Religion Breeds Irrationality

[44Foxtrot]

I have a pretty good understanding of probability. Your example is based upon the assumption that the probability distribution of each pixel is Bernoulli distribution with p = 1/2 and no correlation. If that isn’t the real probability distribution, then your model is flawed.

The example I used was intended to illustrate a general principle. If you are worried about correlations, then assume that the display is an analog TV CRT that is off channel and has no input signal, that one is looking at random, uncorrelated "snow", and that one is betting on the chances that a given pixel is off (or on) at a given instant in time.

You are thinking kind of fuzzy here. In your monitor example, we know that pixels exist, and that "on" and "off" are characteristics of pixels, etc.

The correct way to apply your reasoning to my analogy, is to say, I know Kalamazoo has a population of about 200,000. Half of those people are male, which takes it down to 100,000. I know that about 1/100 guys are named Jason, so that takes us down to 1,000 candidates. Tyler is a last name found among 1/200 people, which brings us down to 5 candidates, etc. Follow that reasoning down, and the probability of what I described existing would be 1 in a trillion. If I kept on adding details, the odds would keep getting lower.

Now, if I were just making up characteristics and throwing them together this way, this type of model would give the correct odds of me being lucky enough to describe an entity that by chance happens to actually exist.

The reason why that particular approach doesn’t work here is this: you don’t know how I came up with the list of characteristics. Maybe I just made it all up, or maybe I’m describing somebody I actually know. If I’m describing somebody I actually know, then the odds that this Jason Tyler entity exists as described are quite high. If I’m just making it all up, then the odds are quite low.

In the case of Elohim, you are addressing the probability that Joseph Smith made it all up, but out of sheer luck happened to be right. Nobody is making that claim—that is why this “maximum ignorance” line of reasoning is flawed.

In other words, you are claiming to be “maximally ignorant”, but you are also claiming to know the probability distribution of the various attributes being correct, and the statistical independence between those characteristics. If you really know these details about the probability distribution, you are far from maximally ignorant.

Statistics can be quite useful, but it can also lead to spectacularly bad results and unwarranted confidence, depending upon the situation.

I provided the illustration with maximum ignorance as a simplifying assumption for the question of whether God exists. I therefore do not agree that your response was on point in this case and can provide you with references by qualified authors who cast the "existence of God" problem in exactly the terms I have used.

You simply asked if the addition of more specific attributes to an entity or individual reduced the probability that such an entity or individual exists. My response was that, in general, such was the case, which is a true statement. If you already knew a Jason Tyler, then "maximum ignorance" was irrelevant. I also stated that since you are not at maximum ignorance, that the 50% deprecation for each added attribute would not apply. It was my intent to provide a tutorial on the fine points of statistics or probability estimates.

I absolutely stand by my statement that probability estimates are one of the best tools we have for making decisions given insufficient or incomplete data. And I trust that you would not disagree with this statement as I made it.

[mfbukowski]

I also stated that since you are not at maximum ignorance, that the 50% deprecation for each added attribute would not apply. Clearly, if you know of such a Jason Tyler, then you are far from maximum ignorance.

But you are not. The essential difference is one of point of view- he already knows of JT' existence, and you do not. Using the tools you mentioned, you would not find him although he did in fact exist.

Like I said, it is like looking for bacteria with a metal detector. In the quest for God, you have already discounted the one tool at your disposal as "unreliable". You will never hear the music if you don't turn on the radio.

[Deborah]

In the case of Elohim, we have no evidence that such an entity exists.

I can't believe you, as an alleged scientist, are actually saying that no evidence is equivalent to non-existence. How many future discoveries don't exist because Foxtrot says they can't because we don't have evidence of them now.

[mfbukowski]

I can't believe you, as an alleged scientist, are actually saying that no evidence is equivalent to non-existence. How many future discoveries don't exist because Foxtrot says they can't because we don't have evidence of them now.

It is the same as saying "There are no more undiscovered species, because we have no evidence of them now".

[44Foxtrot]

But you are not. The essential difference is one of point of view- he already knows of JT' existence, and you do not. Using the tools you mentioned, you would not find him although he did in fact exist.

