The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.sfreader.com/default.aspx?f=42&m=74602
| Posted By : Anthony G Williams - 3/28/2008 9:41 AM |
From http://netscape.compuserve.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20080323-0700
It is faith, not proof, that makes Christians believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection, the central tenet of the religion. Until now. Oxford University professor Richard Swinburne, a leading philosopher of religion, has seemingly done the impossible. Using logic and mathematics, he has created a formula that he says shows a 97 percent certainty that Jesus Christ was resurrected by God the Father, report The Age and Catholic News.
This stunning conclusion was made based on a series of complex calculations grounded in the following logic:
1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
"New Testament scholars say the only evidences are witnesses in the four gospels. That's only five percent of the evidence," Swinburne said in a lecture he gave at the Australian Catholic University in Melbourne . "We can't judge the question of the resurrection unless we ask first whether there's reason to suppose there is a God. Secondly, if we have reason to suppose he would become incarnate, and thirdly, if he did, whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did." He says that even Jesus' life is not enough proof. However, the resurrection is "God's signature," which shows "his approval of Jesus' teaching." The calculations that Swinburne says prove the resurrection are detailed in his book, "The Resurrection of God Incarnate.
It seems to me that there is a huge logical flaw in the reasoning. I won't argue with the point that the probability of God existing is one in two (50%). However, points 2, 3 and 4 all depend on God existing, so only affect that one in two chance: they have no bearing on the one in two probability that God does not exist, which remains at 50%.
To work through Professor Swinburne's calculations more logically:
The probability that God is incarnate is one in two (the first probability) multiplied by one in two (the second one), i.e. one in four (or 25%).
The proposition that God was resurrected depends on his being incarnate, so is a fraction of that one in four figure and must be less than 25%. So even accepting his proposition (as I understand it) that there was only a one in ten chance that the reports of the resurrection were wrong (where did he pluck that figure from?) the chance that the resurrection happened was about one in four-and-a-half (roughly), or 22 percent - not quite the same as 97 percent mentioned, let alone the one in a thousand chance of being wrong (how does that match up with 97%?) also mentioned!
Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/ >>
|
| Posted By : Gustavo - 3/28/2008 11:55 AM | Most logical proofs of God in history have been based on fallacious starting points. The difference here is that it is more blatant than usual. Now, I'd like to see how long this guy holds on to his chair at Oxford...
Belief in God is based on faith, not math, and is something personal. All this kind of thing does is cast ridicule on the argument, an argument which, IMO shouldn't even exist - each person is free to believe as he or she sees fit.
Visit my livejournal! http://bondo-ba.livejournal.com/
|
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 3/28/2008 12:12 PM | I don't seriously believe this was an oxford professor that published this--academic papers are peer reviewed. A high school student could spot the flaw in his argument, not to mention the really bad math.
I'm guessing this is a hoax.
Jordan Lapp
Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : H.P. Lovesauce - 3/28/2008 12:16 PM | | Well, his math is more rigorous than the "1 Cross + 3 Nails = 4 Given" I see around here. |
| Posted By : che2000 - 3/28/2008 12:20 PM | The earth is only 6,000 years old - dinosaur bones were put there to test our faith.
Also: Australia is Opposite Land - 'Crooks chase cops. Cats have puppies. And hot snow falls up'.
Meanwhile, in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
"That blackguard Flashman, who never speaks to one without a kick or an oath--"
|
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 12:40 PM | Tony I'm starting to notice a pattern in your conversational posts. Taken all together it's as if faith is a wound in your side and you have to keep picking the scab off. Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but once in awhile you could throw me a curve and post something not mocking or attacking or ridiculing, just as a change of pace, lol.
I googled Swinburne. He does have the degrees, hold the position, and place his pedgree out for public consumption.
He wrote a simple theorm then extrapolated out remaining true to the foundation. I'm not sure the qualifies for loss of tenure. It's theoretical math, yeah?
I mean, I'm quite sure he thought about the arguments against his equation and worked through them before putting them out there to be looked at by qualified people.
I find it doubtful that someone without his qualifications is easily or simply going to really refute his process. --which maybe indeed be refutable. If Stephen Hawkins (he's dead now, right?) comes out and says "you forgot to carry the one" then okay, I'm on board.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 12:45 PM | Swinburne is an Oxford professor ... of theology, not math. He's written a lot of books and probably will have his job a long time.
That said, his math here sucks, Nathan. Look at the math, not the larger issues of god and heaven etc., and without a knee-jerk defense of an emotional subject. The nice thing about math is it either works or it doesn't, regardless of ideology and philosophy. Just look at Swinburne's math, and then tell us if it works or not.
It doesn't work, as Anthony clearly explained.
But I will throw you a bone ... maybe there is a god and maybe he'll chuck me and Anthony into hell for looking too closely at Swinburne's math. But I'd put the odds of that at less than 97 percent.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 12:59 PM | Well--I'm not going to start arguing for ID now just because I like the way you construct an argument and how I admire the way having a foil brings out the best in you, Steve 
What I am going to do is read a little bit about Swineburne. The reason is this. My wife is a professor and a Mensa member. She is a prof of early lit which is what she holds a PhD in. She has a masters in ed. She has a 4 year degree with a double major in English and Journalism and holds a minor in theology. She also roots for the *&^%ing Seahawks which shows even smart people can be idiots.
Now. Why did I just shamelessly brag? Well, I love her and I'm quite happy a knuckle-dragger like me got to marry her. But my point is this: I've never met an academic scholar whose resume didn't include a wide range of topics that they couldn't speak to. I've never met one who didn't realize that as soon as they say A is A, didn't realize that some big gun with grant money on the line wasn't going to come out and say A is B. So they always dot i's and cross t's.
I've also noticed in my professional time as a emt and then nurse how much smart but unqualified laymen (and sometimes the idiots too) like to argue with the physisians and the specialists.
