I’m going to demonstrate this using Bayes’ Rule. I will represent the hypothesis that (a non-Deist, i.e. an interventionist) God exists as 
, and the evidence of complex life as 
. What we want to know is the posterior probability that 
is true, given , written
![\[P(H_{G}|L_N)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-3f2ddf730ccbd821f6f5020f49419cdb_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
which, in English, is: the probability that God exists, given the evidence before us of complex life.
By Bayes rule:
![\[P(|H_G|L_C)}=\frac{P(L_C|H_G)*P(H_G)}{P(L_C|H_G)*P(H_G)+P(L_C|\neg H_G)*P(\neg H_G)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-26c8fd48de8891f67fc7bfb2bf2956e5_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
Where
is the probability of complex life, given that God exists,
, is our prior belief that God exists, expressed as a probability,
is the probability of complex life, given that God does not exist, and
is the probability that God does not exist (which equals 
.
is the probability of complex life, given that God exists,
is the probability that God does not exist (which equals 
.So first of all we have to set our prior, 
, the probability that God exists, which I am happy to set high, for instance, at .98.
We also have to set the likelihood of complex life existing, given the existence of an interventionist God (after all, an interventionist God might simply have decided not to bother, or to make something else, like marvellous crystal palaces, instead). However, I will actually set this to 1, as it seems just weird to posit an interventionist God who doesn’t make complex life.
The first thing to note is that the term on the numerator is identical to the first term in the denominator. In our case we have .98*1 on the top, and .98*1 + something on the bottom. I will set the likelihood of Complex life given no interventionist God (
) at something very small, let’s say .0001. This gives us:
![\[P(H_G|L_C)}=\frac{1*.98}{1*.98+.0001*(1-.98)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-eecbc4fd31508bb954849cb600078d1d_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
Which gives me a posterior probability that an interventionist God exists of .999998!
So, by setting the probability of complex life, given no God, very small, I have vastly increased my posterior faith that God exists! And if I make it still smaller, then my posterior faith in God grows still further! Take that, atheists! If IDists can show that the probability of complex life, given no God, is sufficiently tiny that it effectively cannot occur within the lifetime of the universe, that second term on the denominator will go to zero, and God becomes a certainty!
So far, so good. Or would be, if it were ever possible to show that something is impossible, which, 500 coins notwithstanding, it isn’t. That’s because there are many different nulls to reject, and there is always likely to be one you haven’t thought of. No matter, that dead horse has been beaten enough in recent posts.
What I want to do here is to look at it the other way round. Let’s say that scientists show that, far from complex life being near-impossible given no God, they discover it’s a virtual certainty – we even manage to do it in a test-tube using conditions known to prevail on early earth, we find all the intermediate fossils we need to fill out the various radiations since dot, and moreoever, get a bunch of SETI signals telling us we aren’t even alone as intelligent beings in the universe.
So instead of setting the likelihood of Complex life given no interventionist God () to something very small, let’s make it 1. Here is our equation now:
![\[P(H_G|L_C)}=\frac{1*.98}{1*.98+1*(1-.98)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-9e73638d465348a30a0172248bc70c2c_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
What is my posterior probability that God exists? Well, now the denominator simply sums to unity, leaving our belief in God exactly where it started: .98.
In other words, finding out that life is perfectly possible in the absence of an interventionist God tells absolutely nothing at all about whether God exists. It simply leaves us with the faith we had in the first place.
The good news for theists, then, is that there is nothing to fear from naturalist science – it cannot rock your faith, no matter how good a naturalist explanation for anything scientists come up with. If your faith is absolute, absolute, it will remain. If your faith is 50:50, it can only go up, not down.
However, the good news for atheists is that if it starts at near zero, good naturalist explanations will keep it there. Science, therefore, as Dawkins says, allows him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”.
But for theists, it can do absolutely nothing to dent your faith.
So have a very happy Christmas!
I’ve installed a latex plug in – I’m trying to figure out whether it works in comments.