Like I said, it is like looking for bacteria with a metal detector. In the quest for God, you have already discounted the one tool at your disposal as "unreliable". You will never hear the music if you don't turn on the radio.

First of all, I am not looking for a specific Jason Tyler, or for any Jason Tyler (or for God, for that matter). I am simply trying to estimate the probability that such an individual exists based on the available data. The more data I have, the better estimate I can generate of this probability.

Given no data whatsoever (maximum ignorance) the best I can do is as described earlier. When one uses this approach, the probability that God does exist drops as required attributes are added.

There is a feature of the purely probabilistic approach that may be of interest to you and Deborah. (I'm pretty sure that Analytics already knows this). Turns out if one asks the question, " What is the probability that God (or some specific god) does NOT exist ?" (again from maximum ignorance) - that probability remains at 50%. (This is because no attributes can be ascribed to something that does not exist.)

So in this case, I would agree with Analytics that one needs to frame the question properly when attempting to apply probability.

[44Foxtrot]

I can't believe you, as an alleged scientist, are actually saying that no evidence is equivalent to non-existence. How many future discoveries don't exist because Foxtrot says they can't because we don't have evidence of them now.

Deborah,

Nothing I have said equates to the statement that no evidence is equivalent to non-existence. (Please see the post above.)

All I am saying is that when it comes to estimating the probability that some God exists, the more attributes that one ascribes to that God, the lower the probability that such a God exists. I am saying noting more and nothing less. This is nothing startling or new.

When it comes to new science, the probability of a new discovery depends a great deal on whether or not such a discovery would violate the basic laws of physics, what research is being done in the area, etc.

For example, it should be clear that the discovery of new cures for certain forms of cancer are a lot more probable than the discovery of a perpetual motion machine (which would be highly improbable).

Also please note that I am not claiming that God does not exist. I am claiming that the probability God does exist is vanishingly small.

[44Foxtrot]

It is the same as saying "There are no more undiscovered species, because we have no evidence of them now".

No, it is not. Please see my post immediately above.

[Jeff K.]

All I am saying is that when it comes to estimating the probability that some God exists, the more attributes that one ascribes to that God, the lower the probability that such a God exists. I am saying noting more and nothing less. This is nothing startling or new.

That doesn't make sense. Assigning attributes does not correlate with a lower probability of the existence of any particular persons or species. If I assign more attributes to Lincoln than I do Washington, it does not mean Lincoln has a lower liklihood of not existing. That is just plain silly. If that is all you are saying you perhaps should give up your stealth "I am a scientist" mode and look for some other masquerade to don.

For example, it should be clear that the discovery of new cures for certain forms of cancer are a lot more probable than the discovery of a perpetual motion machine (which would be highly improbable).

And of course the liklihood of man ever flying was a much lower probability for man than say a cure for the common cold (which early chemists thought they were on the verge of developing). Of course we know that flying did indeed develop sooner than the common cold did. This can be attributed to the fact that a specific field of technology developed and allowed for the development of heavier than air flying machines. So the premise that one type of technology or knowledge would somehow come before another type of technology or knowledge in a completely different field reflects a lack of understanding as to how knowledge develops and as to how it is used. Again a very silly analogy considering the lack of background knowledge trot reflects in both science and theology. It is the equivalent of a stockbroker saying that he knows what dark matter is made of. He has neither the experience, nor the knowledge to make the assessment.

Trot is a faithbased individual whose dogmatic faith or lack of coherence refuse to allow him the luxury of entertaining new ideas.

[Analytics]

I provided the illustration with maximum ignorance as a simplifying assumption for the question of whether God exists. I therefore do not agree that your response was on point in this case and can provide you with references by qualified authors who cast the "existence of God" problem in exactly the terms I have used.

I'd be interested in reading what these "qualified authors" have to say in their own words.

You simply asked if the addition of more specific attributes to an entity or individual reduced the probability that such an entity or individual exists. My response was that, in general, such was the case, which is a true statement. If you already knew a Jason Tyler, then "maximum ignorance" was irrelevant.

I would say that in general, the addition of more specific attributes to an entity or individual has no bearing on the likelihood of it existing or not. In the very specific situation of being maximally ignorant, I see the point. But I wouldn't call maximum ignorance the general case.

