The Falsifiability Criterion

[bluegreenearth]

It has been argued on multiple occasions that the acceptance of various religious claims are without a justification when there is no quantity or quality of evidence that will ever falsify them to the theist's satisfaction. Several theists in this forum have dismissed these objections because they assert that the Falsifiability criterion only applies in a scientific context. While the falsifiability criterion is essential to the evaluation of scientific hypotheses, what is the logical justification for exempting religious claims from this standard?

First of all, it is essential to understand the logic behind the requirement for scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable. It begins with the Problem of Induction. Inductive reasoning is demonstrably unreliable when evaluating a claim because the resulting conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the supporting evidence. An example of this fact is the inductive argument for the claim that all swans are white. At one point in history, swans had only ever been observed to be white in color. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to inductively infer from all the evidence available at the time that all existing swans must be white. But how could the truth of this claim be verified?

To verify the claim's truth, every individual swan in existence would have to be observed to determine if all are white in color. Obviously, this evidence is not reasonably obtainable. Consequently, the possibility for a different colored swan existing somewhere unobserved could not be reliably ruled-out. So, the truth of the claim that all swans are white turned out to be Underdetermined by the available evidence. However, it is important to note that a single observation of a different colored swan would function to reasonably falsify the claim.

As it happened, someone did eventually observe a black swan in Australia. This discovery reasonably falsified the claim that all swans are white. So, while it wasn't possible to observe every individual swan in existence at the time to determine the claim's truth value, it was possible to reasonably falsify it. It logically followed from this outcome that falsifiability was a more reliable and justifiable criterion for scientific claims than the verifiability of their truth given the problems of induction of underdetermination.

The fact of the matter is that the problems of induction and underdetermination are not unique to science but apply universally. Science may have uniquely solved these problems by implementing the falsifiability criterion for its hypotheses, but nothing seems to logically prohibit this solution from functioning in non-scientific contexts as well. If theists want to reject the solution provided by the falsifiability criterion, then they must provide a justifiable alternate solution to the universal problems of induction and underdetermination that equally apply to their religious claims. Otherwise, despite the quantity and quality of the supporting evidence theists might have for their religious claims, the unresolved problems of induction and underdetermination will provide a reasonable justification to dismiss their corresponding apologetic arguments as logically fallacious.

For debate: Any arguments theists could give to justify the acceptance of religious claims in the absence of a solution to the universal problems of induction and underdetermination.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #139]
What safeguards did you use to ensure that all theistic claims belong in the same field you’ve assigned them to?

You may recall where I previously clarified that some theistic claims are falsifiable while others are unfalsifiable. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you assert that I've assigned all theistic claims to the same field.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #139]
The understanding is that theism accepts the claim "we exist within a creation" and atheism accepts the claim that "we do not exist within a creation".

According to my understanding of Atheism, such a perspective does not necessitate a positive belief in the claim that we do not exist within a creation. Maybe you meant to have this discussion with another interlocutor who has expressed a positive belief in such a claim?

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #139]
Neither claim can be decisively falsified. Therefore, with the symmetry I've been holding to, both are equally unable to move any further within the structure of your rule re the OP and your subsequent arguments re the universal problems of induction and underdetermination.

An example of this is with the atheistic argument that there are flaws in the creation. In that, one is using perceived imperfections as evidence against the idea of existing in a creation "because" a creator would "not allow flaws to exist."

The argument itself appears to be flawed in the sense that it reveals where the possibility of confirmation bias in the collection and evaluation of evidence impacts the reliability of conclusions derived through an epistemological framework that fails to mitigate for it.

Whereas, some theistic reasoning allows for there to be perceived flaws in the creation as purposeful design.

If you are asking for my analysis of this argument, I understand how it might only intend to expose where an unresolved objection to the "creator" claim exists and should not be necessarily interpreted as a positive counter claim. On the other hand, where someone does make the positive claim that we do not exist within in creation, it seems fair to ask how the possibility for confirmation bias was mitigated in the collection and evaluation of evidence.

As for your proposed counter-argument, the possibility for flaws to exist as a matter of purposeful design does not reduce the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false and actually functions to confirm the claim's unfalsifiability.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #139]
Question:
Without having any other information, would Sarah be justified in concluding that the absence of creation is the most reasonable explanation for the flaws she perceives in the world over those six weeks, based on the perceived weight of the evidence?

