Calculating Probabilities

When it comes to religion I tend to use the  'three kinds of people" model. Roughly speaking, you're either a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic. Which of these three is the most defensible position? Which makes the most sense? Which is most consistent with science? What criteria should be used to evaluate your argument for your position on the question of whether there is a god?

I'm not sure that I know the best arguments for each of these three positions, but here's my best shot at evaluating them.

Theists have a problem when it comes to science. They're probably just never going to have anything like scientific evidence for their position. Depending on the particular brand of theism, it may be logically impossible for them to have evidence. For example, one form of theism says that god, being omnipotent and omniscient, can manipulate the universe such that his presence is simply not detectable by scientific means. If you're that kind of theist then it's no surprise to you that science isn't finding god. You're problem, then, is an epistemological one: how do you know that there is a god? Do you have some method for creating knowledge that is different from science? Or do you just choose to believe, even though you don't actually know?

Atheists also have a problem when it comes to science, and for exactly the same reason. The proposition that there is a god who can hide the evidence of his own existence is completely unscientific. It cannot be addressed by science. Atheists will tell you that the claim that there is a god is similar to the claim (without evidence) that there is a teapot in orbit. However, these claims are not similar. The god-claim is an attempted explanation of observed phenomena: there is a universe, there is life, there are sentient beings. The god-claim says these things are here because god made them. The teapot claim has no connection to observed phenomena. Atheists say that we can dismiss the teapot-claim because the probability that it is there is vanishingly small. Without evidence of the teapot, or a reason why it should be in orbit, this is absolutely correct. But we can't make the same argument against the existence of god because, 1) if the god-claim is true then we should expect to find no evidence of god (a weak point, but not able to be defeated), and 2) the god-claim explains things that are currently unexplained, or inadequately explained. Ultimately, the problem with the atheist position is also an epistemological one: how do you know there isn't a god?

Agnostics take the easy way out. They admit that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a god, but also admit that this doesn't mean that there actually isn't a god. As a result, agnosticism embraces a wide spectrum of people from near-believers to near-disbelievers.

So, a question for those of you who are theists: Do you admit that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a god? And if so, what method for creating knowledge have you used to discover that god exists?

A question for atheists: If you reject the proposition that there is a god, not because you can prove there is no god, but because you believe that it is highly improbable that there is a god, then how do you compute the probability that there is a god?

Agnostics get a pass.

Scientific Claims and Falsifiability

In my previous post I argued against an economist's criticisms of scientist's claims on truth. Arnold Kling does a much better job of making a similar criticism stick.

Arnold's argument boils down to this: Scientists sometimes claim that they will soon make particular discoveries or uncover particular knowledge, when in fact there is great doubt about whether they will.

These claims of impending success are common, and commonly wrong. More to the point (as Arnold suggests) these claims are unscientific, and therefore unbecoming to professed scientists, precisely because they are non-falsifiable. There is no theoretically possible method to disprove these claims (at the time they are made).

Science deals exclusively with claims that are (in principle) falsifiable. This is an extremely important part of why science works at all. By limiting scientific inquiry to falsifiable claims science is made testable and, ultimately, meaningful. If I believe that a scientific claim is false, I need only devise an experiment that will demonstrate a conflict or contradiction in order to prove that it is false.

Imagine what would happen if non-falsifiable claims were included under the domain of science. Under such a system scientists would concern themselves with claims that are mutually exclusive, but with no ability to distinguish between the truth or falseness of either. The discovery of knowledge would slow as time and effort were consumed in pointless and unending argument...

This is a concept that I'm sure all scientists are taught at some point early in their education. However, as important and fundamental as falsifiability is, many scientists seem to forget about it, or even become confused about what it means. Take, for example, Richard Dawkins' invocation of Russell's Teapot in support of militant Atheism. The bizarre thing here is that Dawkins uses Russell's Teapot as an example of a non-falsifiable claim, and therefore outside of scientific notice, while he simultaneously argues in favor of militant Atheism - which is a non-falsifiable claim as well. How can a scientist of such standing be so confused about one of science's founding principles?

Note: It  is important to recognize that Russell's Teapot may actually be a falsifiable claim, and therefore within  the purview of science. If you claim that there is a teapot in orbit, AND describe the orbit and the teapot in sufficient detail, then the claim is clearly falsifiable because the absence of the teapot in the specified orbit could, in principle, be observed. Militant Atheism, however is not a falsifiable claim because it is not possible, even in principle, to observe the absence of a god who can tweak the universe and human observation to achieve whatever end he/she/it desires. Militant Atheism must perforce fall outside of the notice of science.