FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Probability measure for religiosity

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


Bikerman
(This is meant to be humorous, not offensive. If it offends then all I can say is that was not my intent).

Whilst enduring an all too common bout of insomnia last night, my mind was busy trying to be busy, despite my best efforts, and wandered onto matters religious.
What we need (went my thoughts) is some new metric which can be applied to a statement, concept or idea to give the probability of that statement, concept or idea being correct according to a particular religious viewpoint.
Examples flashed across my mind - take 2 ideas: Evolution and Noah's Ark.
According to the scientific view Evolution has a probability approaching 1 and Noah's Ark has a probability approaching 0. From a Creationist/ID perspective, however, the probabilities are reversed and hardened, so that Evolution has a probability of 0, and Noah's Ark a probability of 1.

What we need is a new metric or measurement which can be used to express the probability of truth from the Religious perspective. (By this time my thoughs were in full flow).
We could call the new metric the Correlated Religious Applicability Probability.
Obviously different religions would require different calculations but the idea seems sound in principle. If we re-examine the 2 ideas above using the new metric, the utility becomes apparent.
Using Creationist/ID C.R.A.P. :
Evolution has a probability of 0 (No C.R.A.P.)
Noah's Ark has a probability of 1 (100% C.R.A.P.)
(By now I was getting quite excited as the potential applications of the new metric danced across my mind)
Perhaps (I reasoned) the metric can be broken down into discrete functions. Two obvious influences on the C.R.A.P value would be
  • Scriptural Texts of Religion And Implied Norms
  • Fundamentalist Approach to Religious Texts
By now Morpheus was working his subtle wiles and I began to doze-off, but it appears that, with some follow-through, S.T.R.A.I.N. & F.A.R.T. could lead to C.R.A.P.

(at that point I finally fell asleep)
Bryan_Bezzle
That's pretty deep my friend. I agree that the religious arguers take into consideration things they want to believe and very seldom do they have proof. But could you possibly make one for the probability that something that is scientifically accepted could indeed turn out to be wrong? If that read wrong I apologize I am actually being quite serious.
HalfBloodPrince
*sigh*
Bikerman
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
That's pretty deep my friend. I agree that the religious arguers take into consideration things they want to believe and very seldom do they have proof. But could you possibly make one for the probability that something that is scientifically accepted could indeed turn out to be wrong? If that read wrong I apologize I am actually being quite serious.

Well, the whole ethos of science is - this is the best we can do at the moment. There is an inbuilt assumption that a statement may be proved wrong in the future. This rarely, in fact, happens. What normally happens in science is that an existing theory is subsumed by a new theory. The old theory was correct as far as it went but the new theory incorporates the old and explains phenomena that the old could not. Theory, therefore, tends to widen in scope, and that is why there is so much furore over the 'Theory of Everything' - the TOE or Grand Unified Theory.
The fundamental difference between religion and science is simple to express.

Science says - this is what I accept as the best explanation. Here is the evidence. This is the theory that the evidence suggests. This is how you can show that I am wrong. If you show that I am wrong I will change my theory.

Religion says - this is what I believe to be true. It is divinely inspired truth and therefore absolute. The evidence is scriptural and personal. There is no way you can show that I am wrong, therefore I will not change my explanation.
Bryan_Bezzle
Bikerman wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
That's pretty deep my friend. I agree that the religious arguers take into consideration things they want to believe and very seldom do they have proof. But could you possibly make one for the probability that something that is scientifically accepted could indeed turn out to be wrong? If that read wrong I apologize I am actually being quite serious.

Well, the whole ethos of science is - this is the best we can do at the moment. There is an inbuilt assumption that a statement may be proved wrong in the future. This rarely, in fact, happens. What normally happens in science is that an existing theory is subsumed by a new theory. The old theory was correct as far as it went but the new theory incorporates the old and explains phenomena that the old could not. Theory, therefore, tends to widen in scope, and that is why there is so much furore over the 'Theory of Everything' - the TOE or Grand Unified Theory.
The fundamental difference between religion and science is simple to express.

