Chance and Theism

[tirtlegrrl]

I hear this argument A LOT (and happened upon it again reading the thread inspired by the latest podcast): That such and such was "too unlikely" to have happened by "chance", therefore God did it.

Here's the question: At what level of probability does something cease to be "chance" and become "God did it"? 1/1,000,000,000? 1 followed by 20 zeroes? Thirty zeroes? How about the guy who tells God, "If this coin comes up heads three times, I"ll take that to mean you want me to do ____." Should he increase the number of coin flips just to make sure it's God?

[mitchellmckain]

I hear this argument A LOT (and happened upon it again reading the thread inspired by the latest podcast): That such and such was "too unlikely" to have happened by "chance", therefore God did it.

Here's the question: At what level of probability does something cease to be "chance" and become "God did it"? 1/1,000,000,000? 1 followed by 20 zeroes? Thirty zeroes? How about the guy who tells God, "If this coin comes up heads three times, I"ll take that to mean you want me to do ____." Should he increase the number of coin flips just to make sure it's God?

Yes and I hear a very similar argument on the part of the atheists that their observations of the world make the probability of a good and loving God involved in our lives to be highly improbable.

Thermodynamics is based on such probabilistic reasoning, and the numbers are on the order of 1 in 10^23 so that is 23 zeros. So I think the more significant point here is that these evaluations of probability by theists and atheists for their point of view are purely subjective and that they really cannot assign probabilities to these things in any objective manner at all.

[humanguy]

Here's the question: At what level of probability does something cease to be "chance" and become "God did it"? 1/1,000,000,000? 1 followed by 20 zeroes? Thirty zeroes? How about the guy who tells God, "If this coin comes up heads three times, I"ll take that to mean you want me to do ____." Should he increase the number of coin flips just to make sure it's God?

Here's another question: what is the level of probability that god is, or is not, a human invention?

[mitchellmckain]

Thermodynamics is based on such probabilistic reasoning, and the numbers are on the order of 1 in 10^23 so that is 23 zeros.

Correction:

The numbers are on the order of 1 in 2^(10^23) = 10^(3x10^22) so that is 3x10^22 zeroes.

This is probability that all the molecules of 1 mole of a gas would just happen to move to the right half of its container.

[tirtlegrrl]

humanguy wrote: Here's another question: what is the level of probability that god is, or is not, a human invention?

I have no idea how one would go about calculating such a probability. Inasmuch there are many conflicting ideas about God out there, some of those deities are likely made up and some of them may approximate the real thing (if it exists).






A (semi-related) question: How inaccurate can one's concept of God be and still have the real deity accept one's worship? Will all "true believers" necessarily march in theological lock-step with one another?

[humanguy]

humanguy wrote: Here's another question: what is the level of probability that god is, or is not, a human invention?

I have no idea how one would go about calculating such a probability. Inasmuch there are many conflicting ideas about God out there, some of those deities are likely made up and some of them may approximate the real thing (if it exists).

Interesting. "The real thing." Are you saying, then, that you're willing to entertain the possibility that there is a "real thing?"

[mitchellmckain]

A (semi-related) question: How inaccurate can one's concept of God be and still have the real deity accept one's worship? Will all "true believers" necessarily march in theological lock-step with one another?

To answer that question you first must ask why would the real deity want to be worshipped in the first place?

If your answer is simply that He created us for that purpose or something like that, then the answer would be whatever unknowable thing strikes His fancy (whatever pleases him). But I think this is just the way the religious manipulators want it, because imagining that they speak for God, this translates as whatever strikes THEIR fancy and whatever pleases THEM.

My answer, however, which I think is made clear in the first chapter of Isaiha, is that He sees how this worship has the power to transform us from self destructive habits to that which enables us to grow and become more than we are. In that case, the answer to your question would be that the limits are defined by what inspires a positive transformation in us. To be more specific, worship is the ultimate form of looking up to someone and admiring them, and thus their qualities are the things that we ourselves aspire to when we worship Him. Thus the question is whether our concept of God conforms to what the real deity would have us aspire to.

Thus if our concept of God is one where He values love, creativity and giving to the point of self-sacrifice then I think most can see that these are indeed great things to aspire to. However if your concept of God is one who is obsessed with His own glory, power and control, who is easily angered and finds it difficult to forgive, who seeks to get His way with ultimate threats like a gunman or a rapist, and who sadistically resurrects people like suicides just so that He can torture them, well then I think most people would not think that these are great things to aspire to at all.