For posts, you just type squarebrackets latexpage close squarebrackets at the top.
hmm, it seems to only work partially for comments.
Hi Lizzie,
I think that your Bayesian reasoning is correct, and that it can be expressed in everyday language:
Similarly:
The question is whether there are any other good reasons for believing in the Easter Bunny — or in God — in the first place.
Also, I should point out that the title of your post is quite misleading:
Proof: Why naturalist science can be no threat to religious faith
Religious faith isn’t mere theism. It encompasses other beliefs about God, mankind and the world, and those beliefs can be quite threatened by scientific discoveries. For example, the young-earth creationist version of Christianity is demolished by modern science, and conventional Christian views of the soul are untenable in light of present-day neuroscientific knowledge.
A more accurate title would have been:
If you already believe in God for other reasons, then naturalistic explanations of phenomena needn’t shake your faith.
Good point. I’ll change it.
I do realise that it’s a hammer to crack a nut (although it was fun to play with the latex plug in!) but one reason I did it is that in a way it tackles the implications of “inference to the best explanation”.
What it shows is that the “best explanation” is highly dependent on your priors, whatever values you set for your likelihoods. So if your priors for an interventionist God are low, no matter how life seems to be, given no God, it will still look better than the certainty of life given a low probability God.
So it doesn’t really tell you anything other than what you believed in the first place.
Naturalist science is a threat to “faith in god”, or at least to the sort of “faith in god” which is derived from using the ‘god’ concept to spackle over holes in one’s understanding. Why? Because naturalist science explains things without invoking any god, and it keeps on explaining things without invoking any god. The more explanations we have that don’t need any god, the more likely it is that no god is needed to explain anything at all.
“Faith in god” which is derived from wishful thinking—from wanting to believe in an invisible friend who can make everything right—now, that’s not threatened by naturalist science. Because if you want to believe in a god, you will of course not allow naturalist science to get in the way of the god in which you want to believe. Thus, the theistic evolutionist position: “God did it, and evolution is how He did it”. Since the “god” concept of Xtianity might as well have been constructed with the specific intent of making it utterly and totally untestable, anybody who wants to believe in the Xtian god will believe in that god, no matter what.
Well there can be lots of other reasons for faith in God, rooted in personal experience. What I’m saying is that Darwin’s theory, or an as-yet-to-be-proposed-in-detail theory of how life began and diversity is no threat to it. If God can do anything, then s/he can, presumably choose which of a vast number of stochastic outcomes s/he wants to see, happens, leaving as many degrees of freedom for Free Will as she wants.
If s/he could nudge those protocells into existence, it doesn’t mean that if a scientific theory comes about that shows that they would have probably done so anyway, s/he didn’t.
Presumably s/he can also set aside falling masonry if moved to do so. That doesn’t mean that if a brick just misses your head, that that was one of the occasions when s/he did. Nor does it mean it wasn’t.
I partly agree and partly disagree. It’s true that, inductively, the more particular explanations we have that don’t posit anything specific about the deity, the more likely it is that no future particular explanation will posit the existence and behavior of a deity. (Since there’s an inductive component to each of those explanations, the induction about those induction is a meta-induction.) That doesn’t mean that “no god is needed to explain anything at all” because there is still the question as to whether the general form of an explanation itself needs to be explained.
Put otherwise, there is the question:
“why is the universe, in general, comprehensible to human beings?”
and while I do not think that theological answers to this question are the only answers to it — obviously I don’t think that, being a naturalist! — I also don’t think that the meta-induction which yields a pessimistic conclusion about theism gives us grounds for being pessimistic about this other route to theism. Rather, I see theistic and naturalistic responses to this question as being on an epistemic par.
There are several versions of the “proof” of God based on the idea that finite human minds cannot conceive of infinity. That ability is supposedly only possible because an infinite “God” implanted such a notion in the finite mind of a living being.
According to Leopold Kronecker, who argued against Cantor’s hierarchies of infinities, “God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man.”
This has been extended further to argue for the existence of the Devil; because who else would plant such confusing ideas in the minds of man?
