The probability that at least one religion is approximately true

[LuisDantas]

Well an example of a traditional truth would be--jumping off a tall building could easily lead to death. Its a fact based on the universe and reality. I mean it seems to me that either God exists or he doesn't. There is no middle ground really and thus it seems entirely reasonable to associate religion with this kind of truth. Many religions also make claims about the universe, nature, reality, humanity, and science. Another example--either Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of God or he is not. I fail to see why asking this kind of truth question is "wrong as heck." I know you asserted its wrong as heck but can you explain it? If Jesus didn't rise from the dead and isn't the son of God then that truth undermines the entirety of Christianity.

I beg to differ. Particularly when you borrow that IMO silly claim that some people do that God "must either exist or fail to".

That is just not how it works, when it does.

Right, but every part of religion makes claims about reality. Just the existence of God is the biggest claim about reality of them all--or the astral plane or whatever. Once a religion makes claims about reality it is subject to asking if it is true or false. It seems like you're talking more about philosophy--personal opinions on how to live your life and be moral. I agree that those aren't true or false, but that isn't what religion does.

I can only assume you have not had a lot of exposure to healthy religious practice. I won't deny that such things as you describe exist, but they are distortions and abuses, hardly the good stuff.

 

[George-ananda]

So whatever definition of God you give will be subject to a true / false consideration in summary.

Is that really correct or is it more like we need to do a consideration of all theistic and atheistic understandings and determining which understanding seems most reasonable. We will have no perfect understanding of a universe beyond our minds and words and so to call an understanding simply true or false is too simplistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is that really correct or is it more like we need to do a consideration of all theistic and atheistic understandings and determining which understanding seems most reasonable.

Does it fall to humans to validate the existence of deities? It seems to me that ultimately it is better to accept that we lack the means to meaningfully do such a thing.

 

[George-ananda]

Does it fall to humans to validate the existence of deities? It seems to me that ultimately it is better to accept that we lack the means to meaningfully do such a thing.

Well I can't speak for other's beliefs, but I feel there is sufficient evidence and argumentation to justify what I believe.

 

[George-ananda]

Does it fall to humans to validate the existence of deities? It seems to me that ultimately it is better to accept that we lack the means to meaningfully do such a thing.

I want to add to my above post by saying that I also believe there is intelligence in the universe that does not want earnest seekers to be clueless. I believe there are advanced souls that see more than the common man.

 

[LuisDantas]

That sounds... unlikely in the extreme, really.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Is it impossible to assign such a probability?[/

Formally, yes. Let us imagine that we could define the various religions sufficiently formally such that we could, in principle, represent them in a mathematical way necessary for calculating probabilities. We still lack a probability space as well as (and relatedly) a method for assigning weights to the various "events" our probability function evaluates the probability of.

 

[Revoltingest]

You gotta fix the <quote> feature in this post.
I've warned ya.....mixing late nite posting with alcohol leads to trouble.

Btw, welcome back.
And I agree with you (but with less technical sophistication).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then in what sense is it a religion then? That sounds more like philosophy

I'm thinking of religions like Unitarian Universalism where their creed and guiding principles are based on value judgements, not on factual claims.

Do you consider Unitarian Universalism to be a religion? I do, but I know some people don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does it fall to humans to validate the existence of deities?

It falls to humans to justify their own beliefs, including their beliefs about deities.

It seems to me that ultimately it is better to accept that we lack the means to meaningfully do such a thing.

So then all religions that depend on a literal god fail and can be dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Even though a stopped clock is right twice a day, you don't use it to try to tell time.

 

[LuisDantas]

It falls to humans to justify their own beliefs, including their beliefs about deities.

Indeed. Never quite understood how come so many people expect to be justified by their beliefs. It is the other way around.

So then all religions that depend on a literal god fail and can be dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Well, yes. I don't think that such an unwise reliance is proper even for religions that do emphasize theism.

People are entitled to belief, but they do need to take responsiblity for that belief, including the chance that they are deluding themselves outright.

Even though a stopped clock is right twice a day, you don't use it to try to tell time.