[tirtlegrrl]

humanguy wrote: Are you saying, then, that you're willing to entertain the possibility that there is a "real thing?"

To me the "real thing" is whatever is ultimately responsible for the existence of everything. I would like to know its attributes, like whether or not it is personal, loving and just, and whether it cares about football as much that sport's devotees seem to think it does. However, I don't know what my threshold of evidence is for actually tipping me over into full-fledged confident belief in the existence of, and/or the absolute worshipworthiness of, any particular deity. I was "born again" as a youngster but once I made the mistake of viewing my faith through the eyes of its critics I got stuck in skeptic-land. (Or you could say I got freed from religion-land, whichever you prefer.)

[Matt]

I hear this argument A LOT (and happened upon it again reading the thread inspired by the latest podcast): That such and such was "too unlikely" to have happened by "chance", therefore God did it.

Here's the question: At what level of probability does something cease to be "chance" and become "God did it"? 1/1,000,000,000? 1 followed by 20 zeroes? Thirty zeroes? How about the guy who tells God, "If this coin comes up heads three times, I"ll take that to mean you want me to do ____." Should he increase the number of coin flips just to make sure it's God?

Tirtlegrrl,

The "chance" argument is an intrasystematic critique of naturalism that doesn't have to assume theism. When someone says that the universe is too ordered to have happened by chance, they are saying that the naturalistic creation myth is too unlikely to be true--there has to be some other explanation for the formation of the cosmos. It doesn't follow that the Christian explanation is true, just that the naturalistic one is unlikely.

In many theistic worldviews, there is no such thing as chance. The ancient Israelites would do things like cast lots to discern God's will since they believed He controlled how they fell. Also, the priests would make decisions based on the Urim and the Thummim, which for all we know were just a black rock and a white rock in his pocket. He would draw one out--white we do this and black we do that. Again, the controlling idea is that there is no such thing as chance.

Most American Christians today, however, don't understand God's providence in that way. Their worldview is halfway between theism and deism--God wound up the world and set it free to operate as it saw fit, but He intervenes every now and then.

[Pseudonym]

I hear this argument A LOT (and happened upon it again reading the thread inspired by the latest podcast): That such and such was "too unlikely" to have happened by "chance", therefore God did it.

Here's the question: At what level of probability does something cease to be "chance" and become "God did it"? 1/1,000,000,000? 1 followed by 20 zeroes? Thirty zeroes? How about the guy who tells God, "If this coin comes up heads three times, I"ll take that to mean you want me to do ____." Should he increase the number of coin flips just to make sure it's God?

I've never heard a theist statistician speak in these terms.

There are two counter-arguments to this.

One is that if you have a large "state space", rare events happen routinely. Shuffle a deck of cards, and the order that you get will happen once in every 8×10^67 times. That's 8 with 67 zeroes after it. But it was inevitable that you'd get some ordering, each of which is individually unlikely.

The other is the anthropic principle, which can be applied quite widely. In a large universe, or a large population of humans, or a long life, rare events will inevitably happen every so often. It's precisely those events that cause us to be here, or cause us to take note of them. So, for example, abiogenesis may well be an extremely rare occurrence, but it's bound to happen on some planet somewhere, and it's on precisely those planets where organisms can arise who can marvel at how rare it is.

[tirtlegrrl]

matt wrote: The "chance" argument is an intrasystematic critique of naturalism that doesn't have to assume theism. When someone says that the universe is too ordered to have happened by chance, they are saying that the naturalistic creation myth is too unlikely to be true--there has to be some other explanation for the formation of the cosmos. It doesn't follow that the Christian explanation is true, just that the naturalistic one is unlikely.

So how unlikely is "too unlikely"? Or do you mean that the order evident in the universe is MORE likely given theism than naturalism?

[Lawrence]

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.'

This quotation shows the importance of perspective and the reason while final cause (purpose) is arbitrary. I think it also shows the problem with this random chance crap.

[tirtlegrrl]

I once suggested to a couple of believers that maybe cockroaches are the intended beneficiaries of the universe's fine tuning, and humans are just incidental bipeds with overactive imaginations...it didn't go over that well.

[NH Baritone]

I once suggested to a couple of believers that maybe cockroaches are the intended beneficiaries of the universe's fine tuning, and humans are just incidental bipeds with overactive imaginations...it didn't go over that well.

That's possibly because in addition to overactive imaginations, humans also possess brittle egos.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

I bet every animal species suffers(?) from it's own [insert species]-pocentrism.