The more we drill down into micro world, the more quirky the Quantum world becomes.
The further we go back in time, the more confused scientists become about origin of universe. When both cannot be explained by the 4 fundamental forces, what remains, even if it seems improbable, is a super natural force and that force is what we call God.
Scientists become confused but somehow theologians become clearer…. O_o
Projecting your own misconceptions and misrepresentations onto scientists doesn’t help your case.
I would suggest that you have no clue about what scientists know and what they are doing; despite the fact that the spin-off technologies they produce are all around you.
I suggest you are the one who has misconception about scientists.Scientist definitely have no clue about why double slit experiments give curious results, or why entanglements works or why there is only up/down spin or how universe stared or even if there is single or multi-universe nor how life started. If all these can’t be explained with 4 fundamental forces, do you expect them to invent a 5th force?
Here’s link from UD about probability of bacteria evolving by chance:
coldcoffee,
What makes you (or Ross, Hoyle etc etc etc) think the first life form was bacterial? I think the process of looking for “Reasons To Believe” in the data-poor regions of our current knowledge of the world is rather shaky, myself.
It’s bullshit. All of those numbers Hugh Ross uses, he cooked up (stole them, quotemined them, and misused them from legitimate scientists in most cases) to support his fraudulent “ministry”.
To be charitable, maybe Ross is not an intentional fraud Maybe he’s just plain batshit loony. After all, he does claim to believe that UFOs are sent to our Earth by the devil. Maybe he believes all the craziness he spouts. But it’s hard to see how he could really be that delusional and still function in the real world, so the smart bet is on him being a liar who’s doing it to fleece the sheep.
It’s a shame you’re not interesting in learning what mainstream scientists actually know about our universe. A little knowledge goes a long ways to immunizing you against the harmful attempts of pious frauds like Ross.
Thants just hilarious.
What have the following got to do with the probability of a self replicating system forming (Just to pick a few):
The phrase ‘an exhaustive series of unjustified assumptions’ comes to mind. And then there is the little issue of causality.
That document is just a long list of assumed probabilities for the occurance of conditions, wrapped up in unsupported assumptions that those exact conditions are required for life to appear and evolve.
You can apply the same reasoning to any object in the universe and find that, had some of the actually relevant preconditions been slightly different, the object would not exist – therefore said object was the result of design, not chance.
DrBot,
Heh heh. I merely glanced the first time. It’s amazing how the probability of life declines in direct proportion to the number of barriers Ross can think of!
If you Lizzie say that that rationale is scientific I will become an IDst.
Not sure what rationale you are referring to, Blas.
When science shows the following, I will leave God and use science as my guide:
1.How did life evolve from inanimate object? (No cheating with bits of RNA in stew in labs)
2.How did universe begin?
3.How did our conscience,consciousness and intelligence evolve from lumps cells?
Why is it cheating? Are you asking for science to explain the origin of life using ONLY chemical processes that cannot be reproduced in the lab?
If science demonstrates that the universe was created by an intelligent being will you keep your promise?
If you had actually been paying attention to Lizzie’s argument, you would have at the very least understood what she is claiming: that even if there were purely naturalistic, non-theistic explanation of the origins of the universe, of life, and of consciousness, that would have nothing at all to do with the reasonableness of one’s belief in God. If one believes in God before those explanations become available — if they ever do! — then the availability of those explanations won’t make any difference.
Lizzie was extremely clear in stating her argument, it’s underlying assumptions, and its consequences. Yet you say “I will leave God and use science as my guide” in a thread where Lizzie is arguing the opposite view as yours (i.e. that there is no conflict at all between theism and science). And you do without even the slightest acknowledgement of what she’s arguing, let alone engaging in any criticism of it. I conclude from this that you’re not interested in arguing in good faith. Henceforth I shall not treat you as if you are.
Lizzie
You too and the same to all readers and contributors. See you in the New Year!
“If you Lizzie say that that rationale is scientific I will become an IDst.” – Blas
Are you not already an IDist, Blas?
You never read my answers?
