Wednesday, October 18, 2017

The Causal Link in My God Arguments (reprise)


Order from Amazon 




Over on the cadre blog I posted my "evolution of the God concept" essay which I posted here recently. Of course Skeptical attacks the bits that pertain to my book.Since the book establishes a scientific basis for warranting belief it's a huge threat to his belief system. He had asserted that the mystics only fill an empty experience with preconceived theology, while I argued that they explain the experience in terms of theology but the experience itself is separate, I said  "It's the event that changes lives not the interpretation." to Which he replied:

- You have shown no causal link whatsoever. A correlation DOES NOT establish causation, and any scientist will tell you that.


In further blather he asserts: "you know nothing about causation." Here is an essay I wrote back in February which he has never answered, Let the reader be the judge as to who knows  more about causation, I will add only this: Causation in science it is mainly construed by tight correlation and mechanism. But the only way to prove you have the mechanism right is thorough tight correlation. So at the end of the day tight correlation is really the only thing that matters, assuming your theoretical ducks are in a row. After all the Surgeon general was absolutely sure smoking causes cancer but it was 45 years before he tacked on a mechanism.

I have a tight corroboration with 200 studies for and 0 against. The experience itself is one causal link. It's a definite experience and the M scale demonstrates that it is not merely a tick of the mind or a construct, there is an unexplained extricate that changes consciousnesses involved. The experience is clearly correlated with the change. There's a second point where I link the experience to God, Obviously we don't have direct evince for that or we would not need the experience as an argument for God, but God is warranted as the cause of the experience by the content of the experience and the fact that I can eliminate other forms of causality.

 We are talking about warrant not proof. But in the original publication of this essay (2/8/17) the comment section was good,  I will extend that discussion on Monday. Here is the article in answer to Skepie's statements about causation.

The Causal Link In my God Arguments

In the comment section of Monday's post (2/6/17) our Friend  "Skepie" says "... then there's your 200 studies. You draw inferences from these that are not scientifically justified. There is no causal linkage demonstrated between God and the observed evidence seen in these studies." This is a real strong indication that he's not paying attention. First, he really needs to read Hume because no demonstration of causal link involves actually observing causality at work. All we can observe are effects,  we assume the casual nature. The assumption of cause is based upon tight correlation and the assumptive of mechanism which basically involves a correlation there as well. In fact the assumption of smoking as a cause of cancer was made iwth no idea of a mechanism 40 years before a mechanism was nailed down. What we see in science quite often is theory accepted as fact based upon explanatory power rather than any direct observational data. 

That is not to say that assumptions are not based upon observations, the correlations are derived from observation, but there is no direct observing of causality. Skepie is assuming an idea that is the old atheist circular justification of naturalism: we haven't accepted any phenomena as evidence of God so far, there there is none, there this can't be it. So there is no evidence, then any assertion of evidence is just met with the assumption: "you don't know science.  To him science is accepting his circular reasons. 


If we establish a model for acceptance of ideas in science using historical examples we can see that the inferences I am making about God and religious experiences follow the same pattern through which Neutrinos were accepted as fact. This is a God argumnet so at some point you have to break out of the circle and say "hey there's a logical reason to accept a different conclusion."

The model is this: phenomena offers a very strong correlation between two observed variables, assumed to be cause and effect, The explanation of the mechanism is the only  hypothesis standing after all others are eliminated and it explains the phenomena while fitting into a valid place in a larger accepted theoretical framework. We see this model in the history of the neutrino, I repeat my history of the particle below to show this model at work in actual science.

In my Thomas Reid argument, epistemic judgement, I establish an epistemology that I think is intuitive and natural to our actual norms, then show that the actual assumption of the divine as the ultimate cause of religious experience (ie that it is an experience of the divine) fits the criteria we use for epistemic judgement about the reality of experiences. Thus. the explanation fits   a larger accepted theoretical framework. Since we use that criteria of epistemic judgement to navigate world it;s theoretically accepted at least philosophically.

The crucial factor that Skepie keeps missing is that I never argued that i'm proving a causal link to God but that belief in God as the cause is warranted by the phenomena and it's explanation in the larger scheme. Because there is no clear proof in weighing the evidence between naturalism and God as basic assumptions I present eight tie breakers that show clearly why we should assume God given the phenomena and the overall framework and it;s fittenedness as explanation, This is similar to the history of neutrino because the particle was not observed directly for 40 years but was assumed based upon it's assumption as explication for the behavior of other particles.

The claim that the studies aren't prove a causal link between God and the experience withGod as the cause is a fair question but the answer is obvious.

(1) the noetic aspects are communicate in the experience are about God,

(2) the essence of the experience itself is almost always identified as the presence of God

(3) in a large percentage of the toke the result of the experience pis religious conversion.

(4) mystical experience is the origin of religion its why we are talking abouit God where the idea of God comes from.

