Probability your religion is true?

[Quid est Veritas?]

I feel like that's a very negative way of looking at it.

People who are agnostic or atheist still find meaning in their lives without becoming depressed or suicidal. They simply do what everyone else strives to do: find something they like doing in life and pursuing as their happiness. Saying "the religious have God as their purpose and non-religious have nothing so suicide is one of their only options" is a really entitled way of looking at it.

Take it up with Existentialism. This is a very simplistically stated form of Albert Camus and Blaise Paschal's reasoning on these matters.

What you describe is one of the options, Distraction or perhaps accepting the Absurd. Theists merely have a fourth option, God.

I never said "religious people have God and non-religious suicide", that is your own inference - which I for one cannot see how you concluded this from what I wrote.

 

[cloudyday2]

I feel like that's a very negative way of looking at it.

People who are agnostic or atheist still find meaning in their lives without becoming depressed or suicidal. They simply do what everyone else strives to do: find something they like doing in life and pursuing as their happiness. Saying "the religious have God as their purpose and non-religious have nothing so suicide is one of their only options" is a really entitled way of looking at it.

I agree with the response from @Quid est Veritas? - at least in my personal experience. Most people are so busy thinking about getting their children to school, finishing some project at work, planning their vacation, that they don't think about their purpose in life. That would be the "distraction" solution, and that is also probably a sign of psychological health and balance. Most atheists are productive and psychologically healthy people, so they don't think about their purpose in life very much. It is the people with depression and other issues that worry about purpose - at least in my experience.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I agree with the response from @Quid est Veritas? - at least in my personal experience. Most people are so busy thinking about getting their children to school, finishing some project at work, planning their vacation, that they don't think about their purpose in life. That would be the "distraction" solution, and that is also probably a sign of psychological health and balance. Most atheists are productive and psychologically healthy people, so they don't think about their purpose in life very much. It is the people with depression and other issues that worry about purpose - at least in my experience.

In emotional sense, I think sense of meaning is not dependent of having a theory about some absolute meaning. People who have strong beliefs about absolute meaning of life, can still feel desperately meaningless. Sense of meaning is something that's in the heart, not so much in the brain.

I believe that most people's sense of meaning is more of a sum of 50 'little meanings', rather than having one single total purpose that removes the entire questionmark. That seems to be rather rare. I think average people build a mosaic of many things, that make them feel meaningful and when all that is put together, there is just unexplainable sense of meaning that most people aren't that great at putting in the words of what exactly is behind that sense. It's a rather subconscious thing.

For me personally, my spiritual life is absolutely crucial for my own sense of meaning, but I don't expect everyones inner life to function in the same way as mine. I believe many non-religious people are a lot happier with their human existence than I am, and I don't need to make it a matter of jealosy or competition. I can just choose to appreciate the mysteries of human happiness.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Take it up with Existentialism. This is a very simplistically stated form of Albert Camus and Blaise Paschal's reasoning on these matters.

What you describe is one of the options, Distraction or perhaps accepting the Absurd. Theists merely have a fourth option, God.

I never said "religious people have God and non-religious suicide", that is your own inference - which I for one cannot see how you concluded this from what I wrote.

I apologize there, the reason I thought that was because you mentioned how if you're non-religious you lean toward "existential nihilism" and those three points being the Absurd that you mentioned mine was more following, suicide or suicidally inclined, or searching for something else. I guess I kind of blew things out of proportion there, my apologies!

I agree with the response from @Quid est Veritas? - at least in my personal experience. Most people are so busy thinking about getting their children to school, finishing some project at work, planning their vacation, that they don't think about their purpose in life. That would be the "distraction" solution, and that is also probably a sign of psychological health and balance. Most atheists are productive and psychologically healthy people, so they don't think about their purpose in life very much. It is the people with depression and other issues that worry about purpose - at least in my experience.

Oh, that makes sense.

 

[ananda]

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.

I "believe" in my religion because it is not based on blind faith, but on personally verifiable evidence. Therefore my religion is true to the extent that my senses provide me with accurate information.

My religion is described as teachings "to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves." Nothing to believe in with blind faith (even history!)

 

[Chesterton]

I believe that most people's sense of meaning is more of a sum of 50 'little meanings', rather than having one single total purpose that removes the entire questionmark. That seems to be rather rare. I think average people build a mosaic of many things, that make them feel meaningful and when all that is put together, there is just unexplainable sense of meaning that most people aren't that great at putting in the words of what exactly is behind that sense. It's a rather subconscious thing.

I agree, and what you said here about a mosaic is a lot like something G. K. Chesterton said in Orthodoxy:

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts. The secularist is not to be blamed because his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy; it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind. I mean that a man may well be less convinced of a philosophy from four books, than from one book, one battle, one landscape, and one old friend. The very fact that the things are of different kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion. Now, the non-Christianity of the average educated man to-day is almost always, to do him justice, made up of these loose but living experiences. I can only say that my evidences for Christianity are of the same vivid but varied kind as his evidences against it. For when I look at these various anti-Christian truths, I simply discover that none of them are true. I discover that the true tide and force of all the facts flows the other way.​

 

[Uber Genius]

You had to use the "P" word...

 

[Uber Genius]

You just had to use the "p" word...

Probabilities are usually more helpful when tied to events. Truth tables can be filled with a rather large number of option, which in-turn makes the probability smaller but the individual truth claim no weaker.example:

Example:

Imaging there are 20 different posters on this thread. Odds of the statement, "_________ was the initial poster," given 20 potential candidates to fill on that blank is only 5%. But the statement "Cloudyday2 was the initial poster," is 100% true. In fact probabilities have nothing to do with what is true in the external world, but rather what is likely, given certain knowledge.

Imagine we want to determine if a miracle occurred such as the resurrection of Jesus.
Here is a restatement in Bayesian interferential form:


Pr(M/E&B) = (Pr(M/B) ⊆ Pr(E/M&B))/Pr(E/B)



Probability (Pr) that a miracle(M) occurred = Probability of a miracle given our background knowledge (B) divided by the probability of not a miracle given our background knowledge times the probability of the evidence (E) for the miracle given the miracle occurred and given our background knowledge divided by the probability of the evidence given that the miracle did not occur and given our background knowledge.

So the question We should have been asking (given Bayes), is, "What is the chances of witnesses, and experts (doctors), reporting miracles knowing that they would be openly mocked as liars, charlatans and fools." This applies even more significantly with testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Since testimonies often resulted in death, not just being outcast.

There are 8-10 facts that are universally affirmed about the death, burial, and resurrection by professional historians (I said historians not propagandist or charlatans) whether they be theist or atheists.

We take those and look what bayes says.

We take the 31 or so initial conditions of the universe or laws of physics fine-tuned for life and we find out if chance, necessity, or design best accounts for the data.

Those are the types of things we look for in probability.

We can use logic to eliminate the incoherent religions. Philosophical Naturalism is self-refuting as Satre, Camus, and a host of atheist philosophers have complained (mostly of nausea).

The God of Islam is not loving or merciful. These are moral perfections and not attained by Allah. So one by one we can investigate claims and evidence. What is the origin of objective morals given paganism? Or Buddhism? Illusory.

Hope this helps more than it hurts.

 

[cloudyday2]

You just had to use the "p" word...

Probabilities are usually more helpful when tied to events. Truth tables can be filled with a rather large number of option, which in-turn makes the probability smaller but the individual truth claim no weaker.example:

Example:

Imaging there are 20 different posters on this thread. Odds of the statement, "_________ was the initial poster," given 20 potential candidates to fill on that blank is only 5%. But the statement "Cloudyday2 was the initial poster," is 100% true. In fact probabilities have nothing to do with what is true in the external world, but rather what is likely, given certain knowledge.

Imagine we want to determine if a miracle occurred such as the resurrection of Jesus.
Here is a restatement in Bayesian interferential form:


Pr(M/E&B) = (Pr(M/B) ⊆ Pr(E/M&B))/Pr(E/B)



Probability (Pr) that a miracle(M) occurred = Probability of a miracle given our background knowledge (B) divided by the probability of not a miracle given our background knowledge times the probability of the evidence (E) for the miracle given the miracle occurred and given our background knowledge divided by the probability of the evidence given that the miracle did not occur and given our background knowledge.

So the question We should have been asking (given Bayes), is, "What is the chances of witnesses, and experts (doctors), reporting miracles knowing that they would be openly mocked as liars, charlatans and fools." This applies even more significantly with testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Since testimonies often resulted in death, not just being outcast.

There are 8-10 facts that are universally affirmed about the death, burial, and resurrection by professional historians (I said historians not propagandist or charlatans) whether they be theist or atheists.

We take those and look what bayes says.

We take the 31 or so initial conditions of the universe or laws of physics fine-tuned for life and we find out if chance, necessity, or design best accounts for the data.

Those are the types of things we look for in probability.

We can use logic to eliminate the incoherent religions. Philosophical Naturalism is self-refuting as Satre, Camus, and a host of atheist philosophers have complained (mostly of nausea).

The God of Islam is not loving or merciful. These are moral perfections and not attained by Allah. So one by one we can investigate claims and evidence. What is the origin of objective morals given paganism? Or Buddhism? Illusory.

Hope this helps more than it hurts.

LOL, so how confident are you in your religious beliefs? 5%? 50%? 95%?... You mentioned the resurrection, and most Christians feel that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is essential. So what subjective probability would you assign to the resurrection being a historical event? I think you are trying to make it complicated so you won't have to answer the question

EDIT: Of course a Christian professes belief in the resurrection in the Nicene Creed. 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. (Of course most Christians hedge their bets too. How many Christians truly live their lives as though they are certain of Christianity?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Well, Cloudy, first of all, I'm not sure that placing a bet on a set of "race-horses" is an apt enough analogy, and if you insist on playing with this analogy, then I'd modify it a little and say that our personal evaluation of the possible truth value of our religion is more like ... taking a little jaunt down to the race track, and being permitted to get a quick glimpse of each competitor in the Derby. Surprisingly, in peering through the gates, we don't find a consistency in the types and breeds of horses posted there with their riders; it's a menagerie of various "types."

In gate number 1 is a Thoroughbread that has had a track history of successes and a fair number of losses. In gate 2 is an Arabian horse, a bit newer to the racing scene than the mayor in gate 1, but also with a track history of successes, and a couple of losses--and in looking down, you notice it's missing a shoe or two, and a bit of a hoof. Then, in gate 3 is a Quarterhorse, but strangely enough, there's a fat jockey riding it. Moving on to gate 4 is an American paint horse; it looks healthy enough, but...where's it jockey? Then, in gate 5 there's a wild mustang, fidgeting and bucking--how is it even here in the gate?! It's making a lot of noise! In gate 6 is...an old mule? With an old rider? (Fancy, betting on him!) And then in gate 7 is a Shetland pony with a very tiny rider.

Well, now. If you had to bet on a "horse" in this menagerie, which would you bet on?

My point is that sometimes when we bet, we don't bet only by way of our perception about the potential of "our horse" alone, but as it stands in contrast with the aesthetic and empirical indices by which we compare our horse with its "competitors," all things NOT being equal.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Chesterton]

LOL, so how confident are you in your religious beliefs? 5%? 50%? 95%?... You mentioned the resurrection, and most Christians feel that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is essential. So what subjective probability would you assign to the resurrection being a historical event? I think you are trying to make it complicated so you won't have to answer the question

EDIT: Of course a Christian professes belief in the resurrection in the Nicene Creed. 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. (Of course most Christians hedge their bets too. How many Christians truly live their lives as though they are certain of Christianity?)

Ha, I had to laugh at "hedge their bets". How would I even do that? Go to mosque once or twice a year just in case?

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, Cloudy, first of all, I'm not sure that placing a bet on a set of "race-horses" is an apt enough analogy, and if you insist on playing with this analogy, then I'd modify it a little and say that our personal evaluation of the possible truth value of our religion is more like ... taking a little jaunt down to the race track, and being permitted to get a quick glimpse of each competitor in the Derby. Surprisingly, in peering through the gates, we don't find a consistency in the types and breeds of horses posted there with their riders; it's a menagerie of various "types."

In gate number 1 is a Thoroughbread that has had a track history of successes and a fair number of losses. In gate 2 is an Arabian horse, a bit newer to the racing scene than the mayor in gate 1, but also with a track history of successes, and a couple of losses--and in looking down, you notice it's missing a shoe or two, and a bit of a hoof. Then, in gate 3 is a Quarterhorse, but strangely enough, there's a fat jockey riding it. Moving on to gate 4 is an American paint horse; it looks healthy enough, but...where's it jockey? Then, in gate 5 there's a wild mustang, fidgeting and bucking--how is it even here in the gate?! It's making a lot of noise! In gate 6 is...an old mule? With an old rider? (Fancy, betting on him!) And then in gate 7 is a Shetland pony with a very tiny rider.

Well, now. If you had to bet on a "horse" in this menagerie, which would you bet on?

My point is that sometimes when we bet, we don't bet only by way of our perception about the potential of "our horse" alone, but as it stands in contrast with the aesthetic and empirical indices by which we compare our horse with its "competitors," all things NOT being equal.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

LOL, I'm trying to figure out which horse corresponds to which religion.

But that is a good point. Also not every person has the same race horses in competition. Coming from a Christian culture, I mostly consider atheism vs. Christianity vs. some form of Hinduism. Somebody else might consider Islam vs. Bahai. We all have different biases and limitations of knowledge. So it is very subjective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL, I'm trying to figure out which horse corresponds to which religion.