Added in edit to see if formatting affected!
OK
Using the edit in bottom left destroys LaTex formatting but top right edit, (presumably available to all commenters) doesn’t.
Guide to what, exactly?
“there is nothing to fear from naturalist science”
Why add the ‘-ist’? Aren’t you just speaking about natural science?
This thread shows quite clearly how limited Lizzie’s recognition of ideology is and how fixated on probabilities she has become (in dialogue with her IDist foes).
It is true that “natural science can be no threat to faith in God.” Yes.
However, it is likewise true that “naturalist IDEOLOGY *can* be a threat to faith in God.” Naturalism is often opposed to theism, i.e. to faith in God.
Isn’t that rather obvious for anyone not purposely promoting a naturalist ideology…which means for almost no one here at TSZ?
It might take Lizzie another 50 years and a re-conversion (or de-conversion from agnosticism) to acknowledge this, helped by some reading in PoS and worldview studies.
The terms ‘natural’ and ‘naturalist’ have intentionally different meanings. But Lizzie seems to want to conflate them. Why? Doesn’t she value the intentional English distinction of an ‘-ism’. It seems not.
Well, at 98% for “the probability that God exists,” surely Lizzie is at odds with about 95% of TSZ posters, most of whom do not believe in God’s existence, in a Creator/Designer, in a meaningful life, death and universal Destiny.
It’s an interesting situation here at TSZ where Lizzie actually enables and even promotes the views of those she (seems to) disagree(s) with on the most important questions re: God’s existence. Is it admirable or foolish? Can’t decide.
“leaving OUR belief in God exactly where it started: .98″ – Lizzie
Which ‘OUR’ is Lizzie speaking for? It certainly doesn’t sound like the same ‘OUR’ of ‘Kantian Naturalist’. And from the ‘A’ word thread, a far cry from accurately representing the people who post at this Blog, most of whom are atheists.
I think Lizzie is demonstrating that science or mathematics are the wrong tools for proving or disproving the existence of God(s). Though of course science can address factual claims consequent upon what some posited deity may be capable of. Disagreeing over the “existence” of imaginary entities seems harmless enough. It’s only when supporters of a particular deity use some tenet of that faith to justify oppressive action against fellow citizens or against another state that it needs to be taken seriously.
Are you willing to consider the alternative? If we are spiritual beings, then it is oppressive to ‘profess’ that we are not, using biologism, scientism or whatever other anti-theistic ideology.
And, Alan, I realise that in France you’re faced with a different situation than in the USA or UK. My time in the former USSR has clearly shown the oppression of ‘scientific atheism’ on the hearts and minds of ‘fellow citizens.’ Surely you can appreciate that?
It should be understood that since you are an atheist and I am not an atheist, our approach to this question, on that basis alone, is likely to differ.
Yes, on that point we are agreed.
Would you care to define or explain what “spiritual beings” is supposed to mean.
To me, it looks as if you are making an argument based on meaningless words.
Blas,
Though it may surprise you, Blas, I don’t spend all of my free time reading every thread and post at TSZ. Just like you don’t face many of the questions I’ve sent to you.
You could include a link or just answer a simple question.
Thanks.
Coldcoffee obviously did not read Lizzie’s OP at all, or bizarrely refused to comprehend it, because Lizzie’s math argument is crystal clear and simple enough even for non-math types.
“God said it, I believe it, that settles it” must be coldcoffee’s motto. Too bad.
And if Gregory ever deigned to explain anything, he could also explain how it’s “oppressive to ‘profess’ that we are not [spiritual beings] “. I could “profess” that you’re not an alien until I turn blue, and that doesn’t make it oppressive to you.
Alan Fox is clearly talking about oppressive political action based on religious views; I can’t see what warrant Gregory has for twisting it into a discussion of a thought crime he complains atheists/materialist/scientismists might be guilty of. His complaint doesn’t even make sense as a Tu Quoque; it’s comparing apples and basilisks.
You think you know all about science from reading popularizations? You want scientists to explain things to you even as you refuse to learn basic high school science and vocabulary?