And yet there are people who attempt to take their god-beliefs as an actual sustaining point of their religious practice. Odd at best. God-beliefs do not really suit such an use.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When it mostly corresponds with reality. Newtonian gravity is approximately true for example. It has some holes but can general describe the way the universe operates on many levels. Relativity is better but newtonian gravity does a decent job.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[serp777]

Formally, yes. Let us imagine that we could define the various religions sufficiently formally such that we could, in principle, represent them in a mathematical way necessary for calculating probabilities. We still lack a probability space as well as (and relatedly) a method for assigning weights to the various "events" our probability function evaluates the probability of.

Presumably though, couldn't you assign certain religions with an extremely low probability if the religion's central claim was empirically found to be false? Like if Jesus's body was somehow discovered and demonstrated to be entirely legitimate then surely that would show that many Christian faiths would have, at best, a very small probability of being true. I image you would be able to give a probability with a certain amount of uncertainty based on the accuracy of the evidence. Similarly if there was some obvious evidence for a religion, then you could assign a very high probability.

Regardless though, "Informal" probability, if you will, has its place as well. In court for example, probabilities aren't often formalized to specific calculations, but the evidence stacked against a hypothetical defendant would suggest that its highly likely that the defendant was guilty. Its more of a judgment call based on evidence. In some cases its inappropriate to apply specific mathematical probability calculations. I'm not saying that you're saying this next part, but just because formalized mathematics isn't necessarily effective in this situation doesn't mean that probability isn't relevant.

 

[serp777]

Is that really correct or is it more like we need to do a consideration of all theistic and atheistic understandings and determining which understanding seems most reasonable. We will have no perfect understanding of a universe beyond our minds and words and so to call an understanding simply true or false is too simplistic.

I'm not asking for perfection, which is why I said "approximately" in the main thread. Also its not "too simplistic".

The fact that gravity keeps my feet on the ground doesn't depend on understanding or interpretation. Similarly either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. I'm not talking about the meaning of true where a belief is always true for the person who believes it or true in the sense that it helps them or anything like that. I'm talking about true as in consistent and accurate with respect to reality--the traditional meaning of true.

 

[serp777]

I think you are restricting things to Abrahamic religions that hold a dualistic God (God and creation are two entities). I was also wishing to include pantheistic God concepts (God and creation are not-two entities). In my view God is pure infinite consciousness and the fundamental basis of everything.

Another point is if the Abrahamic God concept is not accepted, that does not leave a no-God scenario (atheism). I personally think the Abrahamic God concept is not the highest understanding but it is closer to the truth than atheism.

Not necessarily the Abrahamic religions. I'm saying really anything--a collective consciousness, the matrix, etc. Either these things exist or they don't--they are either true or false.

And i',m not saying that its either God or atheism. You could say I don't know or say its impossible to know.

But the existence of an infinite consciousness that's the fundamental basis of everything is either true or false. If the universe somehow popped out of nothing or from a multiverse and nothing else, then it would be false. It would be true if there were such a thing.

Abrahamic God concept is not the highest understanding but it is closer to the truth than atheism

Then that would be false because its not accurate. In order to be true it would need to be completely accurate. However I included approximately true to make this thread possible. It might fall under the category of approxmately true.

 

[Segev Moran]

Does anyone care to take a guess? Is it impossible to assign such a probability?

My answer would be "I don't know" because it seems extremely difficult to have enough reliable information to make such a claim about the probability.

If you say 100% or 0% there must be significant evidence or justification because these imply certainty.

That would be 0%.
And no ... Saying something is not probable, doesn't require evidence...

But really.. for sake of the argument.. there isn't really something that is 0% probable...
but assuming probability is based on past knowledge, on evidence and the way things work as we know it.. then yep... 0% that any of a religion's claims are true.

 

[viole]

Does anyone care to take a guess? Is it impossible to assign such a probability?

My answer would be "I don't know" because it seems extremely difficult to have enough reliable information to make such a claim about the probability.

If you say 100% or 0% there must be significant evidence or justification because these imply certainty.

Since there is an infinity of possible gods, the probability is zero. But that does not entail that none of these possible gods exists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[serp777]

Since there is an infinity of possible gods, the probability is zero. But that does not entail that none of these possible gods exists.

Ciao

- viole

How can the probability be zero but its still possible that Gods could exist? Are you saying all religious are wrong but there can still be Gods?

 

[viole]

How can the probability be zero but its still possible that Gods could exist? Are you saying all religious are wrong but there can still be Gods?

Nope. i am saying that an event can have probability zero, but it could still happen. That is the case if the space of all possible events is infinite.

Ciao

- viole