Here is a short list of misconceptions about atheism, which entail causes myths about atheists:
1. "Atheism is identical to naturalism". This claim is not true. Atheism is the lack of belief in God, not the lack of belief in all supernatural entities (Whatever those are). Take ghosts for example. A ghost is almost always defined as being supernatural. As a result many super-naturalists (And maybe non super-naturalists) falsely believe that atheists cannot believe in supernatural beings such as ghosts. So the myth about atheism causes a myth about atheists, that being that no consistent atheist can believe in supernatural beings.
2. "Atheism is identical to materialism". This is similar to (1.), and it also false. While all materialists are atheists (I mean materialists about everything in existence, not simply particulars such as human persons), it is not true that all atheists are materialists. An atheist can consistently believe in the existence of non material things just in case their existence is not dependent on God(s). For example an atheist can believe that abstract objects exist, and some would argue that if abstract objects exist, then only atheism can be true (i.e. Abstract objects are generally defined as necessarily existent and outside causal relations, as a result of their necessity and a-causality some people argue that they are defined out of being created by God, or affected by God, thus God could not be the creator of all things, thus God does not exist).
3. "Atheism entails scientism". This is false. While atheism might be highly correlated with scientism, it isn't true that atheism by definition entails scientism, An atheist can consistently believe that it is possible to not only discover truth sans the sciences, but that non scientific investigation is actually better at discovering truth than it's counterpart. The reason is simple: Atheism only entails that God does not exist, not that fairies are not planting knowledge within us that science cannot investigate.
Considering the above three is important for at least a few reasons. One reason is that the "Theism vs atheism" debate often uses arguments refuting naturalism, materialism, or scientism in an attempt to refute atheism. But atheism is a different view. Atheism is entailed by both naturalism and materialism, but it entails neither of the former. So any argument refuting atheism would refute both naturalism and materialism, but the opposite would not. This is not to say that discussing problems with the three former views is not relevant to the theism vs atheism debate (For example lets grant that I am an atheist because I am a materialist. If a theist found good reasons to reject my materialism, I would have less reasons to reject theism, or I would need entirely different reasons depending on the circumstances).
A second reasons for considering these misconceptions is that some people might assume propositions such as the following:
1. "Materialism (or naturalism) excludes objective morality. Atheism either entails or is identical to materialism. So atheists reject objective morality, or should to be consistent". An atheist can believe the first statement listed, but still consistently believe that objective morality exists (Or at least there are no obviously sound/strong cogent arguments that I know of which suggest otherwise). For example philosopher Richard Swinburne seems to believe that moral truths are necessary and independent, and as a result they are not contingent on God. If what Swinburne thinks is true, then atheism does not exclude morality since morality is not dependent on God. This issue is definitely an important one. Hardly any atheist would wish to be told they believe that child rape is morally okay, or that they are some sort of amoral monster, or that given their worldview there is no reason to be anything except an amoral monster.
Now here is a few truths many atheists want others to know:
1. Some atheists are stupid, and don't believe theism for stupid reasons.
2. Not all atheists hate religion. Many believe that religion should stay, and some simply don't believe in religious tales without any hate.
3. Atheists do not necessarily believe they think they know everything. One of the reasons many people they should be atheists is because we do not know everything. i.e. They do not believe because they would rather scientific inquiries to provide answers prior to using God to fill a gap in knowledge.
4. Darwin is not the God of atheism. Darwin's work might be one of the reasons that some people are atheists, but atheists don't worship the man (Or at least I've seen none who would).
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Bayes Rule again
Let's grant that we order banana trees from two countries; Guatemala and Honduras.
60 percent of the trees ordered are from Guatemala, so the other 40 percent is from Honduras. 6 percent of the trees from Guatemala have tarantulas on them, and only 3 for Honduras.
Question: What is the probability of the trees being from Guatemala given that there are tarantulas on them?
