Reiterating My Point About Specific Religious Beliefs

[David Sklansky]

Which is that we are not here to get to the answer regarding whether a specific religions beliefs are correct or not. We are here to discern whether the facts available to everybody justifies a hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator thinking that some specific religion is more likely than not to be correct.

If some religious person admits that this hypothetical "bookmaker" is not justified in thinking that some specific religion is favored over the "field" (atheism, deism, all other religions, yet to be espoused religions etc.) there is little else to say to him. That person with that admission is basically claiming that his belief comes to a large degree from pure faith or personal experience that others haven't had. He may continue to argue that the bookmaker should not make his religion a prohibitive underdog and he may try to show that his beliefs are not completely unreasonable. And some may want to argue with that. But not me. All I want is the admission that an unbiased bookie should make the field the favorite. (Something that BluffThis seemed to do a long time ago.)

Besides winning a debate, the other reason I want that admission is that it puts a few religious believers in a bad spot. If they agree an unbiased evidence evaluator can't make their specific religion, a favorite over the field, based on evidence available to all, and if they also believe God will punish those who don't follow their beliefs, then they must admit that God is not being fair by our standards.

[cambraceres]

"Evidence available to all"
There is no canon of information the entire world has been made privy to. The information avaliable to an aborginee and an American may have no cultural intersection. The aborginee may not be conscious of other choices, and the prexisting philosophical systems attached. We as semi-educated people know about Buddists, and moslems, and hindus, and those who worship the purple flying spaghetti monster too. If we didn't, and had only been told about christianity, this argument would not make sense except to a few.

Also, constructing an edifice which takes the different religious sytems as possibilities, and in that way assigning a value to them, is not a valid practice. It's like this, you say this bookie should assign every religion the same probablity for being true, but truth is not a matter of probablity, it is one of possibility. These can be, but are not in this sense, the same. If a proposition can be true, then it can true, not 40% true. Either it is or is not, and the fact that you even consider the bookie as being able to index one specific viewpoint implies the ability to assign relative values to them. Relative values can't be used here. Only true/false.

Cam

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is that we are not here to get to the answer regarding whether a specific religions beliefs are correct or not. We are here to discern whether the facts available to everybody justifies a hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator thinking that some specific religion is more likely than not to be correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I was hoping you would someday elaborate on Sklanskyanity. Whether a religion or a philosophy like Buddhism.

[RoundGuy]

How could any "bookmaker" possibly place odds on something that is unknowable?

"Jesus is God". How would one even begin to calculate the odds on that statement/belief being true?

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
How could any "bookmaker" possibly place odds on something that is unknowable?
"Jesus is God". How would one even begin to calculate the odds on that statement/belief being true?


[/ QUOTE ]

A combination of evidence, logic, and math. It is similar to how we normally calculate odds.

Also about a bookmaker producing odds on the unknowable. What makes you think that statement is unknowable? Certainly many claim to know it is true, and some that it is false. Further even if it does happen to be unknowable, I don't see how that is relevant to placing odds on it. You wouldn't be able to confirm who wins the wagers, but you could still place reasonable odds nonetheless.

[David Sklansky]

I suppose I should have said evidence available to most, not all, in order to avoid your objection.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Also about a bookmaker producing odds on the unknowable. What makes you think that statement is unknowable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the statement, "Jesus is God", can be neither proven, nor disproven. It is unknowable.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly many claim to know it is true, and some that it is false.

[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Many claim to believe it is true, or false. They know neither.

[ QUOTE ]
Further even if it does happen to be unknowable, I don't see how that is relevant to placing odds on it. You wouldn't be able to confirm who wins the wagers, but you could still place reasonable odds nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]
But, what would be the point? If you can't determine the answer, what value would any odds have? They would be pointless.

[David Sklansky]

"But, what would be the point? If you can't determine the answer, what value would any odds have? They would be pointless."

Their point would be two fold:

1. If you agree that the odds for your SPECIFIC religion being basically true is worse than even money then you can't fault others for not accepting it.

2. If the above is the case you can't claim that God is just if he punishes those who honestly believe in something other than your specific religion.

Actually the exact odds don't matter. Above or below 50% will suffice.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
"But, what would be the point? If you can't determine the answer, what value would any odds have? They would be pointless."

Their point would be two fold:

1. If you agree that the odds for your SPECIFIC religion being basically true is worse than even money then you can't fault others for not accepting it.

2. If the above is the case you can't claim that God is just if he punishes those who honestly believe in something other than your specific religion.

Actually the exact odds don't matter. Above or below 50% will suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I understand the concept you are presenting, it brings me back to my original question, essentially, where would you possibly begin in trying to calculate these odds?

It seems to me it'd be like calculating the odds of AA winning over KK without knowing how many Aces and Kings are in the deck -- nor how many total cards the deck even contains.

In fact, I'm not sure we even know the rules of the game!

[jogsxyz]

What if there were a God AND all the known religions are still wrong. Isn't that a possibility?