If the proposed "creator" is not defined with any specific characteristics or properties such that the observed evidence does not function to falsify the claim, then Sarah's conclusion would not be logically justified. If the proposed "creator" is defined in a such a way that the observed evidence does function to falsify the claim, then Sarah's conclusion would be logically justified, but only in terms of the "creator" specified in the claim. The proposed "creator" in this scenario was too ambiguous for anyone to properly assess if the observed evidence was sufficient to falsify the claim or not.

[William]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]

I'm not sure what you mean when you assert that I've assigned all theistic claims to the same field.

The theistic claim that we exist within a creation.

According to my understanding of Atheism, such a perspective does not necessitate a positive belief in the claim that we do not exist within a creation.

Are you therefore claiming that not all atheists think we exist within a non-created thing?

If so, there here is the tension in that argument:

If atheism is truly just a lack of belief, then it’s not a claim at all , it’s an epistemic stance of suspension.

Yet, in practice, atheistic arguments (like the “flaws in creation” reasoning) do operate as if they are positive claims. They draw conclusions that go beyond mere withholding of belief.

As for your proposed counter-argument, the possibility for flaws to exist as a matter of purposeful design does not reduce the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false and actually functions to confirm the claim's unfalsifiability.

What "probabilities"?
There are none either way, and that is the point.
So you tell me, what is the purpose of this thread topic? Are you trying to use physical science to justify atheism?
What about physical science has "reduced the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false? SUrely such a claim requires supporting evidence.

If the proposed "creator" is not defined with any specific characteristics or properties such that the observed evidence does not function to falsify the claim, then Sarah's conclusion would not be logically justified. If the proposed "creator" is defined in a such a way that the observed evidence does function to falsify the claim, then Sarah's conclusion would be logically justified, but only in terms of the "creator" specified in the claim. The proposed "creator" in this scenario was too ambiguous for anyone to properly assess if the observed evidence was sufficient to falsify the claim or not.

Here is the rub BGE. The creator was proposed in the idea that we exist within a created thing. WAI and I even gave that in our initial reply to this thread. We used The Razor to cut of any excess "proposals" (re dogma et al).

Apart from that one proposal, all other things were left out - not because we were hiding data from you but because that data should have been seen by anyone who was not under the subconscious influence of CB.

___________
What WAI and I did, (Post#80) can be paralleled with what the researches in your Sarah story did.

Perhaps you might want to reevaluate this idea of "too ambiguous" as a possible sign of subconscious confirmation bias on your part, and adjust accordingly...

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]

I'm not sure what you mean when you assert that I've assigned all theistic claims to the same field.

The theistic claim that we exist within a creation.

Is the theistic claim that we exist within a creation a single claim?

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]
Are you therefore claiming that not all atheists think we exist within a non-created thing?

I'm claiming that not all atheists claim we exist within a non-created thing. Some atheists claim to be agnostic regarding that claim. I can't speak to what all atheists think because I'm not a mind reader.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]
If so, there here is the tension in that argument:

If atheism is truly just a lack of belief, then it’s not a claim at all , it’s an epistemic stance of suspension.

Yet, in practice, atheistic arguments (like the “flaws in creation” reasoning) do operate as if they are positive claims. They draw conclusions that go beyond mere withholding of belief.

It is not necessary to interpret the argument as drawing the conclusion that we do not exist within a creation. As previously explained, the reasoning might only intend to show where a particular "creation" argument needs to resolve an objection.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]
What "probabilities"?
There are none either way, and that is the point.

The possibility for flaws to exist as a matter of purposeful design does not reduce the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false precisely because the probability was not calculable in the first place.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]
So you tell me, what is the purpose of this thread topic? Are you trying to use physical science to justify atheism?

No. The purpose of this thread is to ask theists how they mitigate the possibility of confirmation bias, the problem of induction, and the problem of underdetermination in their evaluation of the evidence for unfalsifiable claims.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]
What about physical science has "reduced the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false? SUrely such a claim requires supporting evidence.

Physical science does not intend to reduce the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false because the claim is unfalsifiable.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #141]
Here is the rub BGE. The creator was proposed in the idea that we exist within a created thing. WAI and I even gave that in our initial reply to this thread. We used The Razor to cut of any excess "proposals" (re dogma et al).

Apart from that one proposal, all other things were left out - not because we were hiding data from you but because that data should have been seen by anyone who was not under the subconscious influence of CB.

