Probability your religion is true?

Arthra · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
That is an interesting point. You seem to be saying that Bahai don't believe anything that couldn't be found in a history book or a UN wish list. Therefore, you don't need to admit to having any doubts about your religion.
What I notice as a non-Bahai is capitalized words like "Central Figures", "Faith", "Writings", "Personages". I think Bahai believe things that are not obvious, so what percentage would you give for Bahai beliefs?

Thanks "cloudy" for your comments! and yes the United Nations or a World Parliament was suggested to the then rulers of the world by Baha'u'llah back in 1867 when He a prisoner of the Ottoman Sultan. I also appreciate that you noticed we do capitalize some words like Central Figures, Writings and Personages because they really are historical verifiable words. You are also welcome to think Baha'is believe things that are "not obvious" to you... should you have any questions do feel free to ask!

cloudyday2 · Nov 23, 2016

Arthra said:
Thanks "cloudy" for your comments! and yes the United Nations or a World Parliament was suggested to the then rulers of the world by Baha'u'llah back in 1867 when He a prisoner of the Ottoman Sultan. I also appreciate that you noticed we do capitalize some words like Central Figures, Writings and Personages because they really are historical verifiable words. You are also welcome to think Baha'is believe things that are "not obvious" to you... should you have any questions do feel free to ask!

I can ask my questions, but I shouldn't hold my breath for an answer apparently Let me try again. How much confidence do you have in the Bahai beliefs? 5%, 50%, 95%? For example, it is not obvious that Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God. You must have uncertainty - even if you are unable or unwilling to admit to uncertainty.

cloudyday2 · Nov 23, 2016

I'm surprised that so many people are dodging the question of uncertainty. I expected that a few Christians in certain denominations would be unwilling to admit to uncertainty because they might think that their level of certainty determines their fate in the afterlife. I also expected that most people would have difficulty quantifying their uncertainty. I didn't expect that so many religious people would dodge the question. (I do appreciate the people who have tried to answer the question. Also many people have given some responses that didn't answer the question but were still interesting, informative, or funny. Probably the most artful dodge award goes to @Uber Genius for forcing me to strain my brain reading the article on Bayesian probability in wikipedia.)

GrowingSmaller · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying that because the word "God" exists in our vocabulary then God must exist? I think Nietzsche said that humans will not be able to fully disbelieve in God unless our language changes to eliminate the concept.

No what I mean is something like a modal argument, similar to Alvin Plantinga. If God exists in one world he exists in all worlds. He's kind of expansive. So if theres a small - even miniscule - chance he exists in this world, then by that same logic in one logically possible world he actually does exist. The diffence between God and unicorns, or magical faeries is they are bound to their contingent reality.

If God is possible, he is actual. And if he is actual, then he is actual in all worlds (that being the nature of the "one true God" we just discussed).

cloudyday2 · Nov 23, 2016

GrowingSmaller said:
No what I mean is something like a modal argument, similar to Alvin Plantinga. If God exists in one world he exists in all worlds. He's kind of expansive. So if theres a small - even miniscule - chance he exists in this world, then by that same logic in one logically possible world he actually does exist. The diffence between God and unicorns, or magical faeries is they are bound to their contingent reality.

If God is possible, he is actual. And if he is actual, then he is actual in all worlds (that being the nature of the "one true God" we just discussed).

Interesting... So I suppose the probability of God would match your confidence in the modal argument.

As a humanist, what are the implications of believing in some generalized God? Most humanists I have encountered are atheists.

Uber Genius · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
I think you are trying to make it complicated so you won't have to answer the question

No I assumed you would want to know you were making a common mistake. It is one of the first things you learn as a college freshman.

cloudyday2 said:
Of course a Christian professes belief in the resurrection in the Nicene Creed

Of coarse people who claim beliefs claim beliefs, your not saying anything...

If you want to suggest an appeal to authority (e.g. Nicene Creed), you have created a straw man. I didn't say I believe in the resurrection because some creed told me so. I gave a lengthy PROBABALISTIC abductive case. Which you are trying to turn into an appeal to authority or so it appears.

cloudyday2 said:
In reality, all Christians have some doubts. I'm trying to explore that issue. Ideally, Christians choose to live their lives as though they are certain, but none of them are certain

____________ have some doubts. Ideally, _________ choose to live their lives as though they were certain (fill in the blank with any doxastic claim).

cloudyday2 said:
Of course most Christians hedge their bets too. How many Christians truly live their lives as though they are certain of Christianity?)

"Of coarse _________ hedge their bets too. How many _________ truly live their lives as though they are certain of ___________? (Again... Fill in the blank with any worldview).

You are making significant efforts to dodge looking at the evidence.

Modernism gave us some great things including the scientific method (Christians), but certainty wasn't one of them! No one is looking for certainty. Descartes (again a Christian) taught us (with the help of Hume who is not a Christian) that we can't be sure of the reality of the external world, other minds, the past, uniformity of nature over time.

If we can't be "Certain" that there is a world, or that we are not trapped in The Matrix, then we can't be certain of anything. But that just means we operate without certainty. So what?