So we're looking for "Pr(G/T) = ?". The equation will look like the following:
Pr(G/T) = Pr(G/b) * Pr(T/G) / Pr(G/b) * Pr(T/G) + Pr(~G/b) * Pr(T/~G)
"Pr(G/b)" is the prior probability of G given our background information. I decided to add in the "b" because it looks like a lot of people tend to do that. In this scenario there are two options; Guatemala and Honduras. Since there are only two, then "~G" can only be Honduras as there are no alternative possibilities. So Pr(~G/b) = the prior probability of Honduras given our background info.
Now let's plug in some numbers.
(1) Pr(G/b) = .6 since 60 percent of the trees come from Guatemala.
(2) Pr(T/G) = .06 since only 6 percent of Guatemalan trees have tarantulas.
(3) Pr(G/b) * Pr(T/G) = .036
(4) Pr(~G/b) = .4 since 40 percent of the trees come from Guatemala.
(5) Pr(T/~G) = .03 since only 3 percent of Honduran trees have tarantulas.
(6) Pr(~G/b) * Pr(T/~G) = .012
(7) .036 + .012 = .048
(8) .036 / .048 = .75
The final answer is .75 which means the probability of the trees being from Guatemala given tarantulas is 75 percent.
This is pretty simple stuff, but this elementary use of Bayes is still useful to know.
I found this example (Or something like it) in Ian Hacking's book Intro to Probability and Inductive Logic.
60 percent of the trees ordered are from Guatemala, so the other 40 percent is from Honduras. 6 percent of the trees from Guatemala have tarantulas on them, and only 3 for Honduras.
Question: What is the probability of the trees being from Guatemala given that there are tarantulas on them?
So we're looking for "Pr(G/T) = ?". The equation will look like the following:
Pr(G/T) = Pr(G/b) * Pr(T/G) / Pr(G/b) * Pr(T/G) + Pr(~G/b) * Pr(T/~G)
"Pr(G/b)" is the prior probability of G given our background information. I decided to add in the "b" because it looks like a lot of people tend to do that. In this scenario there are two options; Guatemala and Honduras. Since there are only two, then "~G" can only be Honduras as there are no alternative possibilities. So Pr(~G/b) = the prior probability of Honduras given our background info.
Now let's plug in some numbers.
(1) Pr(G/b) = .6 since 60 percent of the trees come from Guatemala.
(2) Pr(T/G) = .06 since only 6 percent of Guatemalan trees have tarantulas.
(3) Pr(G/b) * Pr(T/G) = .036
(4) Pr(~G/b) = .4 since 40 percent of the trees come from Guatemala.
(5) Pr(T/~G) = .03 since only 3 percent of Honduran trees have tarantulas.
(6) Pr(~G/b) * Pr(T/~G) = .012
(7) .036 + .012 = .048
(8) .036 / .048 = .75
The final answer is .75 which means the probability of the trees being from Guatemala given tarantulas is 75 percent.
This is pretty simple stuff, but this elementary use of Bayes is still useful to know.
I found this example (Or something like it) in Ian Hacking's book Intro to Probability and Inductive Logic.
Bayes Rule
Here's a basic and common example of the use of Bayes Theorem:
1 percent of women tested for breast cancer will have the disease. Only 80 percent of the women with cancer will have a positive mammography. An additional 9.6 percent of women will have a false positive mammography. What is the probability of having cancer given a positive mammography?
Let C = Has cancer, ~C = no cancer, M = Positive mammography
The probability of cancer given a positive mammography would be labelled as "P(C/M)". So we're looking to find the answer to "P(C/M = ?)".
The Bayes Rule to solve this in plain English is: The probability of cancer given a positive mammography is equal to the prior probability of cancer multiplied by the probability of a positive mammography given cancer, then divided by the same number with the addition of the prior probability of no cancer multiplied by the probability of a positive mammography given no cancer.
So the symbolized rule is the following: P(C/M) = P(C) * P(M/C) / P(C) * P(M/C) + P(~C) * P(M/~C)
When we aren't using the "/" symbol we are referring to the prior probability of something. The prior probability of an event of hypothesis is basically the probability of it with our current knowledge without updated evidence. In this scenario the updated evidence would be the test results. Since only 1 % of women tested will have cancer, then the prior probability before evidence is 1 %. So "P(C)" = the prior probability of having cancer.
