[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Gennady Ra]

At 11:12 AM 11/27/04 -0800, you Hal Finney wrote:

>Isn't it more reasonable to ascribe a probability to the existence of
>the Jewish God, as well as to the Christian God, the Moslem God, and all
>the other Gods who have been proposed to exist?  And of course, we would
>ascribe a probability to the existence of any other hypothetical entity?
>
>How would you classify someone who thought it was extremely improbable
>that any of these Gods existed?  Atheist or agnostic?  Does it make a
>difference how improbable they judge it to be?  Is there some specific
>probability level below which a reasonable person could not (in your
>judgement) classify God's existence?

 From the review by Craig Waterman of The Probability of God: A Simple 
Calculation That Proves The Ultimate Truth by Stephen D. Unwin (E-SKEPTIC #3 
of 2004. JANUARY 12, 2004):

A more serious problem with the work is that the author wishes to proceed 
from a position of ignorance as to the existence of a god (p. 4), yet he 
arbitrarily limits consideration to the traditional conception of his 
Judeo-Christian god alone. On what bases are all other god concepts 
excluded? Special pleading leads to a fatal skewing of the numbers towards 
the author's pet concept. This fallacy of special pleading forms the core of 
the Unwin's book and is the same fallacy which kills Pascal's Wager, for the 
following reason:

It does not follow that if the atheists are wrong then the Christians are 
correct, and it does not follow that if the Christians are wrong then the 
atheists are correct. It may well be that the atheists are wrong AND the 
Christians are wrong, so the issue cannot validly be cast as an either/or 
proposition. To do so is to employ a false dichotomy.

Through special pleading, Unwin begins by invoking an a-priori 50% 
probability towards his god's existence by arguing that 50% is an expression 
of maximum ignorance (p. 58). I found this position astounding. What of 
other speculations? Are we merely brains in vats hooked to computers? Do 
magic elves steal socks from the dryer? Do Space-Penguins live in the center 
of the moon? Claiming ignorance, the author to be consistent would have us 
assign an a-priori 50% probability that each of these claims is true.

If we begin with the acknowledgment that we are ignorant as to which, if 
any, of the potential god concepts might actually be true, then there is no 
bases to favor one concept to the exclusion of all others. Thus ALL 
potential god concepts must be taken into account, of which the 
Judeo-Christian concept is but one among an almost inexhaustible number. So 
the proper a-priori probability given a position of total ignorance is a 
figure so small as to border on zero, and certainly provides no rational 
grounds for belief. The 50% figure is purely gratuitous, subverts the burden 
of proof, and simply dismisses every other potential-god concept.
===== 

Best!

Gennady
Simferopol Crimea Ukraine