So based on all of that personal experience I'm guessing that A] Swineburne does have some mathematical qualifications or a partner who does. That B] he would have checked his process for obvious glaring errs before daring to publish such a scandalous and firestorm generating idea. And C] the chances of someone without a post graduate degree spotting an elephant of an error that holds acctual water are nil.
Now I mean all that subjectively at this point as I haven't researched Swinburne. He could have got his gig at Oxford because he's a one-legged member of a dying ethnic group and he's got an IQ of 98 and a degree from State U in basket weaving. I'm just following what my gut and personal experiences tells me about armchair observers vs credentialed academics.
But I could be wrong.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 1:40 PM | You know what I find interesting, Nathan? I find it fascinating that when someone argues for god, you insist that professionalism etc. would never, ever allow them to publish something that wasn't just hunky-dory perfect, and would never allow them to let preconceived notions color their findings, or let them weigh the evidence in such a way as to prove what they already believe, while ignoring evidence that doesn't support them, etc.
Yet when someone argues in a way that you think goes against god, religion, etc., then it's all just preconceived notions and they're scared to proclaim anything that is pro-god because all the other profs will laugh at them and call them names.
There's a really, really easy way to cut through all this preconceived notions crap. Just look at the man's math.
I also find it fascinating that, instead of looking at his math, you just reiterated your previous argument. You didn't address the man's math at all.
And just for the record, let me say I haven't A) called Swinburne an idiot -- I'm sure he's a very intelligent fellow with a wide variety of interests; B) declared there is no god or that Christ didn't rise from the dead; or C) scoffed at Swinburne's religious beliefs. All I'm saying is his math, as presented in the first post of this thread, sure looks faulty to me -- and most of Swinburne's argument seems to have very little to do with math and more to do with faulty logic, anyway. (As Anthony already pointed out.)
Look at the guy's math, Nathan, and if it adds up go ahead and defend it. Show me how it adds up and I'll concede. All the rest of the crossing t's and dotting i's stuff is just smoke and mirrors that have nothing to do with math and logic.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 1:58 PM | Steve is there some carry over in your post from our previous discussions? Because I can't really see how what you just wrote had much to do with my casual observations.
I didn't speak to his math because I don't have a degree in math. I don't have any OJT about math equation construction at that theoretical level. I'm not a math enthusiaist so I don't read a lot about advanced (or basic) mathematical equation construction. I also haven't read the full book/article--only the post, so I don't want to be presumptuous.
My point is/was only the (I think) common sense observation that one doesn't become an Oxford Professor by not doing their homework. You don't put out a thoery where your credibility and livelyhood are at stake without considering how its going to be recieved and making allowences for it.
Based on that I'm skepetical that anyone of less than Swineburne's resume (or his editors) is going to give it a once over and go "ah ha! You fool!"
It's a casual observation. If this thread is only for conversation cheerleading the detraction of the article then I wasn't aware of it and I do apologize.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 2:18 PM | Nathan: Yes, some of my observations were channeled from previous discussions between the two of us. And my points still hold true.
Swinburne has a degree? So what? I'm not impressed by arguments from authority, anyway. I don't believe anything just because an Oxford don says it, or just because Richard Dawkins says it, or just because Einstein said it, or just because Jason Lisle said it, or Christ said it, or the Buddha said it, or ... you get the point.
I'll give you this: Swinburne says he's arguing from math and logic, and both of those are disciplines that have rules, etc., to cut through smoke and mirrors. Using those tools, one can hold out a proposition and pretty much compel any reasonable person to say, "You know what? You're right."
So ... if Swinburne's math and logic are any good, we'll be seeing it all over the news any day now. All those other professors (who also studied hard, earned their degrees, would never think of publishing something without crossing and dotting the appropriate letters, etc.) will come on board, swayed by the power of Swineburne's impeccable, unassailable logic and math, and declare that the resurrection is almost certainly factual and that god's existance is all but proven.
When that happens, I'll come back here and admit that Swinburne's math and logic were spot on.
-------
I edited the above to correct my misspelling of Swinburne's name. Apologies to the man from Oxford.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 2:40 PM | Sounds good.
I'm not arguing from authority. I didn't say his degree made him irrefutable--I merely think it gives us a bit of information: we agree (yes?) that it's rigourous to get a PhD. It extremely rigorous to get a job as Prof--and at school with a international heavyweight rep like Oxford? Come on. Oxford don's are human. But they don't get to be Oxford don's by being sloppy.
That doesn't mean Swineburne's right, by all means. That in fact wasn't my point. I'm merely handicapping the %-chance that a lay person is going to see a flaw in the math that a guy with that kind of pedigree or his editors would have missed.
As if it were a Superbowl with a guy on the internet's credentials making up the team roster on one side and Dick's making up the team roster on the otherside. And the bet isn't does or doesn't god exist, but rather the bet is whether a guy on a SF board is going to catch a logical construct that an Oxford prof missed before putting out a paper.
If you had to bet the house where would you be? If you know Tony Sporano held the vig on your ticket and would be showing up to collect--where would you put your money?
That's all I'm saying--is that unreasonable?
I doubt that even if his math holds you see it "all over" the news though it might get some coverage here and there between Clinton's sniper, Obama's pastor and McCains dementia, and the economy going boom--I mean when you look at it it's just a percentage based on a hypothetical arraingment of numbers--not a picture of the Virgin Marry in a stain on the side of a house or something *really* irrefutable like that.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 2:52 PM | I found him. Here's his list of credentials:
Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford
Emeritus Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford
Fellow of the British Academy.
Interests
All the central questions of philosophy.
The meaning and justification of the central claims of Christianity.
Education
1952 Open Scholarship in Classics to Exeter College, Oxford.
1954-7 Undergraduate at Oxford, reading for B.A. in Philosophy, Politics and Economics obtained with First Class Honours in 1957.
