Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 132 posts

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#31

Post by gjm11 »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #15
frisco wrote: post #8

These results, at least so far (ath=16, dei=4, the=5), are encouraging. I know you'd expect to see less religion in a science and tech community, but I've never seen anything beyond my group of friends, even in the scientific community, where atheists outnumber theists. I'm sometimes split between the views that religion is harmless and comforting for those who believe and should just be left alone, versus every serv…

logic alert. It just doesn't make sense to me, given all evidence is so clearly, hugely against it. You can't have evidence against something that does not exist. That's like saying all the evidence is against there being a real-live cartoon Donald Duck. What we can say is that there is a lack of evidence for something. We can further say that unless there is evidence for something we don't see any point in believing…

You certainly can have evidence against something that doesn't exist. There is very strong evidence that there are no (ordinary) elephants in the room I'm in right now, for instance: elephants are large and easy to see, and the fact that I see none when I look around is evidence for their absence. Direct evidence that there are no invisible miniature elephantoids made from weakly-interacting Dark Matter in the room, of course, is harder to come by.

Similarly: If someone believes in a god who regularly answers prayers, works miracles, etc., then a shortage of miracles and surprisingly answered prayers is evidence against the existence of that person's god. If someone else believes in a god whose primary objective is to avoid notice, it's hard to see how anything could be evidence for or against its existence. (And, by the same token, it's hard to see why anyone would care much whether it exists or not. A god whose existence we can't get evidence about is ipso facto one that makes little difference to how the world is.)

... Except that it's pretty plausible that some sort of formalized Ockham's Razor works, where your initial evaluation of how likely something is looks more or less like 2^-(length of shortest complete description). In that case, a universe with a maximally-self-hiding god is much less likely than a universe without one.

Anyway, most theists believe in gods that are (perhaps intermittently) active in the world: answering prayer, healing sick people, raising people from the dead, etc. There's no reason why there shouldn't be evidence for or against the existence of such a god. (I think the evidence is heavily against; others disagree.)

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#32

Post by gjm11 »

It's interesting to compare these figures with those found at

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

concerning two populations of scientists in the US, one supposedly representative of all US scientists and one supposedly representative of "leading" ones.

Ignoring the (very severe) issues of sample bias here, it seems that HN contributors are intermediate in skepticism between Larson&Witham's two populations.

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#33

Post by yters »

noodle wrote: post #2

so, to be clear, you noticed that pandora's box is closed and you figure it would be good to open it?

I considered whether it would be inflammatory, but figured it was different than an article, where the interaction takes the form of discussion thus potentially leading to flame wars if the issue is controversial. Here, the interaction is mainly about voting, and people will feel less of a need to make their voice heard through comments.

So being curious, I decided to take the risk.

So far seems ok. If not, just flag it, and some mod will kill the thing.

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#34

Post by DanielBMarkham »

gjm11 wrote: post #31
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

logic alert. It just doesn't make sense to me, given all evidence is so clearly, hugely against it. You can't have evidence against something that does not exist. That's like saying all the evidence is against there being a real-live cartoon Donald Duck. What we can say is that there is a lack of evidence for something. We can further say that unless there is evidence for something we don't see any point in believing…

You certainly can have evidence against something that doesn't exist. There is very strong evidence that there are no (ordinary) elephants in the room I'm in right now, for instance: elephants are large and easy to see, and the fact that I see none when I look around is evidence for their absence. Direct evidence that there are no invisible miniature elephantoids made from weakly-interacting Dark Matter in the room,…

There is very strong evidence that there are no (ordinary) elephants in the room

That's assuming a closed system open to inspection.

The universe is neither of those. I can say what is or isn't in the room because I have total control over and full freedom to inspect the room to the level of detail required to find elephants. Your example simply doesn't translate.

You pivot then into the "far away God is the same as missing God" argument. That's another can of worms (One which I did not go into)

What I find humorous is that every 80 years or so we see a resurgence in either atheism or deism. Each time the generation feels like it's way smarter than the one before it. Only the arguments are all the same as they were three iterations ago -- or three thousand years ago for that matter.

The existence and nature of a God, if there is one/them/it, isn't as easy as looking for elephants. But that's what makes the conversation fun -- as long as everyone acts in a civil manner.

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#35

Post by byrneseyeview »

bscofield wrote: post #25
mlLK wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between 'without knowing' and 'without a god' is marginal (given the context of the poll/thread), so do the math. . .cast your ballot.

Conflating epistemology and metaphysics is never a good idea.

I'm more worried about labeling something as metaphysical when epistemology leads to uncomfortable answers.

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#36

Post by DanielBMarkham »

yters wrote: post #33
noodle wrote: post #2

so, to be clear, you noticed that pandora's box is closed and you figure it would be good to open it?

I considered whether it would be inflammatory, but figured it was different than an article, where the interaction takes the form of discussion thus potentially leading to flame wars if the issue is controversial. Here, the interaction is mainly about voting, and people will feel less of a need to make their voice heard through comments. So being curious, I decided to take the risk. So far seems ok. If not, just flag…

It's not like we haven't done it before. We usually chat for a while, people complain, and then either it is zapped or we move on.

It's interesting to me to see how the influx of newbies will deal with the topic. It's a sociological/social networking question, which makes it interesting for hackers. Will the new group play by the older group's rules? Will the newcomers complain more about it "not being HN" than the old farts? Will the newbies pull the oldies out into discussion, or the other way around? Will folks who post regular science-vs-church articles participate here or pass?

But I can certainly agree that it can get out of control. What can I say? I like danger in small doses. This afternoon is kinda slow anyway.

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#37

Post by byrneseyeview »

kubrick wrote: post #13

I wonder how many atheists are actually agnostics (depend on your definitions, naturally). No one can (yet?) prove the existence or non-existence of a god, and although there are some who claim that they can show that a god isn't necessary for all of this reality stuff to have come about (read: Dawkins), I am less convinced of that -- we (via science) don't know enough to make that argument. Yet. Are you sure there i…

I think most of them make it clear that they are 'weak atheists', who believe (as John McCarthy puts it) that the evidence on the God question is about as strong as the evidence on the Werewolf question. Strong atheists are much rarer -- I'm actually not familiar with their arguments.

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#38

Post by natch »

markup wrote: post #10

I am agnostic, so I can't vote, apparently.

You're probably an atheist without realizing it.

I've met many agnostics who weren't aware that there are different types of atheists, including many who don't know one way or another but lean toward disbelief, which is very close to agnosticism.

The typical misunderstanding of atheism from self-described agnostics is that atheists claim to be certain that there is no God. Some atheists do that, but that's not the only kind of atheism.

Another problem with agnosticism is agnostics seem to believe that one cannot assign any probability without perfect knowledge. Yet you do it every minute of every day, in ever decision you make. We live by probabilities and beliefs (and disbeliefs). I don't see why certain concepts in life should be off limits for assignment of probabilities.

Re: Poll: Atheist, Deist, Theist?

#40

Post by msg »

axod wrote: post #17

As the popular quote goes, Atheist and Theist are so alike.. only difference is the Atheist believes in one less god.

As I said when someone brought this up half a year ago:

  Most realists believe in only one observable universe. Solipsists just go one universe farther.

  Most baseball fanatics pull for only one team. People who hate baseball just go one team farther.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253858
Post reply on HN