In his post of 17 February at 17.39, under "Refutation of the Language-Only Interpretation of Math", George wrote: "The idea of different forms or degrees of existence may have wider implications to the agnosticism debate," and he asked what kind of existence we might attribute to fictional, legendary and divine beings.-Not for the first time, George has raised a fundamental question. How do we distinguish between fact and fiction ... in relation not just to people, but also to those fields of which we ourselves have little or no knowledge? -Do any of us doubt that Euclid, Plato, Euripides lived? They all left behind a legacy that we can still study today. So, it may be said, did Jesus Christ. Millions of Christians "know" that he lived, that he was born of a virgin, worked miracles, and was resurrected three days after his death. There are people who write to Sherlock Holmes at 221b Baker Street, or who mourn when a soap opera character is killed off. In due course, when all of us are dead, we shall have no more reality than them, and a soap star is already more real to millions of people than I am. So is Jesus. There's a clear dividing line between the characters we know to be fiction and the characters we know to be historical, but the borders become very blurred when we get down to the details. How much of journalism and of history generally is fact and how much fiction?-Science, on the other hand, purports to deal only in facts. Everything is tested, and nothing is accepted as truth until it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". The virgin birth, miracles and resurrection of Christ will be regarded as "anecdotal", and since they can't be scientifically tested or proven, they have no place in the catalogue of facts. The same applies to any individual experience of "paranormal" events, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, communion with the dead, visions of the future. The implication is that there's a clear distinction between subjective and objective truths. Belief in a deity or any of the experiences listed above comes under the former, while science comes under the latter. Or does it?-I would suggest that in science too the borders between fact and fiction become blurred. New discoveries are being made all the time about the history and nature of the world we live in. Junk DNA is not junk, birds may not be descended from dinosaurs, evolution may not be gradualistic, Neanderthal man was far from primitive. Some of what we read in our science books a generation ago as fact is no longer valid. And what our grandchildren will read may well invalidate the so-called facts of today. -Just how blurred the borders are can perhaps be gauged by this extract from an illustrated encyclopedia of science (2003 edition):-"Yet somehow in this hostile environment, the first incredible spark of life began. No one knows for sure how this happened, but scientists think that energy from sunlight and lightning triggered the formation of chemicals that could copy themselves. This may have taken place in the chemical 'soup' that existed in the oceans, in shallow pools or around volcanoes. The next crucial step was when the self-copying chemicals became trapped in 'bubbles' of oil, which held them together. These tiny blobs of chemicals were the beginnings of the first living cells." The article goes on to tell how "some simple animals without backbones [..] developed into animals with backbones." And how life moved from the sea to the land: "Plants were first to make the move, followed by insects and other small animals, and finally 'walking fishes' called amphibians. From amphibians developed the first large land animals, the reptiles ... such as the dinosaurs ... and later birds and mammals, including humans." -Admirably, the author admits "no one knows for sure how this happened," and something "may have" taken place, and "scientists think..." ... i.e. it's a belief, not a fact ... but he also makes tantalizingly vague references to processes like "triggered" and "moved" and "developed". And yet the text has an authoritative ring to it, and one can well imagine young readers taking it all to be fact. I'd like to extend this account one step further: "God or sheer chance may have brought certain chemicals together so that they were able to copy themselves. God or sheer chance may have wrapped them in oil bubbles which held them together. God or sheer chance may have given them mechanisms that enabled them to adapt to new conditions and to produce new organs and faculties. Thanks to this God- or chance-assembled mechanism of adaptation and innovation, the original tiny, primitive cells eventually developed into us." A lot of adults currently believe in one or other version, and some are convinced that theirs is based on scientific evidence. And yet "no one knows for sure". The believers believe, regardless of the uncertainty. -I'm not criticizing the encyclopedia article ... it seems to me a fair résumé of current theory, and it doesn't hide its speculativeness. The problem lies in the gaps, and in the manner in which some people might fill them. With our current knowledge, how is it possible to distinguish gap-filling fact from gap-filling fiction? The consultant editor, by the way, is Richard Dawkins.