1957-9 Read B.Phil in Philosophy at Oxford.
1958-61 Fereday Fellow, St. John's College, Oxford.
1959-60 Read Oxford Diploma in Theology obtained with distinction in 1960.
1961-63 Leverhulme Research Fellow in the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds.
1960-1963 Research Fellowships devoted to learning science and the history of science.
Appointments
Lecturer (1963-69), and Senior Lecturer (1969-72), in Philosophy, University of Hull.
Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Maryland, 1969-1970.
Professor of Philosophy, University of Keele, 1972-85.
Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford, 1985-2002..
Visiting Lectureships
1975-78 Wilde Lecturer in Natural and Comparative Religion, University of Oxford.
1977 Forwood Lecturer in the History and Philosophy of Religion, University of Liverpool.
1980 Marrett Memorial Lecturer, Exeter College, Oxford.
1981 Special Lecturer (in Theology), University of London.
1982 Distinguished Visiting Scholar, University of Adelaide.
1983 Theology 'Faculty' Lecturer, University College, Cardiff.
1982-84 Gifford Lecturer, University of Aberdeen.
1987 Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Syracuse University, Spring Semester.
1987 Edward Cadbury Lecturer, University of Birmingham.
1990 Wade Memorial Lecturer, St Louis University.
1992 Indian Council for Philosophical Research, visiting Lecturer.
1992 Dotterer Lecturer, Penn State University.
1997 Aquinas Lecturer, Marquette University.
2002 (March )Visiting Professor of Philosophy, University of Rome (La Sapienza).
----******-----
Now. Tony can post his academic credentials and we can start handicapping this thing for real.
Or...we can do what I just did. Cut-and-paste Tony's objections and contact the guy by email. Maybe he'll respond.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 3:12 PM | Impressive list of credentials, but still just an argument from authority -- meaningless in terms of math and logic.
Swinburne's premise three, for instance, doesn't logically follow from premises one and two. No matter how many degrees Swinburne has. And I'd love to see his explanation of premise four. How did he derive those odds?
By the way, the odds of Beowulf slaying Grendel NOT being reported by the survivors in the mead hall are 1 in 8,345,982.75.
Oh, heck, I'll just jump in with both feet:
1) The odds that Beowulf existed are one in two; either he did or he didn't.
2) The odds that Beowulf slew giant monsters with his bare hands also are one in two; either he did or he didn't.
3) The evidence for Beowulf's existance is evidence that he killed Grendel's mom under the water.
4) The odds of Beowulf slaying Grendel NOT being reported by the survivors in the mead hall are 1 in 8,345,982.75.
Considering all of these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the tale of Beowulf slaying Grendel's mother is not true. That magically derives to a 97 percent probability that Beowulf slew Grendel's mother precisely as described in the epic poem. There you have it, math and logic in action.
If Professor Swinburne replies to your email, please share it with us.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 3:20 PM | Are degrees in the study of the epistomology and pedogoy of science (history of science) meaningless? Is a degree in economics meaningless?
Indeed philosphy here doesn't mean "stare at your navel and ask why" philosphy in the academic sense means means a study of the correct principles of reasoning--how one forms epistomologies.
This strikes you as meaningless?
Come clean now.
Do I take it then that on a wager you'd bet the odds favor the outcome that Dick missed some obvious factor the average layman on the internet would notice immediatly?
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 3:24 PM | I was so busy being flabbergasted by your offhand dismisal of his academic record I forgot to say: yes of course if Dick write's back I'll post it.
I mean what if he'd never thought of these arguments?
You could have just done him a big favor.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : H.P. Lovesauce - 3/28/2008 3:27 PM | | Going back to what Jordan said--this may be somebody simply swiping Swinburne's good name as a cover for a, ah, less than intellectually rigorous postulation. |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 3:31 PM | Nathan: Arguments from authority do not count in logic and math. I didn't say his degrees are meaningless; I'm sure he's learned a lot of neat stuff. He'd probably be a great guy to share a beer with, or have over for dinner. I have no doubt he is a stunningly intelligent guy.
But degrees don't count in math and logic. Facts and math and logic count in math and logic. And his conclusions as listed above (and as listed in a few articles I've read about his book) do not logically derive from his premises.
Maybe Swinburne is letting his beliefs color his view of the facts. Maybe Swinburne knows his arguments are muff, but figured a book that proclaims a 97-percent probabilty that Christ was in fact resurrected would be a really hot seller and he needs the dough. Maybe he knows his argument sucks, but figures if it brings a few people over to the lord, the white lie won't land him in hell. I don't know, and I don't really care to address his motives. I'm just addressing his math and logic -- and they suck.
As do arguments from authority, by the way. Have you looked at your web site listing logical fallacies lately? I think arguments from authority are somewhere near the top of the list.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 3:39 PM | Oh, and I've no doubt Prof. Swinburne HAS considered any objections raised here, and objections raised in the larger academic world. As I said, I don't think he's an idiot.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Anaconda - 3/28/2008 3:43 PM | |
If I buy one lottery ticket today, I will either win the jackpot or not tomorrow.
Probability is a number between zero and one, often expressed as a fraction.
My probability of winning the jackpot is about one divided by 14,000,000.
My probability of not winning the jackpot is about 13,999,999 divided by 14,000,000.
For practical purposes, these numbers are zero and one.
Statistically, I am more likely to be dead before the balls are drawn.
The learned man is having a laugh; he has succeeded in opening a debate.
Alec Anaconda, author of “Slaves of Janice”, “After Janice” and “Extreme Vengeance”. |
| Posted By : H.P. Lovesauce - 3/28/2008 3:44 PM |
Swashbuckler said...
I don't think he's an idiot. He is getting on in years... maybe he's become one? |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 3:45 PM | Steve I'm going to make you angry but you are using arguments of authority inncorrectly.
