Bayes Theorem: Key to the Universe, Richard Carrier Skepticon 4
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Please subscribe.
During filming, if a powerpoint slide is just a reiteration of what the speaker is saying, without any new information, I do not cut to it. If you are screaming, "What the fuck is on the projector!"... This is the answer.
All Skepticon videos will be monetized this year with ads. 100% of the proceeds with be used to purchase micro-loans through Kiva.org.
I know the ads are annoying, but there is no reason to not use the money for a good cause.
God I love the 21st century. What are the chances an uneducated person like me would be able to see information like this in say the early 90's. Great.
what a humble, honorable comment. well done, sir. (i totally agree, btw.)
DJcrazyguy :)) Thanks.
Thank Dog, not God. Dogs are real, gods are highly improbable ;-)
I guess it would depend on your dial-up speed
1950 is the dividing line. For the thousands of years before 1950, it would be reasonable to believe in god. Science was not advanced enough to prove religion is nonsense. For the short few decades after 1950, one would have to be scientifically ignorant or just plain crazy to believe in god.
Why? Because that's the time when the scale tipped and enough things were proven and discovered to rule out god as an answer to anything. These things were:
1. Darwin's discovery that god was not necessary for humans. Species develop by natural processes moving from the simplicity of single celled to complexity of humans. So man was not poofed into existance by god. No god was necessary to form a human.
2. Space travel/telescopes showed us that the bible is wrong about what the universe looks like. The moon is not a 'lesser light' (it's not a light) and the sun a 'greater light' and there are no waters above. Stars are not holes in the floor of heaven. The sun is just another star.
3. Geology, biology and chemistry proved the bible account of creation is wrong. Plants weren't made before the sun, the Earth wasn't made before the stars, etc.
4. The bible is wrong about slavery and genocide. Slavery is universally condemned by all major countries. Biblical instructions on treatment of slaves is unnecessary because human-driven ethics override god's failure to mention that its not right to keep slaves. Also, almost all nations condemn genocide, which is widely practiced in biblical times. Like slavery, the bible fails to explicitely state that it is wrong.
5. Genetics shows human kinship with all living things. Human DNA is the same as plant and other animal DNA, differing only by a few percent. This difference is important, but the similarity shows that humans are not special or unique. We differ from other animals only in our ability to reason. We don't have 'fang and claw' so working in groups and using technology is our competitive advantage.
6. Physics has revealed a universe that is explainable by natural processes with no 'magic' by a god necessary to poof it into existence or keep it going. Newton and Galileo have proved a universe that operates mechanically like a machine with no man behind the curtain pulling the strings.
7. Time has shown that science replaces supernatural explanations of 'god did it' but NEVER has the reverse happened: where science has been overturned by a supernatural explanation. Thunder is not god getting angry and crops don't fail because we failed to make sacrifices.
8. Scientific studies have proven that prayer does not work. Double blind studies of heart patients and prayer shows no advantage to those who were prayed for.
All of this science and technology accumulated in just the last few hundred years. By 1950. ALL the pieces were in place. The scales tipped against non-natural god-like answers to any question.
Have all the questions been answered? Not by a long shot. But if we've learned anything at all, we've learned to look for natural explanations to why and how things work. It has never been productive to say 'god did it'.
You and I are privileged to live in a post god world. The billions of people who are the strong majority of theists simply have not caught up yet. In our internet world, this will inevitably change (Imagine No Religion). Hopefully, atheism will become the strong majority 'belief'. in my opinion, this will not solve all of the world's problems, but it will clear the stage for the birth of wonder in how our amazing universe really is, uncolored by untrue beliefs in some powerful force that occasionally pops in to creates floods and performs miracles.
Ain't science grand!
The man! The man!
...
THE LEGEND!!!
Richard Carrier doesn't disappoint!
All the comments arguing with each other, using big words, yet none of them able to work out how to use the 'reply' function 😂
It makes it really hard to know what theyre even talking about
I never get tired of Richard's incredible mind. Definitely a fan.
Me too bruh. Thankyou. Rodney. Mr. Carrier has REALLY made a difference. He has given us a way to fight back against the tyranny of the close minded thumpers!!
Thanks for uploading this very important talk ! we all need to hear about how Reason and Logic works, Keep On Truckin'
"Er, I only move away from the projector when I don't think it's important." Hey, how about not moving away from the fucking projector?