dhw writes: "I'd like to extend this account one step further: "God or sheer chance may have brought certain chemicals together so that they were able to copy themselves. God or sheer chance may have wrapped them in oil bubbles which held them together. God or sheer chance may have given them mechanisms that enabled them to adapt to new conditions and to produce new organs and faculties. Thanks to this God- or chance-assembled mechanism of adaptation and innovation, the original tiny, primitive cells eventually developed into us." A lot of adults currently believe in one or other version, and some are convinced that theirs is based on scientific evidence." -It seems then that God is indistinguishable from Chance. We know that chance exists. The entire science of statistics is based on it. -
With regard to the first part of dhw's post, there was an interesting discussion of Boudicca/Boadicea on Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" this week on BBC Radio 4. A couple of the speakers there, historians, indicated that she could be completely mythical, because of the lack of contemporary evidence. Though Tacitus was writing not long after the events. Certainly she has been presented in different guises by later generations to suit their own ends.

--
GPJ

DHW: God or sheer chance may have brought certain chemicals together so that they were able to copy themselves. God or sheer chance may have wrapped them in oil bubbles etc.-GEORGE: It seems then that God is indistinguishable from Chance. We know that chance exists. The entire science of statistics is based on it.-Since when did an either/or make the alternatives indistinguishable? I don't know whether George Jelliss (chance) or David Turell (design) is right about the origin of life. Does that make you identical twins? Of course we know that chance exists, and lots of things happen by chance. We also know that lots of things are designed. The origin of life, however, is unique in our experience, i.e. it has no known precedent and no known parallel. A reference to statistics (which ... erroneously? ... I thought were based on the collection of factual data, not on chance) is as meaningless in this context as a reference to the internal combustion engine. -Thank you for the item on Boadicea. The parallel with other mythical/historical figures from the distant past is unmissable, though you generously refrained from saying so! Once again this emphasizes the huge difficulties involved in distinguishing between fact and fiction when it comes to the history of Life on Earth.

This is a thread we might consider developing, because there are so many examples every day in our newspapers and journals. David has drawn our attention to an article dealing with the lies and damned lies that go to make up statistics. Two days ago the Guardian carried a piece about global warming, from which here are a couple of salient quotes:
 
"Much of the record-breaking loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean is down to the region's winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a study claims."-Last year, Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office wrote: "Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years."-The papers have also recently been full of the appalling behaviour of various Catholic bishops, who have covered up child abuse (fact) in order to protect the reputation of the Church (fiction), while the "infallible" Pope (fiction) pontificates with words and takes no action to deal with the guilty parties. -None of these topics has any direct relevance to the existence, non-existence or nature of God, but they have a great deal to do with our methods of approaching the subject. All of us depend on so-called experts for information concerning the many fields we know little or nothing about. Millions of people will have been misled by statistics, the headlines on global warming, the self-proclaimed virtues of the Church, and in exactly the same way people also accept the pronouncements of politicians, economists, scientists ... until others come along to debunk their claims. You might think that the questions we've been asking on this forum are best answered by scientists, mathematicians, poets, priests, mystics or philosophers, but whatever answers they come up with in relation to the existence and nature of God may well entail a great deal of fiction and precious little that can be confirmed as fact. Much of the fiction is cloaked in impressive language, often diverting attention away from the degree of speculation involved in the different conclusions, but of course the art of fiction is precisely to appear factual. A good writer or speaker will always find ways of convincing some people that such and such a vision/miracle/revelation actually occurred, or that globules of unconscious matter can make themselves into reproducing, seeing, hearing, moving, thinking machines. -Who, then, are we supposed to believe? Plenty of clever people have found a solution: follow the experts you want to follow, and take their word as fact; dismiss the others as purveyors of fiction. I suppose this is part of what we call faith.


> Who, then, are we supposed to believe? Plenty of clever people have found a solution: follow the experts you want to follow, and take their word as fact; dismiss the others as purveyors of fiction. I suppose this is part of what we call faith.-And Matt, because of his age, has always been exposed to peer review, which has exposed us to hidden agendas, and in a way thought control. Matt likes it because he was never exposed to the old system. Group belief is a sad result. One must be very skeptical of almost everything. I'm certain I love my wife, my dog, my daughter. The rest required careful thought.