Why think that we need something similar to a mathematical proof to call our experience of the external world, or other people, or our thinking about the past real?

Uber Genius · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
Interesting... So I suppose the probability of God would match your confidence in the modal argument.

As a humanist, what are the implications of believing in some generalized God? Most humanists I have encountered are atheists.

On secular humanism what is immoral about the Holocaust?

Why do atheists steal Christian values like though shalt not kill? Clearly that is not a natural instinct. And on atheism, our morals are socially constructed.

Uber Genius · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
I didn't expect that so many religious people would dodge the question

They have attended college and recognize that your question is as valid as the age old, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?

2PhiloVoid · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
I'm surprised that so many people are dodging the question of uncertainty. I expected that a few Christians in certain denominations would be unwilling to admit to uncertainty because they might think that their level of certainty determines their fate in the afterlife. I also expected that most people would have difficulty quantifying their uncertainty. I didn't expect that so many religious people would dodge the question. (I do appreciate the people who have tried to answer the question. Also many people have given some responses that didn't answer the question but were still interesting, informative, or funny. Probably the most artful dodge award goes to @Uber Genius for forcing me to strain my brain reading the article on Bayesian probability in wikipedia.)

In my case, Cloudy, I wasn't intentionally dodging. It's just that the "Street Epistemologist's" challenge toward theism fits better with certain kinds of epistemological frameworks and assumptions. In the case of Religion, I approach the probability of my faith in a fashion that is more in tune with Coherentism, with a big splash of Existentialism to top it off.

If I were practicing science, I would appropriate a more Evidentialist, Inductive type approach, which would of course avail itself much better to probability.

As it stands, after reading Stephen D. Unwin's book, The Probability of God, I found that I disagreed with Unwin in the application of probability, even Bayesian probability, to my faith. I think Unwin's application of Bayesian probability is good for use in scientific avenues, but not much for those involving religion. The reason I say this is that I think there are too many uncontrollable variables in the assessment of religious faith, as well as too many epistemic unknowns. So, this is why I don't answer the "Street Epistemologist's" challenge.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Chesterton · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
I'm surprised that so many people are dodging the question of uncertainty. I expected that a few Christians in certain denominations would be unwilling to admit to uncertainty because they might think that their level of certainty determines their fate in the afterlife. I also expected that most people would have difficulty quantifying their uncertainty. I didn't expect that so many religious people would dodge the question. (I do appreciate the people who have tried to answer the question. Also many people have given some responses that didn't answer the question but were still interesting, informative, or funny. Probably the most artful dodge award goes to @Uber Genius for forcing me to strain my brain reading the article on Bayesian probability in wikipedia.)

I went back and read your OP about probability. What specific question about uncertainty are people dodging?

cloudyday2 · Nov 23, 2016

Uber Genius said:
No I assumed you would want to know you were making a common mistake. It is one of the first things you learn as a college freshman.

Of coarse people who claim beliefs claim beliefs, your not saying anything...

If you want to suggest an appeal to authority (e.g. Nicene Creed), you have created a straw man. I didn't say I believe in the resurrection because some creed told me so. I gave a lengthy PROBABALISTIC abductive case. Which you are trying to turn into an appeal to authority or so it appears.

____________ have some doubts. Ideally, _________ choose to live their lives as though they were certain (fill in the blank with any doxastic claim).

"Of coarse _________ hedge their bets too. How many _________ truly live their lives as though they are certain of ___________? (Again... Fill in the blank with any worldview).

You are making significant efforts to dodge looking at the evidence.

Modernism gave us some great things including the scientific method (Christians), but certainty wasn't one of them! No one is looking for certainty. Descartes (again a Christian) taught us (with the help of Hume who is not a Christian) that we can't be sure of the reality of the external world, other minds, the past, uniformity of nature over time.

If we can't be "Certain" that there is a world, or that we are not trapped in The Matrix, then we can't be certain of anything. But that just means we operate without certainty. So what?

Why think that we need something similar to a mathematical proof to call our experience of the external world, or other people, or our thinking about the past real?

@Uber Genius , I think you have misunderstood what I have written (much as you misunderstood something else I had written a few days ago when you labeled my post a "genetic fallacy"). I don't have the energy or brain power to wade through your responses in detail, but taking your equation for Bayesian inference as one example, this seems to be a rational method of adjusting an existing probability in response to new statistics. (I was a freshman 30 years ago, but that is how it seems from skimming the wikipedia article briefly.) I can't imagine how that is relevant to the question I asked. I'm not asking how you adjust your subjective probability as you learn new things - I'm asking what your subjective probability is right now. Is it 5%, 50%, 95%?

cloudyday2 · Nov 23, 2016

Chesterton said:
I went back and read your OP about probability. What specific question about uncertainty are people dodging?

Well, I recently read William James speech "The Will to Believe" ( http://educ.jmu.edu//~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html ). In a nutshell, James seems to argue that a rational person can choose to believe in a religion - as long as that religion is not already debunked. A person might feel that atheism is far more likely to be true than Christianity, but that person might still choose to "believe" in Christianity by making decisions as though Christianity is true. In some cases a person must try a belief to gain confidence in it.