A degree isn't simply a piece of paper--it is the external symbol of an internal process: an education. His degrees as his education is directly linked to his ability to form an equation of this nature and then check it. The things that he has an education in: economis, the pedigoy of logic, the history of science ect (I mean look at) are in fact directly related.
Saying I'm the mayor of smart town is an appeal to authority. An argument coming from knowledge isn't an appeal to authority.
A onocolgists says: "I'm a physian and I've found you have colon cancer."
A guy on the internet: "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV. I know what I'm talking about. You're fine."
One is an appeal to authority the other is extrapolation of knoweldge.
Now, who is the casual observer, not intimate with the details of mathematical equation construction, suppossed to believe? Someone one with the anabolic steroids of pedigrees actively making a living in academia or the conclusion of someone who's just an enthusiast?
Which would you go with, Steve? The guy who's read a few medical books or a Physician. From one of the top schools in the world?
Handicap it for me.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 3:50 PM |
Swashbuckler said...
Oh, and I've no doubt Prof. Swinburne HAS considered any objections raised here, and objections raised in the larger academic world. As I said, I don't think he's an idiot. Wait. Forget all that tounge in cheek stuff above I posted while you were posting
You do think he's thought of this? You think he realized there was a huge glaring hole in his argument that any nose picker on the internet could see through and he not only didn't account for it--but published it unaccounted for?
You could be right.
But it does that strike you as likely?
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Hermit - 3/28/2008 4:19 PM | | Wait a minute. The math holds. The argument as Anthony posted it is imprecise.
It's more like:
God exists or not: .50 probability
If God (this assumes the above was correct and becomes probability of 1), then he did or not manifest in the flesh: .50 probability
If God manifested in the flesh (again, we start at 1 because we're assuming the side of 'true'), then . . .
It follows logically. Sure, the logic won't really carry water. But it does follow logic. It doesn't really seem to me to be the kind of logic necessary for statistical analysis, but it is a logical sequence - a sort of theorum like you use in HS geometry.
For me, the base assumption of God/not being 50/50 is ludicrous. God is. There is no convincing evidence for or against that will hold up for one who believes the opposite. As for the rest of it . . . I vastly enjoy speculating about God's nature. And, while I find a great deal of truth in the Bible, I also find an astonishing number of gaps.
I believe in a risen Jesus. Need no proof. Doesn't even matter to me if that resurrection was metaphorical or in the flesh. I know it's historically improbable. That doesn't bother me. To me, Jesus is a symbol of Humanism and the new Western paradigm.
|
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 4:51 PM | Nathan: You're basing your arguments on "This guy has a degree."
I'm basing mine on "Wait a minute, these premises don't follow one another."
Like it or not, you're arguing from authority and you keep dodging the math and logic. Do the math.
As for whether it strikes me likely Swinburne would make his arguments despite the glaring, easily knocked down holes in them -- likelihood doesn't enter into it. He DID do it, likely or not.
As for the oncologist example, there is an extensive record of success in oncology, there will be X-rays and MRIs, there will be second opinions, there will be objective data, etc. I don't need to consult an anonymous guy in the street. That's not a comparable analogy to this debate in any way, shape or form.
And if someone really did have a mathematical and logical proof of the resurrection (and by such, I mean something you could write down, graph, chart, whatever and stick under the noses of mathematic academia and make them say "Holy Cow! You are right, sir!" that the news would somehow escape the notice of the rest of the world? It wouldn't show up in National Geo, on the Discovery Channel, the Wall Street Journal, every freaking scientific and mathematic and theological journal on the planet? C'mon. Be real.
It would be the most profound discovery in human history. People would notice.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 4:53 PM | Premise one, that god either exists or he doesn't, interests me. I'll buy that one, but I'm a little surprised a theologian would limit himself only to those two possibilities. Theologians routinely deal in miracles and impossible math (Jesus was both fully human AND fully devine, the Trinity, etc.) and so -- while I'll buy the either/or thing -- it seems odd to me that Swinburne does.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 4:54 PM | Mystic encouraged me to look at this in a different way. (thanks).
The distillation of my argument came down to the fact that I thought Steve and Tony didn’t really have the academic chops to be proof-reading an Oxford don’s work and that based on those lack of chops it was bit high handed to assume *they* were going to find (and so easily) a “carry the one” kind of problem with the equation construction.
That was a little overly assertive on my part, I apologize. I didn’t mean it quite so pointed, rather I meant it more in an “oh, come on” way. However, pointing out a lack of credentials or recognition in such a competition isn’t really much fun--or very nice when you scratch the surface.
So as Steve said “I’ll jump in with both feet.”
Instead of Beowulf in my example I’d like to use a pussy cat however. Not just any cat mind you, but Schrodingers Cat. I pretty sure everyone here knows Schrodinger’s Cat--I’d eat my hat if Steve didn’t--but here’s the wiki link just to be thorough so you know I’m not just making this cat up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_Cat
Now at the end of that hypothetical hour the cat has a 50/50 chance of being alive or dead. If you don’t open the box (maybe because we can’t) then we can use induction to go down two equal paths. Path A] is an extrapolation about the cat if it were alive (that is the .50 chance that god IS is) or Path B] which stops the extrapolation because the cat’s freaking toast (this is the .50 chance that god is NOT).
Without being able to open the box we can’t *know*, know--we can only induce that there is one of two possibilities--equally valid, of the cat being alive and then build a theorum based on that. Now that means in the logic equation that god being NOT is equally valid as god being IS but…
…it also means that it’s equally valid that god IS.
I prefer the use of Schrodingers Cat to Beowulf because though Beowulf is an intangible like god, the use of a literary character seems backhanded vs. the use of the equal intangible of a hypothetical construct (the cat) that serves a specific role in a logic problem.
Is that little nicer than gratuitously pointing out that people don’t hold advanced degrees from prestigious universities?
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 4:55 PM | I'd also point out that having two possibilities doesn't make them equally probable.