In the case of science a lot of it is not a matter of trusting particular scientists. We believe it because it all holds together. The pieces all fit in place and support each other, and have been repeatedly shown to be reliable. -It is only at the frontiers where controversy appears. There we have to use character judgment and as far as possible seek out the facts for ourselves. Where the evidence is inadequate we have to say we don't know, but may nevertheless have to make an informed guess for practical or political purposes.-In the case of religion the evidence is of a far lower order of reliability (i.e. anecdotal and subjective) and the theories expounded by rival theologians are mutually contradictory. So there is no good reason to believe any of it.

--
GPJ

GEORGE: It is only at the frontiers where controversy appears. There we have to use character judgment and as far as possible seek out the facts for ourselves. Where the evidence is inadequate we have to say we don't know, but may nevertheless have to make an informed guess for practical or political purposes.-In the case of religion the evidence is of a far lower order of reliability (i.e. anecdotal and subjective) and the theories expounded by rival theologians are mutually contradictory. So there is no good reason to believe any of it.-In a practical or political context, I go along with the above, especially as you use the word "may" in relation to having to make guesses. On subjects like global warming, a layman like myself can't even make an informed guess, although huge numbers of non-scientists seem to have made up their minds already. However, I would like to apply the precepts of the first paragraph to the second. In the case of the origin of life, the theories expounded by rival scientists are mutually contradictory, since they can't all be right. So "there is no reason to believe any of them." You might argue that rival scientists are proceeding from the same assumption that there is a material explanation (and indeed there must be, whether the materials were combined by accident or by design), but one could also argue that rival theologians proceed from the same assumption that there is a divine explanation. Disagreements between theologians do not mean that the basic premise is wrong, any more than disagreements between scientists invalidate their starting-point.-As for reliability, your criteria depend entirely on the nature of what is being investigated. A testable subject like the composition of water obviously can't be compared to an untestable one like the aesthetic appeal of a Beethoven symphony. As you say, "it is only at the frontiers where controversy appears", and the frontiers in the context of our discussion are subjects like the origin of life, the nature of consciousness, the source of ideas/emotions/ aesthetics/the so-called "paranormal". These are cases where science has so far failed to come up with explanations, and "the evidence is inadequate". We cannot even be sure that science is better equipped than subjective experience to deal with such realities. Nevertheless, you and David have each chosen to make "an informed guess", based on the evidence available, and your informed guesses are the exact opposite of each other. I follow your first option and have to say I don't know.

The child abuse scandal shows that the Catholic Church needs the fiction of its own moral authority to maintain its credibility. Here are some more possible "facts versus fiction" claims to ponder:-A consolation for the world's suffering would be a loving God, and so man has invented one.
 
We fear death, and so we invent an everlasting life for ourselves.-Unthinking, impersonal, unconscious Nature can spontaneously assemble mechanisms (life, reproduction, evolution, consciousness, the senses) so complex that the most intelligent humans can scarcely understand them and are unable to replicate them. -Our consciousness, memory, will, creative powers, imagination, emotions etc. 
can/cannot be explained entirely in terms of chemical processes. -Experts such as politicians, scientists, economists, educationalists etc. know what they're talking about, and so we can trust them. -All so-called "paranormal" experiences have a rational explanation.-We are/are not animals.-We have/do not have free will.

The child abuse scandal shows that the Catholic Church needs the fiction of its own moral authority to maintain its credibility. Here are some more possible "facts versus fiction" claims to ponder:
> 
> A consolation for the world's suffering would be a loving God, and so man has invented one.
> 
> We fear death, and so we invent an everlasting life for ourselves.
> 
> Unthinking, impersonal, unconscious Nature can spontaneously assemble mechanisms (life, reproduction, evolution, consciousness, the senses) so complex that the most intelligent humans can scarcely understand them and are unable to replicate them. 
> 
> Our consciousness, memory, will, creative powers, imagination, emotions etc. 
> can/cannot be explained entirely in terms of chemical processes. 
> 
> Experts such as politicians, scientists, economists, educationalists etc. know what they're talking about, and so we can trust them. 
> 
> All so-called "paranormal" experiences have a rational explanation.
> 
> We are/are not animals.
> 
> We have/do not have free will.-None of these conundrums is surprising. We live in a reality that sits atop a layer of quantum uncertainty, and we will never know what is underneath that, if anything. If there is a deity, He hides behind that uncertainty, and purposely probably wants it that way. We live and die in a quandry, but we are free to choose what we wish to believe for ourselves.