For the first time in something like 50 years I would like to see an ID/creationist do a simple high school level chemistry/physics calculation, get a scientific concept correct, and use scientific words properly in a sentence.
All any of you are able to do is keep the “arguments” going over the meanings of the meanings of the meanings of the meanings of meanings … You never display any awareness of science at even the high school level; and most of you can’t get middle school scientific concepts straight.
NOT ONE ID/creationist in a half century has been able to do something as simple as to scale up the charge-to-mass ratios of protons and electrons to kilogram-sized masses separated by a meter, calculate the energies of interaction in units of joules and megatons of TNT, and then justify the ID/creationist use of tornados in junkyards as an argument against evolution.
Not one, coldcoffee; NOT ONE. Not you, not Blas, not anyone over at UD. Not Henry Morris, not Duane Gish, not Dembski, not Abel, not Sanford, not Sewell; not ANY ID/creationist. Sewell (PhD in applied math) can’t even get units straight when plugging things into an equation. Do you know what units are?
Just once we would like to see a glimmer of an ID/creationist comprehending enough basic science to justify using marbles, Scrabble letters, coin flips, junkyard parts, battle ship parts, and ideal gases of other inert objects as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules.
Can YOU do that simple high school physics/chemistry calculation? Will you word-game it; or simply avoid it?
Mike, Is Francis Collins a ‘creationist’ in your opinion? Yes or No.
You can continue to dodge this question or show some courage by answering it. Either way, your warfare model story is simply not believable nowadays. There are many people who believe in God and who are competent, even cutting-edge scientists. Who do you think you’re kidding from your ‘physics lab’ at WMSU?
Do you know what an ID/creationist is?
Do you have any knowledge of the socio/political history of ID/creationism in the US? Do you know anything about Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and the Institute for Creation Research? Do you know anything about people like Philip Johnson, the staff at The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute? Have you ever listened to Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, or Thomas Kindell? Have you read any of the writings of any of these people? Do you know how they look at science? What to the people over at UD say?
Have you ever viewed any of the religion channels on US television? Have you ever scanned the AM and FM radio stations around the US and listened to the sectarian broadcasts you can find every day and night? Do you know what they say?
Do you know anything about the major court cases like Epperson v. Arkansas, McClean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, Kitzmiller v. Dover. Do you know anything about the legislation passed in Louisiana? Do you know anything about Kansas, or Texas, or California, or Tennessee, or Georgia, or Kentucky, or South Carolina?
Do you think Francis Collins is one of the leaders of this movement? And just where could you possibly get the idea that I think he is?
And just what makes you think you know anything about my career and my affiliations? What is this WMSU that you seem to think exists; and why do you think I work there?
What are you; some kind of online stalker?
You need to mind your own business and start developing come competence in understanding science and scientists if you want to give the impression that you are the bee’s knees of the sociology of science.
I have files full of the writings of ID/creationists. I have copies of letters to the editors of local newspapers; such as this one pasted below.
Now you tell me, just who thinks there is a war going on?
In case Gregory thinks that the examples I listed are “outdated;” the letter to the editor was in 2006, even as sectarians were still in denial about Kitzmiller v. Dover.
The writings of all those ID/creationists, and videos of them speaking, can be found on the internet at this very moment. And the sectarian TV and radio broadcasts are a common feature across the US at this moment.
The political winds may or may not be in their favor, depending on the next election cycle and how well the current Right Wing has gerrymandered their districts.
“Do you think Francis Collins is one of the leaders of this movement?”
No. He is a Christian and one of the top scientists in the USA.
Now, Mike, what I’ve asked you is not such a hard question. You act like your toe-nails are being pulled out. A straight clear honest answer is all I’m asking for.
Is Francis Collins a ‘creationist’ in your opinion? Yes or No.
Wow; you figured that out all by yourself?
I don’t have any issues with Francis Collins’ religion or how he justifies whatever it might be that he believes. He can work that out for himself; and, as far as I know, he doesn’t mangle science or try to impose his religious beliefs on others by force of law.