So this is what I'm trying to understand. How many of you religious people actually have very low confidence in your religious claims but choose to follow your religion anyway? Some of you might be following your religion on a trial basis to discover if it works or is true. Other might be following your religion because it give you more appreciation of life or whatever.

Chesterton · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
Well, I recently read William James speech "The Will to Believe" ( http://educ.jmu.edu//~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html ). In a nutshell, James seems to argue that a rational person can choose to believe in a religion - as long as that religion is not already debunked. A person might feel that atheism is far more likely to be true than Christianity, but that person might still choose to "believe" in Christianity by making decisions as though Christianity is true. In some cases a person must try a belief to gain confidence in it.

Making decisions as though something is true is not the same as believing it, which is I guess why you put "believe" in quotation marks? What you really mean is they're pretending for some reason? I agree with the last thing you said about trying a belief to gain confidence in it.

So this is what I'm trying to understand. How many of you religious people actually have very low confidence in your religious claims but choose to follow your religion anyway? Some of you might be following your religion on a trial basis to discover if it works or is true. Other might be following your religion because it give you more appreciation of life or whatever.

Can only speak for myself but I have high confidence even though I can't put a number on it. It's kind of funny you mention a trial basis though, because after many years, it was only about 6 months ago that I came to know absolutely that I was not doing that. I knew there's no looking back and I will be a Christian til the day I die.

yeshuaslavejeff · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
How much confidence do you have in the Bahai beliefs?

ZERO

MehGuy · Nov 23, 2016

yeshuaslavejeff said:
ZERO

Oh you!

lol.

yeshuaslavejeff · Nov 23, 2016

MehGuy said:
Oh you!

lol.

just quoting the BIBLE. (look it up if you have time)

MehGuy · Nov 23, 2016

yeshuaslavejeff said:
just quoting the BIBLE. (look it up if you have time)

I'm tempting to post that text version of the meme again..

lol.

PloverWing · Nov 23, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
So this is what I'm trying to understand. How many of you religious people actually have very low confidence in your religious claims but choose to follow your religion anyway? Some of you might be following your religion on a trial basis to discover if it works or is true. Other might be following your religion because it give you more appreciation of life or whatever.

I have trouble placing an actual probability number on my level of certainty, because it would have to be based on statistics I don't have access to -- counting the number of possible worlds in which God does exist, doesn't exist, with or without different kinds of evidence -- you see the problem.

But for your less-mathematically-worded question, I'll attempt some non-mathematical answers:

I have high confidence in the ethical way of life that Jesus taught, because I have seen how it works out in my own life. (Probability = "pretty likely")

I have less confidence in the various metaphysical assertions of Christianity, the kinds of things that are listed in the Nicene Creed. But: If the Nicene Creed is true -- that there's a God who, in love, entered into human existence and experienced a human life, and thus transformed our life -- that's so amazing and wonderful that I have to explore that possibility. I'm aware that I might be completely wrong about the existence of God, but there's enough evidence in enough places to make me follow the path of Christianity to see if it actually turns out to be true. (Probability = "more likely than not")

There are other parts of Christian theology that are pretty speculative -- the existence of Purgatory, the exact nature of Mary, and so on -- that I just try to make a good guess about. (Probability = "who knows?")

I don't think I can choose whether to believe something; but, yes, I can choose whether to act as though something is true, in situations where I have some support for a belief but lack certainty. It happens frequently in everyday life, and it happens very frequently in my religious life.

Arthra · Nov 24, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
How much confidence do you have in the Bahai beliefs? 5%, 50%, 95%? For example, it is not obvious that Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God. You must have uncertainty - even if you are unable or unwilling to admit to uncertainty.

Cloudy,

When I became a Baha'i I accepted Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation of God... that was around fifty years ago... and I'm as certain today as I was back then.

Robban · Nov 24, 2016

Uber Genius said:
You had to use the "P" word...

cloudyday2 said:
It seems to me that "belief" in a religion is the decision to behave as though that religion is true. A person might reason that a religion is 5% likely to be true, but that same person might decide to "believe" that religion - i.e. live according to that religion. This is similar to when a person places a large bet on a horse to win after studying all the statistics. In addition, most people don't behave as though their religion is true all the time; most people will only stick their necks out so far. This is similar to how much a person is willing to bet on their chosen horse.

So I'm curious what probabilities you might give that your religion is true.

Taking the lift/elevator up to the top floor, Is there a probability
it will get stuck between floors?

Is there a possibility it will get stuck between two floors?

Probability your religion is true?

Baha'i

Generic Theist

Generic Theist

Muslm Humanist

Generic Theist

"Super Genius"

"Super Genius"

"Super Genius"

I'm Crunching ....the Number!

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Generic Theist

Generic Theist

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

A member of the less neotenous sex..

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

A member of the less neotenous sex..

Episcopalian

Baha'i

-----------

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency