Evidence Evaluation

[David Sklansky]

Many religious people believe that their specific religious beliefs are greater than 50% to be true (as opposed to other sects of their religion, other known religions, other conceivable but not espoused religions, and the belief in no religion). Fair enough. But some take it further. They go on to believe that the evidence and arguments for their particular sect are so strong that an objective and expert "bookie" (or you could call him an expert probalistic evidence evaluator) would make their sect better than even money on his preseason line. All the other contenders, they believe, would be offered at high odds.

Now even though common sense might say that someone who actually thinks that their sects beliefs should obviously be odds on favorite in the minds of expert bookies is silly, there is some basis for it. Especially if the sect in question is some of the Protestant denominations. Becuase they believe both that God is fair and that God saves only those who believe what they do. This logically forces them to believe that objective evidence evaluation must lead you to their sect. See why?

But that is not the subject of this post. Rather it is the subject of evidence evaluation. Setting lines, if you will.
Because once someone defends their beliefs soley on the basis of evidence and arguments, it is no longer a religious debate. At this point the winner is simply the better bookie. For religious people to win they must show why that means them.

If two people are both setting lines on some event there are four attributes I can see that could make A's line better than B's

1. He is smarter-more gifted at setting lines in general.

2. He is more knowledgeble-has studied more about the subject of setting lines in general.

3. He is more knowledgeable about the specific subject or event that the linemaking is addressing.

4. He is less biased about the subject.

Regardless of the subject being debated, if one linemaker is superior to another in three out of four of these things it almost always means that his line will be closer to the truth. If someone is superior in all four aspects, his line MUST be better. (That is not saying that he must be right. It just means that if I am a smarter and more knowledgeble linemaker than you, know at least as much about the subject, and am equally unbiased, there is no logical reason why an observer should think your line is the correct one rather than mine.)

Although I am not one of them, I believe there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there who equal or surpass in all four categories, the posters who claim that their sect is obviously, logically, right. Millions who surpass them in three. And I believe that the vast majority of those expert bookies would disagree with them. Which BY ITSELF proves them wrong (not about the truth of their beliefs but about the obviousness of those truths).

[kbfc]

This was basically the point of my post here a month ago or so. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=scimathphil&Number=344 2539&Forum=,,,,,All_Forums,,,,,&Words=&Searchpage= 4&Limit=25&Main=3442539&Search=true&where=&Name=30 615&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&olde rtype=&bodyprev=#Post3442539)

[RJT]

I suggest it doesn’t work that way (completely).

You seem to be saying:

A. If x religion is true then God. Which of course is correct. What is the probability of x being true, though, is what you want to know.

But, I say one has to start with (or at least “determine”):

B.1) If God then which of n Religion (no Religion being true included in n) is true 2) If no God then no to any Religion being true.

One has to “determine” the odds of B1) to B2) and combine this answer to A. before one can “determine” the final probability of A., even if we have the odds of the evidence.

That without the odds of B (B1:B2) then we can’t get a definitive answer to A.

Am I wrong?

Not sure that I worded it totally correct, but I hope you get the gist.

[David Sklansky]

"but I hope you get the gist."

I sure don't

[RJT]

I'll try to re-phrase. I thought by my speaking Sklansky you would understand (lol). I'll try English, brb.

[RJT]

How can one “determine” the “true” probability of what you are looking for without knowing the probability of : God exists to God does not exist?

Doesn’t the odds of God:No God have to be combined with the odds of the evidence?

[RJT]

I’ll try it with numbers although my math is a little rusty.

A)God to no God say percentage is 10 % God to 90% no God.

B) Odds of evidence is : 5% evidence is correct to 95% evidence is wrong.

Don’t we have to combine A and B to get the final odds?

[David Sklansky]

"No God" is simply one of the types of bets the bookie puts a line on. What ever remains is disributed proportionally

Sklansky, I agree with you on your premise. I was wondering if you had any types of people in mind(or even names if they are famous) who you think fall into this category of expert bookmaker. I think you have a powerful argument that could be used in debates if these people's views could be pointed to and if they were respected by people on all the different sides of this debate. That seems like the difficult part of this.

[Georgia Avenue]

I agree with this [ QUOTE ]
It just means that if I am a smarter and more knowledgeable linemaker than you, know at least as much about the subject, and am equally unbiased, there is no logical reason why an observer should think your line is the correct one rather than mine.

[/ QUOTE ]
in theory, but how to you quantify #4?

[ QUOTE ]
4. He is less biased about the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the thing that people argue about the most, with the least headway: Who is being clearheaded and who is fooling himself. Do you mean emotionally involved? How can you determine if you are in fact UNinvolved emotionally when your opponent could argue that your emotions are clouding your judgment on your own involvement? This isn't Rams v Steelers and you're from Montana...when it comes to Truth of Religious Faith we're all on the home team.

Could you argue that you can in fact determine someone's "bias" based on the background? or their tone of voice? or their ability to handle ambiguity? Who is smarter is easy, but biases seems to me almost impossible to compare.

[carlo]

You may be right about bookmakers but you can't carry this illusion into religion/spirituality.

You assume a hierarchy of "knowledgists" who should be looked to in matters of contention. THEY are the best, the brightest, the wizards of the world. They are smart and contain all the attributes (1-4) listed and therefore have the best grasp of any consideration.

But this in no way considers life in it's entirety. The" smartness" of Einstein compared with that of Francis of Assisi look to be of different nature but are they?

In consideration of Francis of Assisi an understanding of qualities such as personal humility,prudence in action,teaching of truth, control of desires, avoiding vain hope and conceit,, obedience and discipline, avoiding talkativeness, use of adversity,resisting temptations, etc. is of great importance and will make this man "smart". In fact in the above and others is the road to "smartness".

In consideration of Einstein this is not meant to imply that he lacks the above and indeed I am sure he carries in his character these very qualities but it should indicate that the religious speaks of other things which are not necessarily the work of a scientist or "smart one".

In the modern day the realms of understanding are separated but no progress will be made until the religious and scientist combine into what can become sacred science in which the scientist's laboratory will indeed become a religious experience.

By the way, for those inclined, these qualities and more can be appreciated by reading "Imitation of Christ" by Thomas A Kempis. This little book has acted as inspiration for many Christians including Ignatius Loyola(founder of the Jesuits)-note Catholic, John Wesely(founder of Methodism)-note Protestant and others as mentioned in the introduction.

carlo

Awesome post. I think I know the only good Christian Apologetical response to this, but I'll let the Christians respond first. RJT: you are missing the point: he's not judging whether the beliefs are true, he's judging which believers are more accurate in their beliefs.

This post leads to a similar point made by Paul Phillips in the ID debate.

It's not any particular scientific theory that I espouse to, nor do I need to know the details of every scientific theory to compare it to religion. It is the supremacy of the scientific method, which requires verifiable, testable, objective analysis -- this is what matters to me. Religious faith is not based on such a method, but relies on the teachings of less objective and less skilled linesmakers, in DS' vernacular. Scientific progress is based on doubt, religious doctrine is based on the absence of doubt. Which is likely to lead to more accurate conclusions?

But DS has gone one step further and exposed another cracked pillar. How can the Christian doctrine be "objectively and obviously true" if so many objective and reasonable intellectuals cannot come to the same conclusions when evaluating the very same evidence? Clearly, the evidence is not obviously true (although this does not imply that it cannot be true) -- thus, those who claim to know for certain (or even with high probability) that the Christian god is the true god, MUST be self-delusional (or somehow given evidence not privy to everyone else, in which case their claims are moot to the rest because they haven't been selected by god for this additional revelation anyway.)

[David Sklansky]

"You may be right about bookmakers but you can't carry this illusion into religion/spirituality."

But I'm not talking about spirituality. I'm talking about the truth or falsity of specific facts or events that various people of various religions say happened.

[David Sklansky]

"thus, those who claim to know for certain (or even with high probability) that the Christian god is the true god, MUST be self-delusional (or somehow given evidence not privy to everyone else, in which case their claims are moot to the rest because they haven't been selected by god for this additional revelation anyway.)"

To be fair, many religious people, including most Catholics, I think, agree with this. The problem arises when the religion says that nonbelievers are punished even as God is fair. For that to be true requires a belief that the belief makes sense to unbiased, independent, expert observers. This little conumdrum forced Felson, the smartest devout Christian on the forum, (I say that because of his poker and math posts) to withdraw from further debating.

[carlo]

Yes, you are talking about spiritual events. There is no way your experts could judge the truths of these events for the evidence is they do not have the tools to do so.They can only be skeptical. The test is not how many of your "rational" judges decide yea or nea and therefore by vote declare the truth. The truth stands by itself irrespective of who judges.

The real question is, can any shread of understanding about the past be understood in the manner of modern day scientists,historians,geologists, sociologists,etc.. . The answer is NO. Find one that doesn't project modern thinking into the past which is really indicative of whats happening NOW(their own personality) and completely loses sight of the PAST.

It's true, modern believers can have as much of a difficult time understanding these Biblical events as a naysaying skeptic but closer perceptions finds that they may carry something with them which states"there is something real here" and from this comes varying types of reactions(the whole enchilada of opinions,acts, sects,etc.).

Their logic is no more dysfunctional than the modern skeptic(I won't say objectifying rationalist for they are in both camps ). The skeptical plate is barren.

The major question is: Can Man see into the past and the answer is YES. The truths of these events, even if this truth turns out to be something that no one expected can be ascertained by Thought but that is another story.

"Sing in me, Muse and through me tell the story
of that man skilled in all ways of contending,
the wanderer, harried for years on end,
after he plundered the stronghold
on the proud heights of Troy."

When Homer asks the Muse to sing in him do you really believe this to be some "major fantasy" like some Steven King novel? The man was there in that hidden region of the world where the truths are hidden and thusly the Iliad and the Odyssey were expounded. I can assure your uplifting in the reading of these tomes which relate realities unreached at the present time.

carlo

[carlo]

Something I missed-yes, you consider these events earth bound as apposed to the spiritual world(heaven,etc.) The two are not separate-what you see in the world is the physical manifestation of spiritual realities.

carlo

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

3. He is more knowledgeable about the specific subject or event that the linemaking is addressing.

4. He is less biased about the subject

[/ QUOTE ]

These criteria are as important as the others. And you have previously acknowledged in your posts that such evaluators may well not have taken the time to fully investigate religious claims and may be predisposed against them. Thus the figure of MILLIONS shrinks dramatically to THOUSANDS at best.

[andyfox]

"such evaluators may well not have taken the time to fully investigate religious claims and may be predisposed against them."

Predisposed against, maybe, but they would still be nowhere near as biased as those who have the Faith. Thus we are back to millions.

[BluffTHIS!]

That still doesn't change the fact that very few such supposed evaluators have actually examined the detailed claims of a specific religion well enough to have an informed opinion. Which is why the opinion of an 180 IQ Fields medal winner on the truth of religion would carry no weight if he had not made such an examination. Same with physicists. You have to actually examine all the claims/evidence in order to evaluate it properly. And with most of the world's mainstream religions, this means evalutating historical evidence in the original languages when there is not as much evidence one way or the other extant as one would like.

[David Sklansky]

You are absolutely right. It is only thousands. But so what?
If a high proportion of them disbelieve, why on earth would you think the percentage would change if the millions who satisfied criteria 1,2, and 4 studied the subject?

[David Sklansky]

"Yes, you are talking about spiritual events. There is no way your experts could judge the truths of these events for the evidence is they do not have the tools to do so.They can only be skeptical. The test is not how many of your "rational" judges decide yea or nea and therefore by vote declare the truth. The truth stands by itself irrespective of who judges.

The real question is, can any shread of understanding about the past be understood in the manner of modern day scientists,historians,geologists, sociologists,etc.. . The answer is NO. Find one that doesn't project modern thinking into the past which is really indicative of whats happening NOW(their own personality) and completely loses sight of the PAST."

The probability that a past event occurred is a judgement call that is no different than one involving a future event. Experts are better at arriving at the right price than non experts. Regardless if is whether OJ is Guilty, whether Aristotle could ever do 70 pushups, whether the earth is 6000 years old, whether the sun once stood still, etc etc.

[IronUnkind]

For the same reason that your ignorance of philosophy allows you to make a number of naive pronouncements. You are smart enough to understand Kant; you just haven't read him.

[David Sklansky]

"For the same reason that your ignorance of philosophy allows you to make a number of naive pronouncements. You are smart enough to understand Kant; you just haven't read him."

Your first bad post. If there are a million people who satisfy criteria 1,2, and 4 and a thousand who satisfy all four. And if 900 of those thousand disbelieve, then it is almost certain that 900,000 of the million would also disbelieve if they studied religion and therefore met critera 3.

[IronUnkind]

Oops. Of course you are correct. In my haste, I missed the key element of the statement: that the ratio of unbelievers remained constant even among those who satisfied all four criteria. I missed the context of your comment.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
The probability that a past event occurred is a judgement call that is no different than one involving a future event. Experts are better at arriving at the right price than non experts. Regardless if is whether OJ is Guilty, whether Aristotle could ever do 70 pushups, whether the earth is 6000 years old, whether the sun once stood still, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]



Experts are experts are experts-can't go on with your definition. Sooner or later the mind has to deal with reality. Dead abstractions(experts) mean nothing.

That some can ascertain the inherent truths in these Biblical events is true , and they could be called "expert" but would you recognize them?

Judgement as a 60-40 shot is speculation. Judgment in these matters is a question of self development and obtaining the ability to perceive the event in its written thought full history(much like your memory).

carlo