Either I have the power to turm myself into a vampire bat, or I do not. It's logically true, but the two possibilities are in no way equally probable. Without corroborating evidence, my vampire bat premise can be dismissed.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 4:57 PM | Ditto for premise two -- "The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two" -- with the added burden of pointing out that it is (in Swinburne's argument as presented anyway) derived from a rather shaky Premise 1 -- a premise that in the very best light afforded to it, can drum up only a 50/50 proposition.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 4:57 PM | Are you saying my/Scrhody's cat is equal to a vampire bat or did we cross post?
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:01 PM | Premise 3 -- "The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection" -- makes sense ONLY if you accept the whole Christian thing in the first place. There are plenty of people who see evidence for God's existence, and yet are not led inescapably to the conclusion that Christ was divine. By the way, the arguments presented don't actually include any evidence that god exists, they simply present a false dichotomy in the place of evidence.
So, we have two shaky premises and a third premise that doesn't follow at all from the first two. Not too sound.
How am I doing so far, Nathan? I don't have a math or logic degree or anything.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:03 PM | Steve how would I know? I'm not qualified to proof such constructs on that kind of level.
I'll BS all day long and give my opinion (like with Schrody's cat post above) but I know I'm not really qualified to be arguing I know what I'm talking about.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:03 PM | Premise 4 -- "The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10." -- aside from being pulled out of thin air, it's just goofy. History is rife with people who wrote things that weren't true in order to further their religion. I'm not saying that's what happened with Jesus -- I happen to believe Jesus was an actual historical being -- but premise 4 does not come anywhere close to being logical unless you assume the veracity of the events reported. I think there is at least wiggle room to suspect that something other than a resurrection occurred.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:05 PM | Oh you're not even bothering to read the replies anymore. You've caught a personal wind and are just typing to hear yourself type.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:06 PM | Premise 5 -- "Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true." -- Anthony already pointed out how this premise doesn't even follow the shaky mathematics presented earlier.
OK, considering what I've posted in the last four or five comments here, I think the odds that Swinburne has accurately assessed the probability of the resurrection being fact as being ... nah.
But I'm no genius. I'm willing to wait to see what the rest of the academic world has to say about it.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 3/28/2008 5:07 PM |
Anthony G Williams said...
1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
This RIGHT HERE is WRONG. That's like saying "The odds that I have a two-headed chicken in my hand is 1 in 2. Either I do or I don't."
R-O-N-G.
The odds that I actually have a two-headed chicken in my hand is infantessimally small (unless I'm in KFC's secret chicken mutating factory).
Jordan Lapp Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:10 PM | Nathan: I'm not ignoring your posts. Just getting my thoughts out here in a hurry because I have to get to work.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 3/28/2008 5:10 PM |
Swashbuckler said...I'd also point out that having two possibilities doesn't make them equally probable. Either I have the power to turm myself into a vampire bat, or I do not. It's logically true, but the two possibilities are in no way equally probable. Without corroborating evidence, my vampire bat premise can be dismissed.
Looks like Steve beat me to the argument. I should have read the entire thread.
Just because one occupies a powerful or prestigious position doesn't make one's every utterance irrefutable. I'm given to understand that certain ex-candidates for the Republican nomination believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Jordan Lapp Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:11 PM | Oh, but thanks for assuming the worst and tossing out the ad hominem attack ...
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:14 PM | Your starting premise in dismissing premise is to equate the god experience in human history to a two head chicken?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/163923787_c944f28388.jpg
She's pretty.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:15 PM | Being a political canidate is equal to being an Oxford don? The bar is the same?
That doesn't even make sense.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:16 PM | Straw man, Nathan. Please see your logical fallacies web site, and read it this time.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:16 PM |
Swashbuckler said...
Oh, but thanks for assuming the worst and tossing out the ad hominem attack ... Didn't I pull back, realize what I had done, own up to it and then apologize?
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:17 PM | OK, I really do have to get started on my job. I'll be back later.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Anthony G Williams - 3/28/2008 5:17 PM | | My, there's a lot been going on since I last dropped in!
Nathan, the item from Professor Swinburne was posted by someone on another forum, and knowing the enthusiasm for religious debates on this one, I thought members might enjoy it  . As I've posted before, I have no argument with people who believe in God, which is entirely a matter of faith. I only get involved when religious people try to recruit science or maths to prove their faith. This one is a classic example.
You asked about my qualifications: well, if it matters, I have two degrees, one at master's level with distinction. Neither is in maths, but as far as I'm concerned the problem with the prof's argument is not primarily a mathematical one, simply one of logical thinking: structured common sense, if you like.
If there is a one in two chance that God exists (a proposition with which I have no argument), then it is logically impossible for anything about God (including reincarnation) to have a higher overall probability than that.
Let me put it in non-controversial terms to illustrate the point. A man goes to a restaurant with four dishes on the menu, two of them vegetarian. Of the meat dishes, one is beef, one lamb. There is a one in two probability that the man will choose to eat meat. If he chooses to eat meat, there is a one in two probability that he will eat beef. But the overall probability that he will choose beef is only one in four. What Swinburne seems to have lost sight of is that it is the overall probability that matters; and that includes the assumption that there is only a one in two chance that God exists at all.
I am reminded of a saying attributed to George Orwell: "Some things are so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them."
|
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:18 PM |
Swashbuckler said...
Straw man, Nathan. Please see your logical fallacies web site, and read it this time. Which? What? I said you said something you didn't say then proceeded to argue that? Which, where?
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/28/2008 5:19 PM | Sheesh -- the ad hominem "typing to hear yourself type" thing came after your retrenchment -- so the apology doesn't apply to it. OK, now I'm gone. Really. No matter how much fun this is.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 3/28/2008 5:19 PM |
nathan said...Your starting premise in dismissing premise is to equate the god experience in human history to a two head chicken? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/163923787_c944f28388.jpg She's pretty.