Here are the numbers:
P(C) = .01 since 1 percent of women tested will have cancer.
P(M/C) = .8 since 80 percent of the women with breast cancer will have a positive mammography.
P(~C) = .99 since 99 percent of women tested will not have cancer.
P(M/~C) = .096 since 9.6 percent of women without cancer will have a positive mammography.
With these above numbers we can solve the equation:
P(C) * P(M/C) = .01 * .8 = .008
P(C) * P(M/C) + P(~C) * P(M/~C) = .01 * .8 + .99 * .096 = .008 + .09504 = .10304
Now you divide the top number by the bottom, so it is .008 / .10304 = .07764
The end result is that the probability of having cancer given a positive mammography is only 7.8 percent. This is higher than the prior probability of 1 percent, but still nothing to be too worried about.
I think everything up there is all correct, but here is a crucial link anyways: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/
1 percent of women tested for breast cancer will have the disease. Only 80 percent of the women with cancer will have a positive mammography. An additional 9.6 percent of women will have a false positive mammography. What is the probability of having cancer given a positive mammography?
Let C = Has cancer, ~C = no cancer, M = Positive mammography
The probability of cancer given a positive mammography would be labelled as "P(C/M)". So we're looking to find the answer to "P(C/M = ?)".
The Bayes Rule to solve this in plain English is: The probability of cancer given a positive mammography is equal to the prior probability of cancer multiplied by the probability of a positive mammography given cancer, then divided by the same number with the addition of the prior probability of no cancer multiplied by the probability of a positive mammography given no cancer.
So the symbolized rule is the following: P(C/M) = P(C) * P(M/C) / P(C) * P(M/C) + P(~C) * P(M/~C)
When we aren't using the "/" symbol we are referring to the prior probability of something. The prior probability of an event of hypothesis is basically the probability of it with our current knowledge without updated evidence. In this scenario the updated evidence would be the test results. Since only 1 % of women tested will have cancer, then the prior probability before evidence is 1 %. So "P(C)" = the prior probability of having cancer.
Here are the numbers:
P(C) = .01 since 1 percent of women tested will have cancer.
P(M/C) = .8 since 80 percent of the women with breast cancer will have a positive mammography.
P(~C) = .99 since 99 percent of women tested will not have cancer.
P(M/~C) = .096 since 9.6 percent of women without cancer will have a positive mammography.
With these above numbers we can solve the equation:
P(C) * P(M/C) = .01 * .8 = .008
P(C) * P(M/C) + P(~C) * P(M/~C) = .01 * .8 + .99 * .096 = .008 + .09504 = .10304
Now you divide the top number by the bottom, so it is .008 / .10304 = .07764
The end result is that the probability of having cancer given a positive mammography is only 7.8 percent. This is higher than the prior probability of 1 percent, but still nothing to be too worried about.
I think everything up there is all correct, but here is a crucial link anyways: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
You can Prove a Negative:
Both some atheists and theists alike claim you can not prove a negative. By this, they mean you cannot prove something does not exist.
This is untrue, and is based on poor understanding of the basic laws of logic.
- For example, one can safetly say a squared circle does not exist. This is due to the law of non contradiction. It is the case that something cannot be both what it is, and what it is not simultaneously. Example:
-> 'A' cannot be both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously, as to be 'A' it must not have the nature of being 'B' which has the nature of being itself and not 'A'. - So, 'A' can only be 'A', and 'B' can only be 'B'. They cannot exist as one simultaneously.
-> For a circle to exist, in its nature is to be completely round with no edges. A square has the nature of having four corners and in no way round. For a circle to be both a circle and a square simultaneously, it would need to have the nature of being both completely round and have 4 sides at the same time. But this is abusrd. The nature of a circle and square are distinct from one another, and to be both simultaneously would show a contradiction. To be more clear, both the nature of a circle and square cancel the other out, so they cannot exist as one thing.
-> Due to the above, you can prove that something does not exist. If something has contradictory properties as a squared circle would, then its the case that this cannot exist.