But that is a good point. Also not every person has the same race horses in competition. Coming from a Christian culture, I mostly consider atheism vs. Christianity vs. some form of Hinduism. Somebody else might consider Islam vs. Bahai. We all have different biases and limitations of knowledge. So it is very subjective.

Yes, you catch my "drift."

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[cloudyday2]

Ha, I had to laugh at "hedge their bets". How would I even do that? Go to mosque once or twice a year just in case?

An obvious case would be the "fire insurance" Christians. These Christians looks at the costs and benefits. They decide that "getting saved" is cheap and the benefits are potentially high. In comparison, loving their neighbors is expensive and the benefits are only marginally better than "getting saved". Therefore, many Christians who have lower certainty choose to hedge their bets by "getting saved" and then living like atheists - the best of both worlds.

 

[Chesterton]

An obvious case would be the "fire insurance" Christians. These Christians looks at the costs and benefits. They decide that "getting saved" is cheap and the benefits are potentially high. In comparison, loving their neighbors is expensive and the benefits are only marginally better than "getting saved". Therefore, many Christians who have lower certainty choose to hedge their bets by "getting saved" and then living like atheists - the best of both worlds.

I was thinking of hedging a bet in the financial sense where you bet on more than one possible outcome. But with atheism there's really no outcome to bet on. I figure I'm safe there.

 

[cloudyday2]

I've been thinking a bit more about saying "I believe" in the Nicene Creed. Maybe it is like the church is asking "if you had to give me a simple yes or no answer, would you answer yes or no?" Usually the Nicene Creed precedes communion, so the person is considering whether he/she should take communion (I suppose). In my last church, there was a further statement of faith just before taking communion - something about the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the bread and wine.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I can say with all honesty that what I am lead to understand is axiomatic, self-evident and indisputable truth. The only thing a person can say is, "I don't agree that this understanding is what the scripture means to be saying" but the understanding itself, cannot be wrong. For example, as I'm lead to understand; God is an abstract and personal idea that exists in your mind; you have a personal conscious relationship with this idea that factually exists in your mind. That is an axiomatic, self-evident truth. The invisible information conveyed by the Word of God is transformative to the mind and heart. Axiomatic since any introduction of information by definition transforms the set of information into which it is introduced. Etc etc.

 

[Chesterton]

I've been thinking a bit more about saying "I believe" in the Nicene Creed. Maybe it is like the church is asking "if you had to give me a simple yes or no answer, would you answer yes or no?" Usually the Nicene Creed precedes communion, so the person is considering whether he/she should take communion (I suppose).

There's a very old Christian saying - lex orandi, lex credendi - basically, "we pray as we believe". And I think the creed is in the liturgy because those beliefs were in the liturgy from as far back as we can tell, before it was formalized as a creed, and before there was a bible. And that's one reason it's called "communion" - we're expressing that we are one community sharing the same beliefs. But I also pray the creed as part of my prayers at home on occasion.

In my last church, there was a further statement of faith just before taking communion - something about the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the bread and wine.

Yes that's the Communion Prayer.

 

[MehGuy]

I agree with the response from @Quid est Veritas? - at least in my personal experience. Most people are so busy thinking about getting their children to school, finishing some project at work, planning their vacation, that they don't think about their purpose in life. That would be the "distraction" solution, and that is also probably a sign of psychological health and balance. Most atheists are productive and psychologically healthy people, so they don't think about their purpose in life very much. It is the people with depression and other issues that worry about purpose - at least in my experience.

Or people simply become tired of thinking/worrying about some grand purpose.

In the grand scheme of things most people religious and secular live in content worrying about mundane things in comparison. Lol.

 

[Neophyte365]

Thanks, @Neophyte365
That is another approach that I have heard for feeling purpose in life. I would describe it as an awareness of pantheism, but I might misunderstand you. I feel that way sometimes when I am in nature. Sometimes I feel like I want to freeze time and notice every detail of every blade of grass ... or something like that.

I may be a pantheist or a panentheist, though I consider myself ultimately agnostic about metaphysical claims; I have ideas and intuitions, but I know enough to know what I don't know.

My idea of living in harmony with the whole (nature, universal reason, etc) comes from studying Stoicism and Taoism. It's very psychologically useful to me personally.

Living according to nature is not just admiring plants and animals; for Stoics and Taoists, it means accepting everything that happens for what it is, living virtuously, and "going with the flow" of the universe.

But I won't derail the thread any more with my pet philosophy!