While it is true that this does not prove that the experience is really an experience of God's presence it certainly provides peima facie reasom to assert that it is. So at that point we have a reason to assume it vs an equal possibility that it is they result of  brain chemistry alone. That is dispelled by the eight tie breakers.


that takes care of argument 1, the co-determinate, in that argument the studies function as a documentation for the competent of what is experience

In argumnet 2 the the argument from universal mystical consciousness. the studies function as documentation that mystical expediences are the same they world over, across faiths and cultures. The argumnet is when this happens in anthropology they assume innate origins, but the tie breakers show that we can't assume any sort of inanimate nature to the experience (religious ideas are cultural), that implies a external reality is experienced.

In argument the studies provide documentation that the exercises fit the criteria of epistemic judgement that means we are warranted i trimmings them.

In each csae these studies provide the link needed to assert cause without having to actually prove God is behind it, That's I argue warrant and not proof,





Sorry for repeating it again so soon but here is the history of the neutrino again, Hey Skepie, knowing this history of science is knowledge of science yea, history of science is knowledge of science.


History of the Neutrino: 

Timeline on Neutrinos
"History of the Neutrinos"[1]

1898
Discovery of the radioactivity
The first car's races (70 km/h maximum!)
1926
Problem with beta radioactivity
Between two wars, people dance the Charleston and the Boston
1930
Pauli invents the neutrino particle
Crisis of 1929...
1933
Fermi baptizes the neutrino and builds his theory of weak interaction
Hitler gets power in Germany
1956
First discovery of the neutrino by an experiment nue
Riots in Budapest. Indochina. Cold war. Atmospheric tests of thermonuclear bombs.
They were talking about them and theorizing and from the 1930s they didn't have a direct proof of them until 1956. For 30 years they did not have direct proof but they still assumed they could exist. They had reason to. But I have reason to assume God exists.

Atheists have argued on this point "but we can trust the inference." I'm saying yes we can but I also make the kind of inference for God and that can be trusted too for the same reasons. That's true but it also means we can trust inferences on god arguments if they done correctly.


a more detailed account:
Neutrino History:
From what we know todaymisters Neutrinos were born around 15 billions years ago, soon after the the birth of the universe. Since this time, the universe has continuously expanded, cooled and neutrinos have made their own way. Theoretically, they are now many and constitute a cosmic background radiation whose temperature is 1.9 degree Kelvin (-271.2 degree Celsius). The other neutrinos of the universe are produced during the life of stars and the explosion of supernovae.But the idea of the neutrino came to life only in 1930, when Wolfgang PAULI tried a desperate saving operation of "the energy conservation principle". The 4th of December 1930, invited at a physicists workshop in Tubingen, he sends to his colleagues a strange letter...
In February 1932, J. Chadwick discovers the neutron, but neutrons are heavy and do not correspond to the particle imagined by Pauli.
At Solvay conference in Bruxelles, in October 1933, Pauli says, speaking about his particles:
"... their mass can not be very much more than the electron mass. In order to distinguish them from heavy neutrons, mister Fermi has proposed to name them "neutrinos". It is possible that the proper mass of neutrinos be zero... It seems to me plausible that neutrinos have a spin 1/2... We know nothing about the interaction of neutrinos with the other particles of matter and with photons: the hypothesis that they have a magnetic moment seems to me not funded at all."
In 1933, F. Perrin shows that the neutrino mass has to be very much lower than the electron mass. The same year, Anderson discovers the positron, the first seen particle of anti-matter, verifying thus the theory of P.A.M. Dirac and confirming the idea of neutrino in the minds of Pauli and Fermi. End of 1933, while Frederic Joliot-Curie discovers the beta plus radioactivity (a positron is emitted instead of an electron), Enrico Fermi takes the neutrino hypothesis and builds his theory of beta decay (weak interaction).
[ Since this time, physicists have made a lot of progress in the understanding of weak interaction and we now speak about protons and neutrons, composed of three quarks each. One of the quarks of the neutron transforms into an one, producing the emission of a W boson, which decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino ]
The neutrino quest begins, but people had to be quite reckless and persevering in those years because, as soon as 1934, Hans Bethe and Rudolf Peierls showed that the cross section (probability of interaction) between neutrinos and matter should be extremely small: billions of time smaller than the one of an electron. This particle interacts so weakly with matter that it can go through the whole earth without deviation.[2]



[1] History of the Neutrinos










Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguments for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability. Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you. Order from Amazon 







53 comments:

im-skeptical said...

Causation in science it is mainly construed by tight correlation and mechanism. But the only way to prove you have the mechanism right is thorough tight correlation. So at the end of the day tight correlation is really the only thing that matters, assuming your theoretical ducks are in a row.

- This is what you said the first time around (which I addressed HERE), and it is bullshit. Mechanism is essential in showing causation, and you can't just dismiss the whole thing as another case of correlation. That is so scientifically ignorant, it hardly merits a response. But correlation without a mechanism does NOTHING to establish a causal link. You have to be able to show HOW it works, or at least provide some postulation that is scientifically plausible, until such time as it is borne out by experimentation, or disproved. In your article, you cite people who say that mechanism is important, and then you completely gloss over that part of the equation. Why? because in your studies, there is no causal mechanism. It's all based correlation. And therefore, God did it.

Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said...

First, I know more than you do about most things, you are not well read and you are not very bright. You do know more about scientific subjects but not more about philosophy or history of science you are weak in both. But we are not going to mess with kind of bull shit anymore, we are going to enforce a code of civility and if you stick to that you wont post here.

I know I have doe my share of insulting but that;sin the past. No more personal assessments of people's knowledge or intelligence

You say:

- This is what you said the first time around (which I addressed HERE), and it is bullshit. Mechanism is essential in showing causation, and you can't just dismiss the whole thing as another case of correlation.

I didn't say we can do without mechanism remember the ducks? I said if our ducks are are in a row, meaning we have to have the theory tapped down and that means find a mechanism. I said--this is a subtle distinction--mechanism will come down to correlation epistemically but that is not an excuse not to find one, I also said I can disprove alternate causalities for ME so that doesn't negate warrant.


That is so scientifically ignorant, it hardly merits a response. But correlation without a mechanism does NOTHING to establish a causal link.

I am excusing that this time only, Now You are missing the fact that they assumed cigs cause cancer without understanding the mechanism for 45 years,so obviously not all scientists agree with you. Again I am not talking proof of causer but warrat for belief.

You have to be able to show HOW it works, or at least provide some postulation that is scientifically plausible, until such time as it is borne out by experimentation, or disproved.

surgeon general didn't think so and there's also the neutrino example.

In your article, you cite people who say that mechanism is important, and then you completely gloss over that part of the equation. Why? because in your studies, there is no causal mechanism. It's all based correlation. And therefore, God did it.

you are distorting my position I said nothing about not seeking mechanism, I said epistemological we can only prove cause by correlation, show me how you prove cigs cause cancer without reference to correlation?

you are dealing with the arguments.

im-skeptical said...

Once again, I will ignore your ignorant personal insults.

I said--this is a subtle distinction--mechanism will come down to correlation epistemically but that is not an excuse not to find one
- It is a distinction that you completely fail to understand. There is a philosophical understanding of causation that is dependent on correlation, but also asserts that a causal mechanism can't be proved. Then there is a scientific understanding that follows from the philosophical understanding, but still requires a causal mechanism to be postulated. You can't just write it off, as you have done.

I also said I can disprove alternate causalities for ME so that doesn't negate warrant.
- And you have done no such thing. You merely dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your religious beliefs. Natural explanations work. Theistic ones don't explain anything.

Now You are missing the fact that they assumed cigs cause cancer without understanding the mechanism for 45 years,so obviously not all scientists agree with you
- I am not missing that fact that you said: "In fact the assumption of smoking as a cause of cancer was made iwth no idea of a mechanism ...", which is WRONG. If you have no idea of a mechanism, then you have no idea of causation. Period. But they DID have an idea. What they didn't have is proof.

Again I am not talking proof of causer but warrat for belief.
- You are talking about scientific evidence that justifies belief.

surgeon general didn't think so
- The Surgeon general thought there WAS a causal mechanism.

and there's also the neutrino example.
- You didn't even read my response, did you? You claimed if was based on correlation. It wasn't. If you think it was, tell me what those variables were, and how were they correlated. I don't think you read the articles you cited, either, because that isn't what they described.

I said epistemological we can only prove cause by correlation
- You said scientific. Your words: "the book establishes a scientific basis for warranting belief". If you wrote a book claiming that this is just another philosophical treatise trying to justify God-belief, I wouldn't say a word about it, but you are making scientific claims that aren't true.

show me how you prove cigs cause cancer without reference to correlation?
- Why don't you ever listen? Or is it that you just don't understand? I NEVER said you establish causation without correlation. I objected to YOUR assertion that it's ALL correlation.

Joe Hinman said...

Once again, I will ignore your ignorant personal insults.

I said--this is a subtle distinction--mechanism will come down to correlation epistemically but that is not an excuse not to find one
- It is a distinction that you completely fail to understand. There is a philosophical understanding of causation that is dependent on correlation, but also asserts that a causal mechanism can't be proved. Then there is a scientific understanding that follows from the philosophical understanding, but still requires a causal mechanism to be postulated. You can't just write it off, as you have done.

I also said I can disprove alternate causalities for ME so that doesn't negate warrant.
- And you have done no such thing. You merely dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your religious beliefs. Natural explanations work. Theistic ones don't explain anything.

Now You are missing the fact that they assumed cigs cause cancer without understanding the mechanism for 45 years,so obviously not all scientists agree with you
- I am not missing that fact that you said: "In fact the assumption of smoking as a cause of cancer was made iwth no idea of a mechanism ...", which is WRONG. If you have no idea of a mechanism, then you have no idea of causation. Period. But they DID have an idea. What they didn't have is proof.

Again I am not talking proof of causer but warrat for belief.
- You are talking about scientific evidence that justifies belief.

surgeon general didn't think so
- The Surgeon general thought there WAS a causal mechanism.

and there's also the neutrino example.
- You didn't even read my response, did you? You claimed if was based on correlation. It wasn't. If you think it was, tell me what those variables were, and how were they correlated. I don't think you read the articles you cited, either, because that isn't what they described.

I said epistemological we can only prove cause by correlation

you are such a martyr--for science

- You said scientific. Your words: "the book establishes a scientific basis for warranting belief". If you wrote a book claiming that this is just another philosophical treatise trying to justify God-belief, I wouldn't say a word about it, but you are making scientific claims that aren't true.

M scale is scientific and while warranting belief was not it;s reason for being created it does provide that through the data it yields.

show me how you prove cigs cause cancer without reference to correlation?


- Why don't you ever listen? Or is it that you just don't understand? I NEVER said you establish causation without correlation. I objected to YOUR assertion that it's ALL correlation.

you did not answer the argument,demand ideology as much aw you will that does not prove your argument. Ultimately the point is causation cant be observed thus it will always be an epistemic assumption.That clears the way for settling for warrant.

Joe Hinman said...

btw I know it;s hared to come down from the insult high but stop implying that I'm so ignorant, next time I remove your posts.

Eric Sotnak said...

Suppose I say that A causes B, but that A doesn't cause B in any of the ways that any known causes work. Am I still entitled to my claim that A causes B?

It seems to me Joe's answer is 'yes' and IMS's answer is 'no' - or rather than scientifically the answer is 'no.'

Very much depends here, I think, on what we take to be the right model of scientific causation. I'm not sure what the right answer is on this question. I think it's actually a pretty hard question on which a lot of work in philosophy of science continues to be done.

But I think Joe has a problem. In order to say that A causes B, I think all successful models of causation will have to agree that A is correlated with B. But in order to say this, A must be reliably observable. The problem, though, is that God is not reliably observable. In fact, you can't argue for the existence of God on the basis of a correlation between God and mystical experience because such an argument first has to affirm God as one of the terms in the relation between God and ME. Framed as a simple argument, the problem is as follows:

1. God is reliably correlated with mystical experiences in ways that have features F.
2. If so, then God exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

But the conclusion is clearly being presupposed in premise 1.

I know this isn't Joe's argument, but I don't see how the same problem is avoided in the much more complex argument Joe does give. Suppose I try to fix it as follows:

1. Mystical experiences generally lead the people who have them to believe that something exists that fits description G.
2. The best explanation for this is that something fitting description G exists and is the cause of MEs.
3. God best fits description G.
4. Therefore, God exists.

This argument doesn't rely on an inference from correlation to causation, at all. It's a different kind of argument; a causal inference to the best explanation.

(I know this, too, isn't Joe's own argument, but I think it more closely corresponds to the direction Joe actually goes.)

But now here is where IMS's objections resurface, I think. To say that P is the best causal explanation of E when no account is forthcoming of the details of just HOW P causes E does seem to me to be problematic.

This is the same problem I have, by the way, for cosmological arguments. I don't accept that appealing to God as the universe's cause is a better explanation for the universe's existence if no deeper account of God as cause is forthcoming beyond, "he did it with his power."

Joe Hinman said...

Suppose I say that A causes B, but that A doesn't cause B in any of the ways that any known causes work. Am I still entitled to my claim that A causes B?

We can't discuss God as a causal mechanism because we have no data. We have to assume God as a causal agent on other grounds so what we do instead is link God to teh determinate om logical grounds then we argue fro co-determinate because it's empirical

It seems to me Joe's answer is 'yes' and IMS's answer is 'no' - or rather than scientifically the answer is 'no.'

Very much depends here, I think, on what we take to be the right model of scientific causation. I'm not sure what the right answer is on this question. I think it's actually a pretty hard question on which a lot of work in philosophy of science continues to be done.

I take that to mean it's open for argument whereas Skep says its obvious and nailed down.

But I think Joe has a problem. In order to say that A causes B, I think all successful models of causation will have to agree that A is correlated with B. But in order to say this, A must be reliably observable. The problem, though, is that God is not reliably observable. In fact, you can't argue for the existence of God on the basis of a correlation between God and mystical experience because such an argument first has to affirm God as one of the terms in the relation between God and ME. Framed as a simple argument, the problem is as follows:

right that's why I don't that;w why I talk about warrant,that's why I said I'm not arguing that I prove the existence of God.

1. God is reliably correlated with mystical experiences in ways that have features F.
2. If so, then God exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

But the conclusion is clearly being presupposed in premise 1.


what of you have grounds for making the assumption? I have more than one argument from which to make that assumption. One is a coloration some are logical.

Joe Hinman said...

I know this isn't Joe's argument, but I don't see how the same problem is avoided in the much more complex argument Joe does give. Suppose I try to fix it as follows:

1. Mystical experiences generally lead the people who have them to believe that something exists that fits description G.
2. The best explanation for this is that something fitting description G exists and is the cause of MEs.
3. God best fits description G.
4. Therefore, God exists.

This argument doesn't rely on an inference from correlation to causation, at all. It's a different kind of argument; a causal inference to the best explanation.

you could make use of the correlation at this point by saying the studies show people who have experience also have the effects directly related x,y,z, as it so happens religions tend promise x,y,z as the result of following faith so we can assume conflation of the value,

(I know this, too, isn't Joe's own argument, but I think it more closely corresponds to the direction Joe actually goes.)

that's important because you are actually taking us further away from what I actually argue,

Joe Hinman said...

But now here is where IMS's objections resurface, I think. To say that P is the best causal explanation of E when no account is forthcoming of the details of just HOW P causes E does seem to me to be problematic.

There are obviously times when science doesn't let that bother them such as the surgeon general, With no mechanism at all for Tabasco causing cancer they still concluded it does and based policy upon it, The Tabasco companies used that argument about the mechanism for years.

There's a distinction between understanding God;s function as cause and knowing the particulars of how 'god works, they assumed neutrinos existed before any had any proof based upon the fit with theory and explanation,


This is the same problem I have, by the way, for cosmological arguments. I don't accept that appealing to God as the universe's cause is a better explanation for the universe's existence if no deeper account of God as cause is forthcoming beyond, "he did it with his power."

I agree.I don't argue that way,I distinguish between the kinds of explanations we want, God is the best explaination of a certainkind but of the scientific kind.

im-skeptical said...

There are obviously times when science doesn't let that bother them such as the surgeon general, With no mechanism at all for Tabasco causing cancer they still concluded it does and based policy upon it, The Tabasco companies used that argument about the mechanism for years.


- Joe, I explained this to you. They certainly suspected a causal mechanism. Then, they set out to demonstrate it scientifically, and ultimately succeeded. That is very different from what you claim. You don't have any causal mechanism, and no way to show that one exists, let alone show how it works.

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
There are obviously times when science doesn't let that bother them such as the surgeon general, With no mechanism at all for Tabasco causing cancer they still concluded it does and based policy upon it, The Tabasco companies used that argument about the mechanism for years.


- Joe, I explained this to you. They certainly suspected a causal mechanism. Then, they set out to demonstrate it scientifically, and ultimately succeeded. That is very different from what you claim. You don't have any causal mechanism, and no way to show that one exists, let alone show how it works.

you are rationalizing,unsuspecting and proving are two different things, after all I suspect a causal mechanism in God. BTW what would Popper say about the idea of proving a causal mechanism?

im-skeptical said...

you are rationalizing,unsuspecting and proving are two different things, after all I suspect a causal mechanism in God. BTW what would Popper say about the idea of proving a causal mechanism?

- 1. God did it IS NOT a causal mechanism.
- 2. You sound so much like Trump. When he gets cornered, what does he do? He diverts away from the issue by making a false attack on his opponents. I see you do this over and over again.

Joe Hinman said...

-skeptical said...
you are rationalizing,unsuspecting and proving are two different things, after all I suspect a causal mechanism in God. BTW what would Popper say about the idea of proving a causal mechanism?

- 1. God did it IS NOT a causal mechanism.

ideological slogans are never answers to arguments,you did not answer.

- 2. You sound so much like Trump. When he gets cornered, what does he do? He diverts away from the issue by making a false attack on his opponents. I see you do this over and over again.

ok let's look t the issue and see you are rationalizing, I said that the surgeon general declared smoking caused cancer long before they had a mechanismyour answeris they suspected a mechinism.


I say that is not answer it's rationalizing not having one, that is not being like Trump. It's not an attack its obviously what you are doing, you did not answer the argument. they did not have a mechanism, suspecting one does not solve it.,

Look the same logic of Eric Sotnak that says "you don't have the details for us to examine in appealing to God as a mechanism" is also true of merely suspecting one that you don't have the details either.




im-skeptical said...

ideological slogans are never answers to arguments,you did not answer.
- God did it is a slogan, not an answer. And besides, you never answered MY objections in the first place. Why don't you answer the issues I raised? For example, what variables were correlated (which was your claim) in the neutrino story that you related? You don't have an answer. You just keep diverting. Just like Trump.

I said that the surgeon general declared smoking caused cancer long before they had a mechanismyour answeris they suspected a mechinism.
- OK. Let's look at the issue. You said they had "no idea" of a mechanism, and then you used that as justification for your own thesis that ME causes positive outcomes, with NO MECHANISM involved or implied (other than God did it). The difference is that there IS a mechanism by which smoking causes cancer, and they succeeded in demonstrating that. But you have no idea what actual mechanism would be involved in an ME causing all these positive outcomes. Nor could you ever identify such a mechanism, or test it in a scientific manner. All you can say is God did it. But that's not empirical. It's just your religious belief.

And once again, rather than giving any kind of cogent reply to this issue, you divert, and try to make it sound as if I'm not answering the question. I raised the question, and you haven't answered.

Joe Hinman said...

ideological slogans are never answers to arguments,you did not answer.

- God did it is a slogan, not an answer.

that's my poi t you did not answer the argument, you made a slogan,

And besides, you never answered MY objections in the first place. Why don't you answer the issues I raised? For example, what variables were correlated (which was your claim) in the neutrino story that you related? You don't have an answer. You just keep diverting. Just like Trump.

the point of the story is that science was willing to accept the existence of neutrinos because it had empirical proof of their existence and it did so based upon their handiness in dealing with theory. That analogous to the position of a God argument,


I said that the surgeon general declared smoking caused cancer long before they had a mechanism your answer is they suspected a mechanism.