LoL. The Colonel would be proud.
Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:20 PM | Hey Tony, great post--glad you're having fun. All good.
If you start out with a equal chance of either A then assume A (and I mean assume in the math/logic sense) and go down A then for the purpose of the equation creation the A is no longer .50--it's 1.
One is 100% a whole. 97% would then be less.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 3/28/2008 5:21 PM |
nathan said...Being a political canidate is equal to being an Oxford don? The bar is the same? That doesn't even make sense.
I was being funny.
The point is that even smart people make silly mistakes. Einstein, I'm given to understand, got a "D" in Math (which is why he had to go through that whole patent clerk rigamarole).
Jordan Lapp Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:22 PM |
Swashbuckler said...
Sheesh -- the ad hominem "typing to hear yourself type" thing came after your retrenchment -- so the apology doesn't apply to it. OK, now I'm gone. Really. No matter how much fun this is.  mercy. I apologize. I just felt ignored so I kicked the ground.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 5:24 PM |
Jordan Lapp said...
I was being funny.
The point is that even smart people make silly mistakes. Well I'm not going to argue *that* I already said my wife roots for the &*^%ing Seahawks. We be sympatico.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : BarbT - 3/28/2008 7:12 PM |
Anthony G Williams said...
My, there's a lot been going on since I last dropped in!
Let me put it in non-controversial terms to illustrate the point. A man goes to a restaurant with four dishes on the menu, two of them vegetarian. Of the meat dishes, one is beef, one lamb. There is a one in two probability that the man will choose to eat meat. If he chooses to eat meat, there is a one in two probability that he will eat beef. But the overall probability that he will choose beef is only one in four. What Swinburne seems to have lost sight of is that it is the overall probability that matters; and that includes the assumption that there is only a one in two chance that God exists at all.
But if the man is a vegetarian, there is zero chance that he will choose to eat meat, so the overall probability that he will eat beef is zero.
I now withdraw to admire those who enjoy argument (and brain-bruising math). :)
Barb
|
| Posted By : Anthony G Williams - 3/28/2008 9:21 PM |
nathan said...Hey Tony, great post--glad you're having fun. All good. If you start out with a equal chance of either A then assume A (and I mean assume in the math/logic sense) and go down A then for the purpose of the equation creation the A is no longer .50--it's 1. One is 100% a whole. 97% would then be less.
Nathan, you're making the same basic mistake of ignoring the overall probability.
Let me invent another example to make the point:
A person walks into a room. There is a one in two chance that it will be a man.
If it is a man, there is (for the sake of argument) a one in ten chance that he will have blonde hair.
If he is a man with blonde hair, there is a four in five chance he will have blue eyes.
Therefore, there is a four in five chance that the person walking into the room will be a blonde man with blue eyes!
That is essentially what the prof is saying (in fact, it's even worse than that, because he somehow multiplies things together to get to 97%, but I'll leave that for now).
In fact the overall probability that the person walking into the room will be a blonde man with blue eyes will be (1 in 2) x (1 in 10) x (4 in 5), which with a rough scribbling of the pencil, comes to 1 in 25, or 4%.
|
| Posted By : Anthony G Williams - 3/28/2008 9:23 PM |
BarbT said...
But if the man is a vegetarian, there is zero chance that he will choose to eat meat, so the overall probability that he will eat beef is zero.
Naughty! 
|
| Posted By : nathan - 3/28/2008 9:57 PM |
Anthony G Williams said...
Swinburne said...
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
making the... basic mistake of ignoring the overall probability.
These statements can't both be correct. 
If he's considering all the factors together then how can he be ignoring the overall probability?
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Anthony G Williams - 3/29/2008 4:24 AM |
nathan said...
Anthony G Williams said...
Swinburne said...
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
making the... basic mistake of ignoring the overall probability.
These statements can't both be correct.
If he's considering all the factors together then how can he be ignoring the overall probability?
I can think of only two reasons why he would publish anything which is so obviously wrong: either he has a mental blind spot where statistics is concerned and just doesn't realise what a major error he's made; or he is being intellectually dishonest for some reason.
I find the second possibility unlikely because the mistake is so obvious that anybody with any familiarity with statistics - or even logical thinking - would spot it immediately.
|
| Posted By : G.L. Douglas - 3/29/2008 11:27 AM |
Anthony G Williams said...
1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
It seems to me that there is a huge logical flaw in the reasoning. I won't argue with the point that the probability of God existing is one in two (50%). However, points 2, 3 and 4 all depend on God existing, so only affect that one in two chance: they have no bearing on the one in two probability that God does not exist, which remains at 50%.
To work through Professor Swinburne's calculations more logically:
The probability that God is incarnate is one in two (the first probability) multiplied by one in two (the second one), i.e. one in four (or 25%).
The proposition that God was resurrected depends on his being incarnate, so is a fraction of that one in four figure and must be less than 25%. So even accepting his proposition (as I understand it) that there was only a one in ten chance that the reports of the resurrection were wrong (where did he pluck that figure from?) the chance that the resurrection happened was about one in four-and-a-half (roughly), or 22 percent - not quite the same as 97 percent mentioned, let alone the one in a thousand chance of being wrong (how does that match up with 97%?) also mentioned!
Hi, Anthony, I have a different mathematical take on this than you do. If the probability of God existing is one in two, and Swinburne assumes that God exists, then this becomes the primary focus and now represents 100%.
Example: You're walking down a road that comes to a two-way fork. You choose one path and continue to walk. After that, nothing from the path you didn't choose can affect what you encounter.
So the equation does not become one in four (25%), but is again at a 50/50 decision point in the new area.
(then again, I may be wrong. I was once before.  heh heh)
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.
(Please visit my website: http://www.alpharising.net) |
| Posted By : Anthony G Williams - 3/29/2008 11:55 AM |
G.L. Douglas said...