___________
What WAI and I did, (Post#80) can be paralleled with what the researches in your Sarah story did.

Perhaps you might want to reevaluate this idea of "too ambiguous" as a possible sign of subconscious confirmation bias on your part, and adjust accordingly...

The "Sarah" scenario you crafted was delivered in isolation from your previous conversation with WAI. Therefore, I had no reason to presume anything about the properties of the creator proposed in the scenario. To presume that the data from your earlier conversation with WAI had informed this isolated scenario would have been logically fallacious (i.e., the problem of induction). So, my response was careful to point out how the justification of Sarah's conclusion or lack thereof was contingent upon the unstated properties of the proposed creator. Therefore, subconscious confirmation bias had nothing to do with my response to the scenario. In fact, by identifying the conditions under which Sarah's conclusion could and could not be justified, I mitigated for the possibility of confirmation bias in my evaluation of the available evidence. If you are now confirming that the "creator" proposed in the scenario is the same "creator" proposed in your conversation with WAI, then the part of my response describing how Sarah's conclusion would not be justified will apply.

[William]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]

Is the theistic claim that we exist within a creation a single claim?

see "The Razor". (also see "Intellectual honesty")

I'm claiming that not all atheists claim we exist within a non-created thing. Some atheists claim to be agnostic regarding that claim. I can't speak to what all atheists think because I'm not a mind reader.

Mere Wordplay. See "Intellectual honesty"

If atheism is truly just a lack of belief, then it’s not a claim at all , it’s an epistemic stance of suspension.

Yet, in practice, atheistic arguments (like the “flaws in creation” reasoning) do operate as if they are positive claims. They draw conclusions that go beyond mere withholding of belief.

It is not necessary to interpret the argument as drawing the conclusion that we do not exist within a creation. As previously explained, the reasoning might only intend to show where a particular "creation" argument needs to resolve an objection.

Our "particular argument" is that we do or do not exist within a created thing. Further to that, WAI and I pointed out what that entailed. You retorted with mockery. When it was pointed out, you stepped back and made almost but not quite, noise resembling apology for your retort.

Now you do the dance claiming it is not necessary to object to the idea that we exist within a created thing "if the idea is not headlined under any "particular creation argument"...how is that intellectual honesty? (not asking you in particular - more a case of wondering aloud).

The possibility for flaws to exist as a matter of purposeful design does not reduce the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false precisely because the probability was not calculable in the first place.

There are none either way, and that is the point.

Probability is off the table, so atheistic appeals to probability of creation vs. non-creation collapse as well.

That symmetry reinforces my stance: both creation and non-creation claims rest outside calculable probability, and evidence can only “gesture,” not settle.

The purpose of this thread is to ask theists how they mitigate the possibility of confirmation bias, the problem of induction, and the problem of underdetermination in their evaluation of the evidence for unfalsifiable claims.

And mirroring that, I want to know how atheists mitigate the possibility of confirmation bias, the problem of induction, and the problem of underdetermination in their evaluation of the evidence for unfalsifiable claims, such as "we do not exist within a created thing" and whether the answer for both claims is "we don't because we can't because such device is only useful re Physical Science and fails on questions/claims outside of said physical science.

Physical science does not intend to reduce the probability that the "creator" hypothesis is false because the claim is unfalsifiable.

Then why are you asking theists to reduce their beliefs to the standards of physical science or even questioning them about that?

Of what use is this thread? That has always been part of my overall critique...

The "Sarah" scenario you crafted was delivered in isolation from your previous conversation with WAI.

Nothing I deliver is isolated from anything I deliver.

You were aware of data but chose to "isolate" it from your list of possibilities. I too was aware of placebo, and isolated that from my list of possibilities.

The difference between our responses is that I owned the "isolating" and adjusted according to intellectual honesty, whereas you have chosen to remain trapped in your double standard.

My conclusion is that this whole thread topic including the OP, is based upon its own confirmation bias and after many pages of back and forth, it is clear to me that the topic is true lacking intellectual honesty and I am content to withdraw any further interaction with it or its author at this point.

[Haven]

[Replying to William in post #142]

If atheism is truly just a lack of belief, then it’s not a claim at all , it’s an epistemic stance of suspension.

Yes! This is what I’ve been trying to get across.