- OK. Let's look at the issue. You said they had "no idea" of a mechanism, and then you used that as justification for your own thesis that ME causes positive outcomes, with NO MECHANISM involved or implied (other than God did it).


No not quite,I said I have eliminated alternate causes,so we don;t know the cause or the mechanism,but we do know the experience itself pertains to God, the effects of it fulfill the Cialis of religion and the experience leads people to God.

The difference is that there IS a mechanism by which smoking causes cancer, and they succeeded in demonstrating that.
no that is not the point,it does not change the fact that were willing to accept it before that,45 years before.

But you have no idea what actual mechanism would be involved in an ME causing all these positive outcomes.

yes we do up to q point, WE don't what mechanisms make up God's action but the process of having the experience is well known to science, It's a brain chemistry process. We don't have to know the parts of God or how he works that's beyond human ability to understand, Like refusing physics because we don't know wast sub atomic particles are made of.


Nor could you ever identify such a mechanism, or test it in a scientific manner. All you can say is God did it. But that's not empirical. It's just your religious belief.

don't have to you don't know what charges are,

And once again, rather than giving any kind of cogent reply to this issue, you divert, and try to make it sound as if I'm not answering the question. I raised the question, and you haven't answered.

No you have not, you are are trying to avoid the issues raised by the piece itself,you are trying to doge the original set of issues, that never e en responded to and you do this way time after time,

that is why you are afraid to debate me because you know if you were held accountable for answering the issues you could not!

im-skeptical said...

Joe, you have got to be one of the most dishonest people I have ever tried to argue with. I keep asking you to back up the claims you made, and you keep trying to say that I'm not answering the question.

Tell me now. What are the variables that were correlated in the neutrino story? That's what you claimed, and that's what you have steadfastly refused to answer. And it's just one of several issues I have raised about your claims. As long as you continue with this dishonest tactic of diversion, I can only conclude that trying to debate with you is utterly pointless. YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THE QUESTION AT HAND.

The truth is that you don't know what you're talking about half the time. You are just blowing smoke.

7th Stooge said...

When you two refer to 'causal mechanism,' do you mean an explanation of how God acts in order to cause things or an explanation of how ME causes positive outcomes in people who've had ME's?

im-skeptical said...

Any explanation of how something works is better than "God did it", even if it's the wrong explanation.

Joe Hinman said...

7th Stooge said...
When you two refer to 'causal mechanism,' do you mean an explanation of how God acts in order to cause things or an explanation of how ME causes positive outcomes in people who've had ME's?

12:36 PM Delete

both but the latter would be sign of the former, I tried to allude to two different points at which a oink is needed,

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
Any explanation of how something works is better than "God did it", even if it's the wrong explanation.

we keep going in circles, y point about the limitations of science are germane here.
Because there are limitations to knowing how God works,so there are limitations to what science can know as well. He doesn't find the latter upsetting he uses the former as a deal breaker,

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
Joe, you have got to be one of the most dishonest people I have ever tried to argue with. I keep asking you to back up the claims you made, and you keep trying to say that I'm not answering the question.

you have the burden of proof because you initiated the argument against my Clarice,why should I proceed with discussion when you wont meet your burden> your questions are asked to divert attention from your lack of poof,

Tell me now. What are the variables that were correlated in the neutrino story?

(1)why do you keep foolishly jabbering about the neutrino study?OI I gave an overview of the history of of our knowledge of Nutritious not a single study,

(2) that is what one example a minor sub point, what I'm asking of you is the crux of your whole attack,

(3) the crux of my neutrino argument is the inability to photograph them so I'm not sure Assam for variables makes sense--I don['t need to know that to know they have not photographed them (had not up to 90s)


That's what you claimed, and that's what you have steadfastly refused to answer. And it's just one of several issues I have raised about your claims. As long as you continue with this dishonest tactic of diversion, I can only conclude that trying to debate with you is utterly pointless. YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THE QUESTION AT HAND.

that is merely a diversion for reasons stated above,

The truth is that you don't know what you're talking about half the time. You are just blowing smoke.

that just a diversion, you are trying to save face because you can't answer my arguments,

im-skeptical said...

Because there are limitations to knowing how God works,so there are limitations to what science can know as well.
- I don't know that one follows from the other. This is a matter of epistemology. What things do we know, and how do we know them? Science is based on objective evidence. Religion isn't.

you have the burden of proof because you initiated the argument against my Clarice,why should I proceed with discussion when you wont meet your burden> your questions are asked to divert attention from your lack of poof,
- Joe, you wrote an article, in which you made claims. In particular, you claimed that causation can be established without any notion of a causal mechanism. I am questioning that claim. I am not making claims of my own. If you think I have some burden of proof, what is it that I need to prove? And what the hell is a "Clarice"?