-> This is important to the theist/atheist debate. The relevancy is due to the existence of certain God's having properties that are contradictory with reality or itself.
Example: Some Atheists say a God cannot both have freewill and be omniscient. This is because to be omniscient, a God would know every possible action prior to its realization. If this is true, then a God would necessarily know every action it will commit before the actions realization. If that is true, the God does not and cannot have freewill. God cannot both be free to act but know how God will act.
Example2: Some atheists claim 'An omnibonevolent God cannot exist if there is gratuitous evil'. The argument claims that if a God is all loving, then gratuitous evil would not exist. This is because an all loving God would want gratuitous evil to not exist, and being omnipotent would allow it to prevent such evil. So the Atheist would say the existence of gratuitous evil is inconsistent with a God that is both Omnibonevolent and Omnipotent.
Due to the above examples, it is clear that people try to show that God has attributes that are inconsistent with reality, and therefore 'Proving a Negative' is both possible and very relevent to the question of 'Does God exist?'
This is untrue, and is based on poor understanding of the basic laws of logic.
- For example, one can safetly say a squared circle does not exist. This is due to the law of non contradiction. It is the case that something cannot be both what it is, and what it is not simultaneously. Example:
-> 'A' cannot be both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously, as to be 'A' it must not have the nature of being 'B' which has the nature of being itself and not 'A'. - So, 'A' can only be 'A', and 'B' can only be 'B'. They cannot exist as one simultaneously.
-> For a circle to exist, in its nature is to be completely round with no edges. A square has the nature of having four corners and in no way round. For a circle to be both a circle and a square simultaneously, it would need to have the nature of being both completely round and have 4 sides at the same time. But this is abusrd. The nature of a circle and square are distinct from one another, and to be both simultaneously would show a contradiction. To be more clear, both the nature of a circle and square cancel the other out, so they cannot exist as one thing.
-> Due to the above, you can prove that something does not exist. If something has contradictory properties as a squared circle would, then its the case that this cannot exist.
-> This is important to the theist/atheist debate. The relevancy is due to the existence of certain God's having properties that are contradictory with reality or itself.
Example: Some Atheists say a God cannot both have freewill and be omniscient. This is because to be omniscient, a God would know every possible action prior to its realization. If this is true, then a God would necessarily know every action it will commit before the actions realization. If that is true, the God does not and cannot have freewill. God cannot both be free to act but know how God will act.
Example2: Some atheists claim 'An omnibonevolent God cannot exist if there is gratuitous evil'. The argument claims that if a God is all loving, then gratuitous evil would not exist. This is because an all loving God would want gratuitous evil to not exist, and being omnipotent would allow it to prevent such evil. So the Atheist would say the existence of gratuitous evil is inconsistent with a God that is both Omnibonevolent and Omnipotent.
Due to the above examples, it is clear that people try to show that God has attributes that are inconsistent with reality, and therefore 'Proving a Negative' is both possible and very relevent to the question of 'Does God exist?'
Atheists do not say 'God does not exist':
This is untrue. That is to say, its bullshit. I think people who pull this line are what most people call... pussies. They know they cannot defend a position so they resort to saying that it is both not a position held by them or anyone else . That makes me want to literally punch their brain. Not their face, skull, or teeth. I want to punch their brain.
While it may be true that some atheists take the position of 'Being both without theism and knowledge of whether or not a God exists', it is still the case that many Atheists claim God does not exist. The latter can be refereed to as 'Positive Atheism'. This is because they make a positive claim. To be more clear, they hold a belief that entails an assertion. They believe that no God or Gods exist. So, this entails the proposition 'God (s) does not exist'.
Michael Martin is an example of such a person, he claims that the Christian God, and many other gods are impossible. He has a book titled 'The Impossibility of God' which outlines reasons to think the existence of the Christian God or the classical God of Theism is incoherent and self contradictory, therefore does not exist. So there are some people who both the belief 'God does not exist' and claim 'God does not exist' simultaneously.
This was all typed fairly quick, so if I need to rewrite stuff I will later. That is if I care at all. Chances are I won't considering I don't even care that I'm sitting on a chip bag full of ranch dressing.
