Reiterating My Point About Specific Religious Beliefs

[Stormwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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!

[/ QUOTE ]

You could estimate in terms of religion A is 25% more likely than religion B given that they dont claim miracles and they(he would use a certain algorithm or criteria) but its 1/2 as likely than religion C given that X and Y and Z. They dont have to contain absulte numbers but rather the bookmaker would make a comparissons between them and rank them. the algorithm would be subjective and most religious people would never accept the criteria in a million years since a lot of them believe people truly should feel just like they felt when they found out of about 'jesus love' 'word of alah' or whatever

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the problem. DS is just trying to sneak Bayes in by the back door.

[ALawPoker]

But what are the odds that anyone's thoughts about anything are "right" against a field of all other options?

If I was trying to solve some puzzle, I'll use my logic to formulate the best plan I can. I'll think it works. But I'll of course still admit that there are probably better explanations out there.

It doesn't mean I shouldn't still believe strongly in what makes the most sense to me, and act accordingly. I have to. I'll make better decisions later if I go with what makes sense to me (even if I thought another plan was more likely to have objective merit).

You can argue why various religions shouldn't make much sense to someone with a logically open mind, but I don't think you can argue that people shouldn't believe things just because they admit that the field is still a favorite (if that's what you're suggesting).

I mean, I guess your point is that religion requires you to believe unwaveringly in the first place. But then this point of yours really only speaks to people who interpret their religion literally, but you represent it as speaking towards the entirety of religious thought.

[Zeno]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Still wrong except for Sklanskyanity. But yes, all known religions may be wrong with a substantial number no longer practiced and just relicts in the dustbin of history. Perhaps one of these relict religions is closer to the truth than any now practiced religion.

But this points to another issue and that is the rise of new religions (broadly defined), say, of Mormonism or Theosophy, or Scientology. Many are new but others are offshoots and/or amalgamations of previous religions or reform movements within an established religion that has grown stale and orthodox. For example, Christianity began has a reform movement or splinter group within Judaism. It was St. Paul, a fanatical orthodox Jew that had a blinding revelation that transformed him into a fanatical believer in Jesus Christ; that spread the Christian message to the gentiles.

-Zeno

[PairTheBoard]

D. Sklansky walks into a Baskin Robbins together with his good friend the hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator as well as an entourage of professional bookmaking buddies. While looking over the 31 flavors of ice cream available to them DS points out a problem to his friends. "How am I supposed to decide which of these 31 ice cream flavors is the correct one?" His bookmaking friends say, "Well we should be able to at least identify the flavor most likely to be correct. We will just bet on it and see what the betting line looks like."

DS replies, "That's fine. But with 31 flavors it seems very unlikely to me that any one of them is going to be the favorite over the field."

The hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator chimes in, "I know. Let's find out the recipes for each flavor, analyze the ingredients and see what we can come up with from that."

Chezlaw happens to be in the group and suggests, "Why don't we do a survey and see which flavor the most people think is correct?"

D. Sklansky responds, "That's a good idea. But I think we should just survey the smartest 1000 people in the world and see what they think. They will be experts on determining the correct answer to questions like this."

The hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator points out, "That could be a problem DS. From what I understand the 1000 smartest people in the world advise against ice cream of all flavors. They are all on Tofu diets these days."

Meanwhile, one of the Bookmakers has been perusing a Baskin Robbins pamphlet. He brings to the attention of the group the important information that "31 Flavors" is just a slogan for Baskin Robbins. DS is told that Baskin Robbins really has over 1000 different flavors which it makes available from time to time.

D. Sklansky finally decides, "That settles it. 1000 flavors. Any one of them has got to be a huge underdog to the field, especially when you throw Tofu into the mix. What do you think, hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator?"

The hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator agrees, "You're right DS. There's no way I can determine which is the correct flavor. At least not with enough certainty to make it a favorite over the field, including Tofu of course."

D. Sklansky opens up his wireless computer and logs onto the 2+2 SMP Forum. He posts his revelation about any one flavor of ice cream being a huge underdog to the field, including Tofu, according to his hypothetical unbiased evidence evaluator. Meanwhile, a little girl walks up to the counter and orders a Vanilla ice cream cone. D. Sklansky looks up from his computer and notices her enjoying her cone.

"Isn't that sad", proclaims DS. "If that little girl would only read my book on Poker odds and Life she would realize what little chance she has of eating the correct flavor of ice cream right now. Oh well. Maybe better to leave her alone. She may be happier in her ignorance."

As D. Sklansky presses Enter, providing yet another gloriously edifying thread for the enlightenment of the SMP forum he prompts his buddies, "ok. Let's go. We've settled this question. Nothing here for us. They don't even have Tofu."

As they are leaving luckyme notices a man ordering a cone with one scoop chocolate and one scoop vanilla. "That's just disgusting", he says. "Next thing you know people will be rolling their own ice cream flavors".

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

Ice cream doesn't make claims about the world. Nice post, but a waste of words.

[Stormwolf]

ptb I dont think that comparission is fair. its not unresonable to make a religion a giant underdog to be correct if their whole base is in miracles from the past and in the present when its very likely all of those miracles are a fraud, have not happened at all, have a scientific explanation. I dont speak of any religion in particular but its not wrong to use some criteria to rank religions by looking at how unresonable are their claims

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chezlaw happens to be in the group and suggests, "Why don't we do a survey and see which flavor the most people think is correct?"


[/ QUOTE ]
chezlaw would point out that looking in Baskin Robbins for the correct flavour of ice-cream is a silly mistaken. Try looking in the South of Italy.

Chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
As they are leaving luckyme notices a man ordering a cone with one scoop chocolate and one scoop vanilla. "That's just disgusting", he says. "Next thing you know people will be rolling their own ice cream flavors".

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckyme would say, "cripes, it's about time somebody ordered something that wasn't on a menu in front of them, but they better not start babbling that their choice is actually the flavor everyone has be trying to experience all these years, or that their choice is the 'true' flavor of ice cream."

luckyme

[tpir]

PTB, no offense but this is one really long bad analogy. I think you need to read a book about critical thinking or something. I can recommend a few if you want. Not trying to be a jerk. Being srs.