(1)why do you keep foolishly jabbering about the neutrino study?OI I gave an overview of the history of of our knowledge of Nutritious not a single study
- You specifically said it was based on a correlation. I am asking you: What correlation?

(2) that is what one example a minor sub point, what I'm asking of you is the crux of your whole attack,
- This is at the heart of your argument, because you are claiming causation based solely on correlation, without any causal mechanism.

(3) the crux of my neutrino argument is the inability to photograph them so I'm not sure Assam for variables makes sense--I don['t need to know that to know they have not photographed them (had not up to 90s)
- This is a different issue. It's not about causation, but about inference. You don't seem to know the difference. And by the way, neutrinos can't be photographed. But they have been detected by means of collision with other particles.

that just a diversion, you are trying to save face because you can't answer my arguments
- Again with the Trumpian tactics. When reporters ask him pointed questions about his nefarious activities, how does he respond? "Crooked Hillary!" "Emails!" He's too stupid to understand that aside from his own followers, people can see through his dishonest tactics.

7th Stooge said...

both but the latter would be sign of the former, I tried to allude to two different points at which a oink is needed,

To think that we always need a causal mechanism is to assume a metaphysical theory of causation. It's to assume causal closure and that all causation is event causation.

Joe Hinman said...

To think that we always need a causal mechanism is to assume a metaphysical theory of causation. It's to assume causal closure and that all causation is event causation.

Is that bad? Science doesn't really act on the wavy gravy stuff, they act on the standard stuff,

im-skeptical said...

To think that we always need a causal mechanism is to assume a metaphysical theory of causation. It's to assume causal closure and that all causation is event causation.

- This describes a scientific view of causation. Yes, a causal mechanism is essential in establishing that A causes B.

Mike Gerow said...

Is that bad? Science doesn't really act on the wavy gravy stuff, they act on the standard stuff,

Science acts on the assumptions that "things are ordinary and will stay the same".... &, of course, these are bourgeois assumptions that belie the revolution! In a sociocultural sense, science has never moved from its " powdery-wigged euro-gentlemen" roots! ... ;-)

7th Stooge said...

Is that bad? Science doesn't really act on the wavy gravy stuff, they act on the standard stuff,

Science has to assume causal closure as a methodological assumption, just like it has to act on a naturalistic assumption as far a s methodology, but that doesn't warrant the corresponding metaphysical assumptions. You do know that if closure is assumed metaphysically, there would be no room for God, or humans for that matter, to act or cause anything to happen?

7th Stooge said...

- This describes a scientific view of causation. Yes, a causal mechanism is essential in establishing that A causes B.

Yes, methodologically but not metaphysically.

im-skeptical said...

Science acts on the assumptions that "things are ordinary and will stay the same".... &, of course, these are bourgeois assumptions that belie the revolution! In a sociocultural sense, science has never moved from its " powdery-wigged euro-gentlemen" roots! ... ;-)

Religion acts on the assumptions that "things are supernatural and God did it", and of course, these are anachronistic assumptions that belie advancement in human understanding and reason! In a sociocultural sense, religion has never moved from its "bearded bronze-age barbarian" roots! ... :-o

im-skeptical said...

7th Stooge,

It's scientific causation that Joe was talking about in his article.

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
7th Stooge,

It's scientific causation that Joe was talking about in his article.

in relation to the effects of having the experience yes but not terms of associating the experience with God.

Joe Hinman said...

Religion acts on the assumptions that "things are supernatural and God did it", and of course, these are anachronistic assumptions that belie advancement in human understanding and reason! In a sociocultural sense, religion has never moved from its "bearded bronze-age barbarian" roots! ... :-o

I think you are just giving back to mike. Seriously religion does not make assumptions about the supernatural, Some religious thinkers do but not all not all traditions even have the concept,

In a sociocultural sense, religion has never moved from its "bearded bronze-age barbarian" roots! .

wrong, with process theology Whithead moved religion up with ore en ahead of science. Christianity basically invented modern science,

Mike Gerow said...

Yeah, he's trying to give back to me. But he still loses cuz "bearded bronze-age barbarians" remain much cooler than those ruthless, ice-in-their-veins, powdery-wigged euro-bourgeois courtiers!

I agree there's places where some contemporary theologians are - shockingly! - prob'ly ahead of the curve in grasping the implications of some 20th/21rtst century discoveries and concepts, eg chaos and complexity.

Joe Hinman said...

I agree there's places where some contemporary theologians are - shockingly! - prob'ly ahead of the curve in grasping the implications of some 20th/21rtst century discoveries and concepts, eg chaos and complexity.
5:41 AM

a men

7th Stooge said...

It's scientific causation that Joe was talking about in his article.

But the nature of scientific causation hasn't been resolved. It's still hotly debated in the philosophy of science.

7th Stooge said...

Religion acts on the assumptions that "things are supernatural and God did it", and of course, these are anachronistic assumptions that belie advancement in human understanding and reason! In a sociocultural sense, religion has never moved from its "bearded bronze-age barbarian" roots! ... :-o

That's a very tendentious and simplistic reading of 'religion.' Even defining the term 'religion' has proved to be highly problematic for scholars in that field! :-0

7th Stooge said...