Yet, in practice, atheistic arguments (like the “flaws in creation” reasoning) do operate as if they are positive claims. They draw conclusions that go beyond mere withholding of belief.

This is dubious. Offering reasons to doubt theism isn’t advocating atheism directly…but since theism and atheism are the only two possible positions on the god question, the implausibility of theistic claims does provide indirect evidence for non-theism, a-theism.

Remember there are only two possible resolutions to the god question. Either one or more gods exist (and theism is true), or no gods exist (and theism is false). I’m not seeing a third option here, and one would need to be there for your line of reasoning to succeed.

[Difflugia]

Yet, in practice, atheistic arguments (like the “flaws in creation” reasoning) do operate as if they are positive claims. They draw conclusions that go beyond mere withholding of belief.

This is dubious. Offering reasons to doubt theism isn’t advocating atheism directly…but since theism and atheism are the only two possible positions on the god question, the implausibility of theistic claims does provide indirect evidence for non-theism, a-theism.

Remember there are only two possible resolutions to the god question. Either one or more gods exist (and theism is true), or no gods exist (and theism is false). I’m not seeing a third option here, and one would need to be there for your line of reasoning to succeed.

You're also incorrectly accepting a subtle assumption that's present in William's question: "flaws in creation" arguments aren't atheist arguments as such, but anti-Christian (or anti-Abrahamic god, anyway). Whether some god exists somewhere or not, a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator that intentionally created the reality we see about us is utterly implausible. That's not a contradiction with being atheist in the sense of merely disbelieving. One may think that the concept of gods is a worthy one, but lack belief for lack of evidence. One may also believe simultaneously that the Christian god is such a failure as a concept that the one, particular, Christian god positively cannot exist.

[Haven]

You're also incorrectly accepting a subtle assumption that's present in William's question: "flaws in creation" arguments aren't atheist arguments as such, but anti-Christian (or anti-Abrahamic god, anyway).

I was doing this intentionally for the sake of steelmanning William’s argument. I try to give theists the benefit of the doubt when I debate.

Whether some god exists somewhere or not, a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator that intentionally created the reality we see about us is utterly implausible. That's not a contradiction with being atheist in the sense of merely disbelieving. One may think that the concept of gods is a worthy one, but lack belief for lack of evidence. One may also believe simultaneously that the Christian god is such a failure as a concept that the one, particular, Christian god positively cannot exist.

Agreed.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]

Is the theistic claim that we exist within a creation a single claim?

see "The Razor". (also see "Intellectual honesty")

That response doesn't answer my question. If the theistic claim that we exist within a creation is a single claim, then accusing me of assigning ALL theistic claims to the same field makes no sense.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]

I'm claiming that not all atheists claim we exist within a non-created thing. Some atheists claim to be agnostic regarding that claim. I can't speak to what all atheists think because I'm not a mind reader.

Mere Wordplay. See "Intellectual honesty"

If you are suggesting there was dishonesty in not acknowledging where some atheists might believe the "non-creation" claim, then you are misunderstanding what it means to be intellectually honest. It is one thing to believe the "non-creation" claim and something else to defend the claim as being true. If someone believes the "non-creation" claim but does not argue that the belief is justified, then the individual is being intellectually honest.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]
Our "particular argument" is that we do or do not exist within a created thing. Further to that, WAI and I pointed out what that entailed. You retorted with mockery. When it was pointed out, you stepped back and made almost but not quite, noise resembling apology for your retort.

Now you do the dance claiming it is not necessary to object to the idea that we exist within a created thing "if the idea is not headlined under any "particular creation argument"...how is that intellectual honesty? (not asking you in particular - more a case of wondering aloud).

I'm not following the logic of your objection here. Are you suggesting that intellectual honesty should have compelled me to presume the "creator" proposed in the scenario was the same "creator" proposed in your conversation with WAI? None of the evidence provided in your "Sarah" scenario served to rule-out any possibilities for how the "creator" was to be defined. Therefore, I was compelled by intellectual honesty to not rule-out any of those possibilities.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]
There are none either way, and that is the point.

Probability is off the table, so atheistic appeals to probability of creation vs. non-creation collapse as well.

That symmetry reinforces my stance: both creation and non-creation claims rest outside calculable probability, and evidence can only “gesture,” not settle.