Hi, Anthony, I have a different mathematical take on this than you do. If the probability of God existing is one in two, and Swinburne assumes that God exists, then this becomes the primary focus and now represents 100%.
Example: You're walking down a road that comes to a two-way fork. You choose one path and continue to walk. After that, nothing from the path you didn't choose can affect what you encounter.
So the equation does not become one in four (25%), but is again at a 50/50 decision point in the new area.
(then again, I may be wrong. I was once before. heh heh)
You are half right, but you're missing out the other - vital - half. At each fork in the road, there is a 50% chance that one path rather than another will be taken. But at each fork, the overall probability that a particular path will be taken drops further. So at the first fork, there's a 50% chance of choosing one path. At the second fork, there is a 50% chance of taking one path: but if looked at from the start, the chance is only 25%, and so on.
It's like flipping a coin: every time you flip a coin there is a 50% chance of it coming up 'heads'. But the chance of flipping heads many times in succession is well under 50%.
If the prof had said: "If God exists, and is incarnate, then there is a strong probability that the resurrection happened" then I wouldn't argue with him. But that is not what he is reported as saying. To quote from the article:
"It is faith, not proof, that makes Christians believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection, the central tenet of the religion. Until now. Professor Richard Swinburne, a leading philosopher of religion, has seemingly done the impossible. Using logic and mathematics, he has created a formula that he says shows a 97 percent certainty that Jesus Christ was resurrected by God the Father, report The Age and Catholic News."
The claim here is that he has proved with 97% certainty that the resurrection happened. No qualifications, no "assuming God exists". And so he is wrong. It's as simple as that.
Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/ >>
|
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 12:05 PM |
Anthony G Williams said...
I can think of only two reasons why he would publish anything which is so obviously wrong: either he has a mental blind spot where statistics is concerned and just doesn't realise what a major error he's made; or he is being intellectually dishonest for some reason.
I find the second possibility unlikely because the mistake is so obvious that anybody with any familiarity with statistics - or even logical thinking - would spot it immediately.
Well I think, as a general aside, the idea that the whole thing is a binary logic fork algorithm instead of,say, one long geometry equation is a possibility--but that's me applying only the basest of understanding, if that.
However there appears to be a third possibly that didn't seem to occur to you--perhaps because you have a mental blind spot where this subject matter occurs  : I got the following email from our much maligned Dick. *** I have no idea who put the piece which you enclose on the net. It is an extremely misleading account of my views, and has led many others beside yourself to think that I am very silly. I attach a lecture in which I summarised in prose the main argument to which you refer, contained in my book THE RESURRECTION OF GOD INCARNATE. For the mathematical calculation (which was not intended to give results quite as precise as the one you quote), you will have to get hold of the book (I don't have an electronic version of this) - the maths is contained in its Appendix. Best Wishes - Richard Swinburne*****
He did indeed send an attachement. I will of course email that attachment to anyone who wishes to read it. It's British lectures so be warned, lol.
It might be more fun to just mock though--the way the thread started--without getting a full grasp of what the man was saying or giving it a fair hearing.
Let me try; people who are curious about the intersection of the god experience and the sciences are poop-poo doo-do heads Oh Christ, I slay me. 1+1+1=Oxford Don's are idiots! You know this is more fun.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 12:09 PM | Okay, okay--all silliness aside...
What he's saying is that someone who didn't appreciate his line of inquiry put this out on the net. Or conversely it could be someone with good intentions but without the prerequiste education to understand what they were reading trying to paraphrase him.
I do have the attachement if anyone wants it.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Gustavo - 3/29/2008 12:25 PM | Exactly, the staritng point defines the calculation of the probability - so if you take into consieration all the theoretical forks in the road, you end up a probability of getting the right fork each time of (0.5) to th nth power, where n is the number of possible choices.
The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment is meant to be an illustration of the non-intuitive properties of material's behaviour at the quantum level. As such, what it really says isn't that the cat has a fifty/fifty chance of being alive, but that the cat, sealed within the box is BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD until the box is opened. In this case, the act of opening the box - measuring - causes the waveform function to collapse and "choose" one state. As I said, it was meant to illustrate something completely different.
Just to establish my credentials (because I see that they're important here), I have a degree (Masters equivalent - degrees are structured differently in Argentina, so a basic college degree equals a Masters in the US, with the extra knowledge to go with it) in engineering. That means three years of math, including proabability and statistics in extremely great depth. I also have a couple of qualifications that I consider irrelevant in this case: an MBA (more probabaility and more math), and have been accepted for a PhD position in the US (turned it down, possibly stupidly, for a more lucrative position in the private sector - didn't claim to be wise, merely well-instreucted). It's also irrelevant because it was for a management PhD.
Having said this, and hopefully established that I am not a complete layman when it comes to math, let's take a look at our don's numbers (I will take his probabilities at face value, even though there's no support for any of them, as others have póinted out, quite correctly)
God exists: 0.5
God incarnate: 0.5
Resurrection not being informed: 0.1
The resurrrection being informed = 1 - 0.1 = 0.9
So the probability of Christ's informed resurrection according to this is actually: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.9 = 0.225 - a little less than one in four, which is not what the man says starting from the same numbers.
Unless there are premises not reported in the upper section of this post, the math doesn't add up.
That's without even questioning his assumptions, which are the most important part of any probabilistic analysis. Maybe the old don should stick with the philososphy.
As I said before, I respect any and all faiths and beliefs, I just laugh at bad math.
Visit my livejournal! http://bondo-ba.livejournal.com/
|
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 12:36 PM |
Gustavo said...
1}The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment is meant to be an illustration of the non-intuitive properties of material's behaviour at the quantum level. As such, what it really says isn't that the cat has a fifty/fifty chance of being alive, but that the cat, sealed within the box is BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD until the box is opened. In this case, the act of opening the box - measuring - causes the waveform function to collapse and "choose" one state. As I said, it was meant to illustrate something completely different.