I agree there's places where some contemporary theologians are - shockingly! - prob'ly ahead of the curve in grasping the implications of some 20th/21rtst century discoveries and concepts, eg chaos and complexity.

For anyone who denies that religion and theology change, I'd like you to meet Martin Heidegger, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Malabou,...! But wait, what will the deniers do without their theo-tackling dummy?

im-skeptical said...

But the nature of scientific causation hasn't been resolved. It's still hotly debated in the philosophy of science.
- I think you're confusing science with philosophy. In a philosophical sense, causation really can't be proved. In science (strictly speaking), there is no notion of causality. Read a physics book. They don't talk about causation. Things simply interact in accordance with the regularity of natural laws. However, in a more pragmatic scientific sense, if you want to established that A causes B, then you must propose a causal mechanism.

That's a very tendentious and simplistic reading of 'religion.'
- As Mike noted, it was a rhetorical return on his statement about science, which was certainly no less "tendentious and simplistic".

For anyone who denies that religion and theology change, I'd like you to meet Martin Heidegger, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Malabou,...! But wait, what will the deniers do without their theo-tackling dummy?For anyone who denies that religion and theology change, I'd like you to meet Martin Heidegger, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Malabou,...! But wait, what will the deniers do without their theo-tackling dummy?
- Of course religion changes. One by one, the ancient dogmas fall when they are refuted by science, but usually not without a fight that can last many years.

Mike Gerow said...

Well, yeah, tho neither Heidegger nor Malabou are/were theos, they just get theologized by cutting-edge theos!

Malabou's plastic notion of identity can help us positively to reappropriate and reinvigorate a venerable tradition of reflection on the question of human identity in the West, the tradition of apophatism. It is notable that Malabou’s plasticity picks up on some important themes from the rich tradition of apophatic thought, ...

(From a critique of M by a scholar at Notre Dame)

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/54417752/Christopher_Watkin__If_My_Brain_is_Damaged__Do_I_Become_a_Different_Person__Catherine_Malabou_and_Neuro-Identity.pdf


Mike Gerow said...

I think your take on "science vs religion" is a little simplistic, skep. For one thing, the ancient dogmas" have always been 1) contentious and contended over, even to the extent of acquiring geo-political connotations and getting lots of people killed, and 2) rather plastic and constantly acquiring and adapting meanings, even if the actual phrases in tthe "ancient dogmas" have tended to remain the same. "Religion" thusly is a long ways from a monolithic thing, over either space or time, which is what stooge was saying.....

Both "science" and "religion" - if such vague things ever even existed in those kinds of overgeneralized senses - are just things people do and all things people do, especially if they are successful, they are always subject to political influences and tend to corruption, for one problem, ...cf, recently, Trumps new EPA.... So it wouldn't be easy to really PROVE that EITHER thing has an "innate purity" that makes it especially "special" or either is just "naturally bad", would it?

... This whole debate can really get quite straw-manned and silly.....as we were both demonstrating above...

im-skeptical said...

Quite right.

Now if we could just get certain people to recognize how this discussion might apply to their incessant attacks on scientific reasoning ...


Joe Hinman said...

science worship is not scientific reasoning,

Mike Gerow said...

Here ya go, Jim, a quote from Clayton Crockett.....

As the editors of a recent collection on Malabou’s work assert, “Malabou seeks to philosophically recover form by grasping it as always already in restless motion. She is foremost a philosopher of change” (Bhandar and Goldberg-Hiller, 2015: 3). It is Malabou’s concept of plasticity that provides us with the material basis for our effort in developing a radical political theology. Specifically, she breaks down the dualisms not only between mind and brain, but also between form and matter, culture and nature, and ideality and materiality.

http://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201528

im-skeptical said...

science worship is not scientific reasoning

And God worship is not reasoning at all. But that's not what I do - it's what you do. And why do you try to insult me by insisting that I'm just like you?

Joe Hinman said...

Reason justifies belief in God.

im-skeptical said...

Science is reason. Faith is not.


Joe Hinman said...

Science is reason. Faith is not.

wrong. the atheist ideology has created it's own counterfeit version of faith that atheists use but that's not faith. Faith is placing confidence in a partially proven hysteresis,

Joe Hinman said...

moreover science is not reason, it makes use of reason but its not synonymous with it,

im-skeptical said...

Science is inductive, abductive, and inductive reasoning, supported by testing and verification. Faith is the abdication of reason, supported by wishful thinking.

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
Science is inductive, abductive, and inductive reasoning, supported by testing and verification. Faith is the abdication of reason, supported by wishful thinking.

faith is not a form of logic it;s an attitude, so it's neither deductive nor inductive or deductive, it can employ all of them.

you know nothing about faith you have been brain washed by athesistspeak,

im-skeptical said...

Poor Joe. Forever doomed to making unthinking triggered responses, like the Manchurian Candidate. And you call me brainwashed.

Joe Hinman said...

Skepie in you warped little world goodness is evil and stupidity is intelligent and feelings are liabilities and all that matters is protecting the ideology,