There are thousands of religions in the world; and I have had colleagues from dozens of nationalities, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. They didn’t get science wrong just to justify their religion; they seemed perfectly content to live according to whatever religious template they inherited as children or adopted as adults. I have no problem with it.
The main issues in the US have to do with the hyper political sectarians who try to pass laws inflicting their sectarian beliefs on others. It’s a shame you have no knowledge of this.
You apparently don’t know where politicians – even politicians with MDs – running for office get their concepts of “legitimate rape” and try to pass laws forbidding abortions even in cases of rape. You really should look into that as a “sociologist:’ if, in fact, that is what you are.
Do you have any feel whatsoever of the milieu from which these sectarians get their notions of science? What would drive a person like Duane Gish to show up unannounced in the biology classes of local high schools and harass the biology teachers in front of their students?
Where did the author of that letter to the editor of a newspaper get her “information” about evolution and sex education? Think about the subculture in which she is immersed. What drove her to write such a letter? What connections does she have to the politician who ran as a stealth creationist and started introducing creationist legislation as soon as he was elected?
Do you ever think about any of this stuff? Do you know what goes on in the subcultures, the conversations, and the churches, from which these people get their ideas? Have you ever visited any of these churches? Have you ever known such people?
The mere fact that you want people to declare their “religions beliefs” or non-beliefs suggests that you yourself are a sectarian who is at war with competing “religions” that threaten your beliefs. Why do you care?
Furthermore, do you even know enough science to be able to follow the trains of thought that motivate scientists to take on the research activities they do? You claim you want to study the sociology of science; but how in blue blazes are you going to figure out why scientists make the decisions they do without having the slightest clue about the scientific history and questions scientists are thinking about?
Evidently I have spent far more time doing real research on such questions than you have.
I don’t see any evidence that you think about any of this; and this is why I don’t trust your judgment about anything. That’s all you need to know.
Yes Mr Elzinga that research for meaning is called Phylosophy, and the science that you so strongly defend started from the right phylosophy.
I have a degree on Biochemistry and in Farmacy so some I can do some simple high school physics/chemistry calculation.
Can you answer the question I posed in the comments on the other post:
Given the same initial conditions I will get always the same outcome? After your answer yu would be able to stick to consequences of your answer?
Elzinga’s remark about
is not about “the search for meaning” as existential significance or a sense of purpose in one’s life but about the constant semantic quibbling that creationists insist on engaging in and the pseudo-problems that insist on inventing.
That seems right to me. Creationists want to have their cake and eat it, too — they want to use their doctrines concerning revelation and a priori conceptual analysis in order to make matter-of-fact claims about the physical world, but they refuse to put in the time and energy to master the techniques that yield reliable solutions and discoveries.
Like Mike and, so far as I can tell, everyone else here, I have no problems at all with theists who do not rely on their doctrines when making matter-of-fact claims about the physical world — Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller commit no epistemic sins by my lights (though Miller’s use of quantum mechanics struck me as far-fetched). I have neither empirical nor conceptual objections to theistic evolution.
Strange that I see darwinists doing that. Like you when should choose determinism or chance you went for an immaginary option of “in between”.
Question for you, Bias: Is light a wave, or is light made of particles?
Seems to me that creationists are also rather loose and vague in their understanding of and use of the “science” as Blas’ comment above illustrates.
I’m just curious Blas, but aside from opinion and public speculation on the part of some supposed “Darwinists”, can you cite a reference to an example of a “Darwinist” not choosing between determinism and chance when actually working in science? Any example?
I hope they always choose determinism. But for example when Gould says that humans exists by chance he is going from determinism to chance.
No he isn’t, Blas. Pay attention! I already explained that to you.
In what way is Gould starting from a position of determinism? He repeats over and over that the evidence demonstrates that if the tape were would backward and restarted, it would be virtually impossible for the history of life to play out the same way. The diversity of life is a product of chance. On what then are you basing the idea that Gould is starting from determinism?