While it may be true that some atheists take the position of 'Being both without theism and knowledge of whether or not a God exists', it is still the case that many Atheists claim God does not exist. The latter can be refereed to as 'Positive Atheism'. This is because they make a positive claim. To be more clear, they hold a belief that entails an assertion. They believe that no God or Gods exist. So, this entails the proposition 'God (s) does not exist'.
Michael Martin is an example of such a person, he claims that the Christian God, and many other gods are impossible. He has a book titled 'The Impossibility of God' which outlines reasons to think the existence of the Christian God or the classical God of Theism is incoherent and self contradictory, therefore does not exist. So there are some people who both the belief 'God does not exist' and claim 'God does not exist' simultaneously.
This was all typed fairly quick, so if I need to rewrite stuff I will later. That is if I care at all. Chances are I won't considering I don't even care that I'm sitting on a chip bag full of ranch dressing.
Why do Atheists not believe in God?
I think there are primarily 4 reasons people do not believe in God.
1. They think the existence of a defined god or gods is contradictory, therefore impossible.
Some atheists think the existence of a God such as the Christian God is inconsistent with reality in a way that renders its existence impossible. Example: The Christian God is omnibonevolent. If that is the case, evil cannot exist. However, it is the case that evil does exist in many forms, some not a result of man. This means an omnibonevolent God cannot exist. Therefore the Christian God is impossible.
2. They think the existence of a defined god or gods is improbable given certain facts.
Some Atheists think the existence of a god such as the Christian God is improbable given certain facts about the world. Example: The Christian God is claimed to be the creator of both the universe and life. Current scientific evidence shows the universe may be self caused without need for a creator. Also, current scientific evidence shows that life may originate from non life due to natural processes that are not guided by intelligence. These two facts make some people believe the existence of a certain god such as the Christian God is improbable.
3. Emotional reasons.
Some Atheists do not believe in a god or gods because of emotional reasons, rather than intellectual ones. The existence of suffering, non answered prayers, and other personal grief leads some people to think that a god or gods does not exist, or is unlikely to exist due their emotional stress and their inability to cope with it.
4. Stupid reasons.
Some atheists think a god or gods does not exist for very stupid reasons. A simple example is people who claim the bible is a fairytale, therefore there is no god. This is a stupid reason to think a god or gods do not exist. A god or gods can exist independent of the truth of the bible. The bible can be completely false and man made while there is simultaneously a divine creator, or intelligent force in the universe. The thinking behind this is due to ignorance I would think.
Ill expand on this later if I must.
1. They think the existence of a defined god or gods is contradictory, therefore impossible.
Some atheists think the existence of a God such as the Christian God is inconsistent with reality in a way that renders its existence impossible. Example: The Christian God is omnibonevolent. If that is the case, evil cannot exist. However, it is the case that evil does exist in many forms, some not a result of man. This means an omnibonevolent God cannot exist. Therefore the Christian God is impossible.
2. They think the existence of a defined god or gods is improbable given certain facts.
Some Atheists think the existence of a god such as the Christian God is improbable given certain facts about the world. Example: The Christian God is claimed to be the creator of both the universe and life. Current scientific evidence shows the universe may be self caused without need for a creator. Also, current scientific evidence shows that life may originate from non life due to natural processes that are not guided by intelligence. These two facts make some people believe the existence of a certain god such as the Christian God is improbable.
3. Emotional reasons.
Some Atheists do not believe in a god or gods because of emotional reasons, rather than intellectual ones. The existence of suffering, non answered prayers, and other personal grief leads some people to think that a god or gods does not exist, or is unlikely to exist due their emotional stress and their inability to cope with it.
4. Stupid reasons.
Some atheists think a god or gods does not exist for very stupid reasons. A simple example is people who claim the bible is a fairytale, therefore there is no god. This is a stupid reason to think a god or gods do not exist. A god or gods can exist independent of the truth of the bible. The bible can be completely false and man made while there is simultaneously a divine creator, or intelligent force in the universe. The thinking behind this is due to ignorance I would think.
Ill expand on this later if I must.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)