Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
But there is some evidence that where two theories are equal in their explanatory power, the goofier one has a lesser chance of being correct than the simpler one. Not always, but more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that a very good argument could be made that theistic theories are less "goofy" in an Occam's Razor sense than their atheistic competitors. At the very least, I think a more rigorous definition of your proposed meta-evidence rule is in order.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

In your example T2 and T1 are equally likely. However, T2 has far greater utility and is the smart choice. This is because there are an infinite number of equally likely theories in which any course of action may have an effect, and these theories will balance out to make every course of action identical for purposes of "afterlife" and similar considerations. It is just as likely that God will punish us for being Christian as that he will reward us, for example.

However, this case is irrelevant. Christianity does make different predictions about the world, very different predictions. Those predictions don't bear out. Keep in mind that "implied conditions" are as important here as "actual conditions." In other words, if there had been a world-wide flood and all species of animal had spread from a single point subsequently, there should be evidence of that in today's world. In this case, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

If you manage to explain all this away, you have to keep in mind that by definition if T1 and T2 make the same prediction there is absolutely no utility in believing T1. T2 has a greater utility, and therefore anyone arguing for T1 is essentially talking about the flying spaghetti monster.

(Theoretically if you have no evidence at all, you make no assumptions at all. You may choose to believe in one thing or another for functional reasons, however - for example if believing in God makes you feel happier)

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's actually a decent term for the principle underlying Occam's razor.

There's no direct evidence that any particular unfalsifiable theory is wrong. But there is some evidence that where two theories are equal in their explanatory power, the goofier one has a lesser chance of being correct than the simpler one. Not always, but more often than not.

This latter point is supported by observational experience. It is a sort of meta-evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I pointed out before, this isn't true. there are no cases of examples where two theories don't produce different predictions about the world, yet one has been shown to be false.

or if it is true we realise its true for reasons other than evidence.

chez

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]

I know of no religions with God concepts that involve a God who created the universe and then left it alone entirely.


[/ QUOTE ]

Deism. Of late, sometimes known as Sklanskianity.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
In your example T2 and T1 are equally likely. However, T2 has far greater utility and is the smart choice. This is because there are an infinite number of equally likely theories in which any course of action may have an effect, and these theories will balance out to make every course of action identical for purposes of "afterlife" and similar considerations. It is just as likely that God will punish us for being Christian as that he will reward us, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]
If two theories don't make different prediction about the world then neither has greater utility.

[ QUOTE ]
However, this case is irrelevant. Christianity does make different predictions about the world, very different predictions. Those predictions don't bear out. Keep in mind that "implied conditions" are as important here as "actual conditions." In other words, if there had been a world-wide flood and all species of animal had spread from a single point subsequently, there should be evidence of that in today's world. In this case, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you switch to Christianity which does make different predictions about the world. Clearly there is lots of evidence about most religons which is why there is a reason to believe them or not.

chez

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to clear up some of the recuring issues about evidence.

Propositon E.
Suppose two theories T1 and T2 do not make different predictions about the world. Then deciding whether to believe T1 or T2 is nothing to do with evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]



Consider
T1: It has never been possible to get to Narnia thorough my bedroom wardrobe.
T2: It was possible to get to Nrania through my wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

By proposition E, deciding between T1 and T2 is not a matter of evidence.

Therefore anyone who believes that there has never been a link between my bedroom wardrobe and Narnia doesn't believe this because of the evidence.

Note I am fairly sure no one inspected my bedroom wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to clear up some of the recuring issues about evidence.

Propositon E.
Suppose two theories T1 and T2 do not make different predictions about the world. Then deciding whether to believe T1 or T2 is nothing to do with evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]



Consider
T1: It has never been possible to get to Narnia thorough my bedroom wardrobe.
T2: It was possible to get to Nrania through my wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

By proposition E, deciding between T1 and T2 is not a matter of evidence.

Therefore anyone who believes that there has never been a link between my bedroom wardrobe and Narnia doesn't believe this because of the evidence.

Note I am fairly sure no one inspected my bedroom wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]
Precisely. (assuming no possibility of evidence of the past in this case).

chez

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I know of no religions with God concepts that involve a God who created the universe and then left it alone entirely.


[/ QUOTE ]

Deism. Of late, sometimes known as Sklanskianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the beliefs that describe various forms of Deism really make it a philosophy and not a religion. That is, not a religion as other religions are. For if a god created the world and then left it alone, there is no need for doctrine, worship, prayer or rituals of any kind. The things that a religion is known by and which separate it from other religions.

To me, Deism is just a sophisticated form of agnosticism.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

I think people tend to use some sort of indution/deduction combination to handle these sorts of situations.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

I assumed this was a lead-in to some justification of Christianity. Guess I was wrong.

The simplest theory that makes the same prediction has a greater utility because it is easier to apply. It's basically the "condensed version." Any additional variables in T1 are functionally irrelevant. Those variables may as well not exist, and for practical purposes are not worth considering. All the relevant information is contained within T2 and considering anything beyond that is useless.

There's greater utility in T2 because there is no chance of God "getting in the way."