2]As I said before, I respect any and all faiths and beliefs, I just laugh at bad math. 1} G, I'm going to assume the fault is mine in the writing and not your's in the reading. I used Schrody's Cat some what because it's the most famous 50/50 example of all--admittedly. But mostly I used the Cat because it is a well known thought experiment .
I wrote that because I didn't want literary characters, vampires, tooth fairy's and pink fuzzy unicorns (whichever, pick one) substituted for the human god experience in the discourse. If we treat the variable of the god experience in our language like a thought experiment or the equation "X" then there is a vast difference in apporach and respect while still having the fundamental starting point of "intangible".
By using silly or humorous analogies you are prepping the "battlefield" by using backhanded ridicule to prep the langauge--so I was hoping to change the nature of inserting god into a math problem to that of X or a thought experiment--rather than that of, say, cartoon characters.
2} apperently it is bad math and Swinburne has nothing to do with it.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : G.L. Douglas - 3/29/2008 12:39 PM | My head hurts. 
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.
(Please visit my website: http://www.alpharising.net) |
| Posted By : Gustavo - 3/29/2008 3:55 PM | Good to know that the don is innocent. Pity someone would try to smear him that way.
Visit my livejournal! http://bondo-ba.livejournal.com/
|
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/29/2008 4:42 PM | Nathan: You can send me the attachment. I'd like to get a look at it.
The article on Swinburne's math that Anthony linked to in starting this discussion has shown up in various forms on several Web sites, mostly Christian or Catholic sites and all pretty much saying the same thing as what Anthony shared. All those that I've seen were favorable to Swinburne's theorum, and reported the premises we've been discussing pretty much verbatim.
That might mean several not-quite-right reports stemming from a common source. Stuff online tends to spread like wildfire, and various Christian organizations are real good about spreading information around.
So, it will be interesting to see what Swinburne actually has to say. Thanks in advance, Nathan.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 4:54 PM | Sent good sir.
Would this be all you have to say about the manner in which this subject was approached and certain lines of argument pursued?
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 3/29/2008 5:11 PM | I'd like to see that article as well, Nathan, though without the math, I'm not sure what good it is...
Jordan Lapp
Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/29/2008 5:12 PM | Um, Nathan, what else is it you think I should say?
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 5:16 PM | Steve could you shoot Jordon that? Or Jordon could you send me a note so I can reply? I thought I knew your email (and I'm sure I have it) but it's not coming up when I type in my headers.
Swashbuckler said...
Um, what else is it you think I should say? If you got nothing, you got nothing. I'm cool with that.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/29/2008 5:17 PM | The lecture Nathan sent is mostly sermon, but it does include a bit of math toward the end.
--------------------
Swinburne wrote this:
If we suppose that the probability that we would have this combination of prior and posterior evidence if Jesus was not God Incarnate is 1/1000, then it can be shown24 that the total evidence gives a probability of 97/100 that Jesus was God Incarnate who rose from the dead. To take an analogy - if the background evidence gives a significant probability, say 1/4, that John would commit a certain crime; and so 3/4 that he wouldn’t; and the clues are on the whole not such as you would not expect if he did the crime (although there is a significant probability that they might occur), but are such that it is very improbable indeed that you would find them if he did not do the crime, then they make it probable that he committed the crime.
I conclude that unless my assessment of how probable the evidence of natural theology makes the existence of God is very badly mistaken, it is very probable that Jesus was God Incarnate and that he rose from the dead.
------------------------
OK, so that's where the 97 percent figure comes from, and that's the math involved in the lecture. The lecture itself is mostly assumptions about the probability of god's existance (which Swinburne says he's worked out elsewhere and so didn't include in the lecture he sent Nathan); assumptions about the veracity of witness testimony in the gospels (unwarranted assumptions, in my view); and assumptions about what god might do and why he might do it. The lecture has very little to do with logic and math, and a whole lot to do with trying to figure out and explain Christian theology.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/29/2008 5:19 PM | Yes, I can shoot a copy to Jordan. No problem.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 5:21 PM | Steve without a trace of sarcasm I'm quite impressed by your ability to absorb and comprehend that lecture so quickly. It was quite dense and quite dry, IMO. I'm still back reading some to make sure I catch what he's saying and forming some arguments. (I'm being sincere).
The point being that Swinburne wrote 'A.' with a certain intention. People (honestly or nefariously) paraphrased it out to B and applied *another* intention--then proceeded to argue against that.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 5:22 PM | I should have wrote "in forming *his* arguments" I'm not forming any arguments.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 3/29/2008 5:31 PM | Nathan: People here responded to what was reported on various Christian web sites. Whatever Swinburne's intention was, he did write in his lecture there was a 97 percent chance Christ was resurrected IF his assumptions about the existence of god, etc., are true. That is, in fact, as you say, different from saying he could mathematically prove the resurrection was a 97 percent certainty. The religious web sites grabbing hold of Swinburne's analysis and sharing it with the world were, indeed, overstating his case.
That overstated case is what we were reacting to -- and we were quite right to do so. The math and logic in those articles is shoddy. Swinburne's logic is also rather shoddy -- he gives significant weight to things he already believes and assigns them probabilities far out of proportion to reality, because he dismisses simpler explanations -- but he does, to his credit, qualify it all by saying "if I'm right about that" then "this is more probable."
But I won't apologize for ragging on bad math and logic, whether it came from Swinburne or from the religious press overtstating Swinburne. That "97 percent mathematical proof" is the thing that will keep showing up in the talk shows, the radio shows, the religious press, the mainstream press, the blogs, the online forums, etc., and so it should be discussed. And crushed. Because it's bogus.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : nathan - 3/29/2008 5:42 PM |
Swashbuckler said...
But I won't apologize I didn't think you would.
My argument was always and only that I thought it improbable someone of that kind of background |
|
| |