Science says - this is what I accept as the best explanation. Here is the evidence. This is the theory that the evidence suggests. This is how you can show that I am wrong. If you show that I am wrong I will change my theory.

Religion says - this is what I believe to be true. It is divinely inspired truth and therefore absolute. The evidence is scriptural and personal. There is no way you can show that I am wrong, therefore I will not change my explanation.


Well that isn't entirely true meaning what you say about what religion says. I am on religions side many times but I am one who looks for scientific explanations on biblical happenings. Yes I choose to believe the bible but I also believe that many of the stories are severely exaggerated since they were written by man. I am open to explanations but I choose to have faith in my religion due to my personal experiences and even those experiences could very well have a healthy dose of coincidence, but coincidence is used in heavy dosage when science explains the TOE correct?
Bikerman
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well that isn't entirely true meaning what you say about what religion says. I am on religions side many times but I am one who looks for scientific explanations on biblical happenings. Yes I choose to believe the bible but I also believe that many of the stories are severely exaggerated since they were written by man. I am open to explanations but I choose to have faith in my religion due to my personal experiences and even those experiences could very well have a healthy dose of coincidence, but coincidence is used in heavy dosage when science explains the TOE correct?

I think it is entirely true, otherwise I would not 'say' it.
I do not doubt that many reports contained in the bible have some historical accuracy - it would be rather amazing were it no so. My point is that the bible is used as the basis for a supernatural belief system for which there is positively NO scientific support or evidence. Many accounts of the OT are simple reportage and are quite likely to have some historical truth. The important bits, however, are the bits that refer to Yaweh and for this there is no historical support.
As for the TOE - coincidence is perhaps the wrong word. There is a great difference between saying :
here is a theory, you can test it and check it for yourself;
and saying;
here is the word of God, believe it.
Bryan_Bezzle
Bikerman wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well that isn't entirely true meaning what you say about what religion says. I am on religions side many times but I am one who looks for scientific explanations on biblical happenings. Yes I choose to believe the bible but I also believe that many of the stories are severely exaggerated since they were written by man. I am open to explanations but I choose to have faith in my religion due to my personal experiences and even those experiences could very well have a healthy dose of coincidence, but coincidence is used in heavy dosage when science explains the TOE correct?

I think it is entirely true, otherwise I would not 'say' it.
I do not doubt that many reports contained in the bible have some historical accuracy - it would be rather amazing were it no so. My point is that the bible is used as the basis for a supernatural belief system for which there is positively NO scientific support or evidence. Many accounts of the OT are simple reportage and are quite likely to have some historical truth. The important bits, however, are the bits that refer to Yaweh and for this there is no historical support.
As for the TOE - coincidence is perhaps the wrong word. There is a great difference between saying :
here is a theory, you can test it and check it for yourself;
and saying;
here is the word of God, believe it.


Maybe someone of a different religion would argue that God is not humanoid like many believe but is spirit. Buddhist for example would tell you, here is how to get in touch with your spirit, test and check it yourself.
Bikerman
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Maybe someone of a different religion would argue that God is not humanoid like many believe but is spirit. Buddhist for example would tell you, here is how to get in touch with your spirit, test and check it yourself.

Well Buddhism happens to be the 'religion' that I have most time for. That is largely because I don't really regard it as a religion - it is more of a philosophy which does not necessarily encompass the supernatural.
Bryan_Bezzle
Bikerman wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Maybe someone of a different religion would argue that God is not humanoid like many believe but is spirit. Buddhist for example would tell you, here is how to get in touch with your spirit, test and check it yourself.

Well Buddhism happens to be the 'religion' that I have most time for. That is largely because I don't really regard it as a religion - it is more of a philosophy which does not necessarily encompass the supernatural.


Well I am not Buddhist yet I can openly include some of their philosophies into my own religion. My quest is to understand my religion more while more & more I do see myself drifting away from stereotypical Christian beliefs. It is the words used that set off opinions in people's mind. A Buddhist would say here is how to get in touch with your spirit, while I would say here is how you can tap into God.
Bikerman
I would encourage you to read more on Buddhism. I would, of course, include the advice to be critical of any such reading.
Here are some suggested sources to start from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/buddhaintro.html
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.