The Jason Tyler example illustrates this point. From your perspective, some guy on the Internet is claiming to know Jason Tyler. You don't know if I'm telling the truth or not--whether my story is plausible and whether I'm trustworthy are both open to debate. But the mere fact that I made that claim causes your ignorance level to dip down to a level below maximum. Therefore, the “maximum ignorance” model is no longer applicable. Now that I’ve made the claim, the correct probability model has shifted from a "maximum ignorance" model to one that focuses on the plausibility of my claim and my reliability as a witness. If I’m trustworthy and the claim is plausible, then it’s quite likely that Jason Tyler exists. If not, you should give my testimony little weight, and we regress towards maximum ignorance, and the only way I could be right is by sheer luck.

Substitute Joseph Smith for Analytics, and substitute "Elohim" for Jason Tyler, and you see that the same point applies to the question of whether "Elohim" exists.

I absolutely stand by my statement that probability estimates are one of the best tools we have for making decisions given insufficient or incomplete data. And I trust that you would not disagree with this statement as I made it.

I agree with that statement as you made it. I merely add to that despite its value, statistics is prone to misuse and misunderstanding—like every other kind of model, a statistical model is only as good as the assumptions that go into it. I add to that the observation that a lot of people—even practitioners—don’t grasp the full implications of the assumptions in a statistical model.

[WalkerW]

Great article:

James Hannam, "Science and Christianity Can Get On Better Than You Think," Patheos (April 14, 2011).

Note the following:

As it happens, ignorance concerning the real relationship between science and Christianity remains extremely common. The current creationism/evolution debate obscures everything else and leads most people to assume that a state of antagonism has persisted between science and religion throughout the centuries. The truth is quite different and far more interesting. Pious scientists like [Francis] Collins have been far more common historically than non-believers like [Martin] Rees or [Richard] Dawkins. The old story of an eternal conflict between science and religion is now universally rejected by historians. The conflict myth was a product of particular political disputes at particular historical moments.

Hannam also points out that atheists like PZ Meyers objected to Collins' appointment to the NIH due to his religious beliefs. Who does that remind you of?

Next:

In fact, the only important scientist ever to be executed was Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry. He was guillotined during the French revolutionary terror by the avowedly anti-Christian Jacobins.

[Calm]

There may be a lot of American Mormons who work in the sciences. (In my experience, this is certainly not the case outside the US.) And the Church does encourage education among its members (or at least it used to when I was in school).

However, in recent years the Church has seen fit to align itself more closely with the anti-science conservative factions in this country. Most of the Mormon scientists I know personally, including a number of very good ones, among them my present business partner, my former boss at a national laboratory, have left the Church, some with no small degree of acrimony.

The only Mormon scientists I still know personally who remain in the Church are my two sons and a former Stake President.

I personally know a number of Canadian LDS scientists.

[Minos]

I ask myself the same question. There are different kinds of intelligence. There are different kinds of success. Whatever good qualities they may exhibit, these individuals clearly lack curiosity, critical thinking skills, courage or integrity.

Adieu

[Biz]

I just finished reading this thread and could not help but think of the wonderful story in Alma 30. We may not ever be able to comprehend the mysteries of God, but if we get caught up in trying to we may just end up alienating ourselves from him. Perhaps the only way we can ever know God exists is through prayer. I only include a few relevant verses from Korihors conundrum.

Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:

13O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.

14Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

16Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

17And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime...

48Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe."

I think of Korihor as having the attitude, "You don't exist, but don't punish me" "I want to believe, but you are unbelievable" and finally "I hate you, but don't leave me." Nothing has been more applicable to me in my belief in God than to "become as a little child." Helpful to me recently was Elder Anderson's talk last conference, "Never Leave Him."

Lastly I may add, arguing/debating religion breeds irrationality, however, (In most instances) practicing religion cultivates love, compassion, and respect.

Biz

[WalkerW]

In connection to the article I cited, I plan on reading the following in the near future:

James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Regnery Publishing, 2011).

I'm sure it will give more context to Peter Harrison's (Oxford) articles:

"Was There a Scientific Revolution?" European Review 15:4 (2007).

"The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science," Science & Christian Belief 18:2 (2006).