cannot describe resulting beliefs about the new clock’s performance as unjustified. If you just call those results “unjustified” without being able to provide any actual evidence, you’re just being a crank, right up there with any other conspiracy theorist.
Why should the story my senses tell me about the physical universe be treated any differently?
Why isn’t BIAV just “HAARP for Philosophers?”
@Greg,
You mean evidence besides the history of the number system, and math as a method for manipulating it? Sure: In a question of existence, with no evidence on the table, non-existence is the proper null hypothesis (unicorns, bigfoot, Russell’s teapot, etc.).
Things in the real world are abstracted into numbers in order for math to apply. Assuming the conversion is valid, then the results from the math should correspond to what you see in the universe. I’ve already mentioned Russel’s paradox and what it means, repeatedly.
Certainty of 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatic within the formal system, but the system is only accepted in the first place because you have never seen any evidence that 2 + 2 != 4.
Let’s see my observations tell me that my observations are accurate therefore my observations must be accurate??? Please…..
@Michael T,
Perhaps you’d like a salacious example instead:
If you are intimate with someone, then you (ideally) have all five senses telling you the same story: you hear, feel, smell, taste, and see the person. Each independent sense backs up the others, because they all tell the same story.
If you only hear someone, but do not see, smell, taste, or touch them, then you should be less confident that you actually heard them.
Of course, I actually gave a real-life example of how you would use multiple potentially incorrect measures to decrease the likelyhood of error, which you simply glossed over to charge ahead with an obtuse misreading:
In other words, you cannot trust any given clock, so you aggregate multiple clocks.
There aren’t multiple clocks though. Just one clock, the one between your ears. That is it. Yes you may experience more than one sense, but they are all being processed by the same brain.
@Michael T,
No, there are multiple instruments and one processing center. In the example, you must correlate the outputs of the clocks into a single machine using equal-length cables (to ensure equal signal speed).
In other words, being able to measure two clocks in relation to each other requires they go through a single, third piece of equipment. Otherwise, relativity and QC on the gear means you’re going to have a bad time.
Could there be a problem with the central processor? Sure, but without any evidence that it’s malfunctioning, it’s a tough sell.