What you are failing to recognize here is that your impression of the evidence as seeming to gesture one way or the other could be the product of confirmation bias. How do you rule-out the possibility that confirmation bias is the reason why the evidence seems to gesture one way or the other when the claim under investigation is unfalsifiable?

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]
And mirroring that, I want to know how atheists mitigate the possibility of confirmation bias, the problem of induction, and the problem of underdetermination in their evaluation of the evidence for unfalsifiable claims, such as "we do not exist within a created thing" and whether the answer for both claims is "we don't because we can't because such device is only useful re Physical Science and fails on questions/claims outside of said physical science.

All atheists and theists who make unfalsifiable claims are equally burdened.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]
Then why are you asking theists to reduce their beliefs to the standards of physical science or even questioning them about that?

Of what use is this thread? That has always been part of my overall critique...

I'm not demanding that theists reduce their beliefs to the standards of physical science. The falsifiability criterion is just how science mitigates the possibility of confirmation bias, the problem of induction, and the problem of underdetermination in the evaluation of evidence. Theists are welcome to adopt that standard if it helps them mitigate for where those logical problems exist in their own arguments, but they are also free to employ another reliable mitigating mechanism if one exists. If theists are unable to find another reliable mitigating mechanism, then maybe they should feel compelled by intellectual honesty to acknowledge where their conclusions derived through a theistic epistemological framework are unreliable on account of confirmation bias, the problem of induction, and the problem of underdetermination.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #143]

The "Sarah" scenario you crafted was delivered in isolation from your previous conversation with WAI.

Nothing I deliver is isolated from anything I deliver.

You were aware of data but chose to "isolate" it from your list of possibilities. I too was aware of placebo, and isolated that from my list of possibilities.

The difference between our responses is that I owned the "isolating" and adjusted according to intellectual honesty, whereas you have chosen to remain trapped in your double standard.

My conclusion is that this whole thread topic including the OP, is based upon its own confirmation bias and after many pages of back and forth, it is clear to me that the topic is true lacking intellectual honesty and I am content to withdraw any further interaction with it or its author at this point.

Actually, the difference is that my response identified where multiple possibilities existed and accounted for them by describing how the conclusion could or could not be justified depending on which possibility was being considered. So, I was not obligated to own the isolation of any possibility because none were isolated. To have excluded possibilities other than what was described in your conversation with WAI given the fact that the evidence provided in the scenario does not function to justify those exclusions would be logically fallacious. Therefore, your objection here only demonstrates that you still do not accurately understand how confirmation bias or intellectual honesty applies. Nevertheless, I'm content with allowing the audience to arrive at their own conclusions.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #142]

If atheism is truly just a lack of belief, then it’s not a claim at all , it’s an epistemic stance of suspension.

Yes! This is what I’ve been trying to get across.

Yet, in practice, atheistic arguments (like the “flaws in creation” reasoning) do operate as if they are positive claims. They draw conclusions that go beyond mere withholding of belief.

This is dubious. Offering reasons to doubt theism isn’t advocating atheism directly…but since theism and atheism are the only two possible positions on the god question, the implausibility of theistic claims does provide indirect evidence for non-theism, a-theism.

Remember there are only two possible resolutions to the god question. Either one or more gods exist (and theism is true), or no gods exist (and theism is false). I’m not seeing a third option here, and one would need to be there for your line of reasoning to succeed.

If we use The Razor, the idea of "God" derives from the fact of the universe...therefore the theistic approach (and consequently the atheistic contrast) is that the universe was created - or (contrast) the universe was not created.

Therefore, the first question or seed question is "Do we exist within a creation?" because the question "is there a God" can only come from that first question.

There is no "indirect evidence for non-theism/atheism" that has been presented by you which I haven't already debunked as atheistic belief. The idea that atheism can present as a neutral position is a product of subconscious confirmation bias and unchecked by those influenced by it, is in opposition to intellectual honesty.

Atheism as a position is a declaration that we do not exist in a created thing as surely as theism as a position is a declaration the we do exist in a created thing.

Now, we can examine this together or you can continue to deny it on your own.

[Haven]

Mere Wordplay. See "Intellectual honesty"

So after all of that (the detailed responses, academic sources, painstaking explanation of my views) the only conclusion you can reach is that I’m intellectually dishonest and doing mere wordplay?

Do you think it’s possible to be intellectually honest and to believe theism hasn’t met its burden of proof? If the answer is “no,” then that speaks volumes.