Once one understands Bayes Theorem One can appreciate how important it is for TPTB to deny the masses access to accurate info.
And in that case, Bayes theorem would be used to evaluate the experimental tests of an unknown area, not to predict the success of his hypothesis beyond what was indicated by the already known deviations from classical physics.
It is better to have a pure heart than to have ONLY a sharp mind. However, being half assed is bad regardless of which cheek you have left.
There are no scientific theories that have obtained factual status.
Facts are facts.
Scientific theories (not "theory" as in: a guess) are made by all the available facts, and are the most accurate, tested models we have available, based on all the facts.
Gravitation and evolution are both facts.
The theory of gravity hasn't been "upgraded" to a fact, it explains the fact.
If you mean something else by "obtained factual status", then this was an unnecessary attempt at correction.
If you read the book of Paralternativecelsus, there are references to Jaynes. This philosopher, Paralternativecelsus, interestingly, not only uses bayesian arguments, but also a combination of them with Thermodynamics, Information and algorithms to slam creationists, intelligent designers and fine tuners. Ironically, he gave them better ideas to fit with creationists drills. His book is a must!
Although I find Carrier quite clever in many cases, here I must disagree with him. It is not clearly inevitable or obvious that all propositions have probabilities, and yet Carrier just assumes it is so. For instance, what is the prior probability that the Higgs Boson exists? Maybe there is no probability. Yet we can still look for evidence for the Higgs. Carrier's claim that all science uses Bayes's Theorem is thus deeply flawed.
For a good example of how Carrier misapplies Bayes, google "a mathematical review of proving history by richard carrier". I would provide the link, but YT comments won't permit it.
Brilliant talk. Although I have to do with Bayes' Theorem all the time I never thought of using it in one of my "god does not exist"-Arguments.
People are well known to be able to compartmentalize their beliefs. The fact that someone understands Bayes doesn't mean they're necessarily going to turn around and apply it to their religious beliefs.
I can't shake the feeling that there's some misapplication of statistics going on here. If we have no knowledge of whether something is true or not, the odds are not 50/50, they're incalculable. This sounds a lot like the people who argue that evolution is impossible because it's so improbable. Like, I agree that Bayes Theorem is a useful tool, but this disproof of a benevolent god is really stretching.
ThinkingReality You can't not assign a probability. The probability that any given statement is true must be something between 0 and 1. If you have no idea where to place that probability, you still have to place it somewhere, and since you have no justification for any other placement, you have to choose 0.5. Higher than that, and you're saying it's more likely to be true than false; lower, and you're saying that it's more likely to be false than true. Only 0.5 is equivocal; it literally means that, to the best of your knowledge, it is impossible to say whether the statement is more likely to be true or more likely to be false to any degree whatsoever.
Matthew Prorok The choice of uninformative priors is a big topic and not that simple. Also just because probability theory is axiomatized in a way that requires every proposition to have a probability, doesn't mean we humans in the real world can numerically quantify our beliefs in propositions just at a snap of a finger. I mean I could kindof imagine myself betting and sort of determine the probability I assign to something, but if I think about it a bit more I may modify it etc.
Probability theory alone does not fully describe our thinking. For example it has nothing to say about the computational costs of finding out information or the time necessary for finding out the "true" likelihoods and so on. So you may be in a state where you just haven't yet computed your probability.
For example once you observed some data, probability theory would model it as you instantly updating your subjective probabilities. It cannot account for the fact that you will change your probabilities while analyzing the same data that you have already observed. It has no notion of computational cost.
+Matthew Prorok I have no idea if you're a murderer so there's a 50% probability that you are.
Vector Shift Not at all, because we have background data on the percentage of the population who are murderers. You can't pretend you don't have that information. Only if you have *no* reason to say one way or another on a proposition do you assign a 0.5 probability, and for the "X is a murderer" proposition, that's not the case, since you know it's false for most people.
+Matthew Prorok I don't see how my ignorance affects the probability. As a guessing strategy maximum entropy makes sense but it's not probability. If you have a machine that outputs "heads" or "tails" on a read out when a button is pressed and have no idea how it does it what's the probability of getting 100 heads in a row? - You don't know.
Got a scientology advert with this clip -- I have to say that this is quite ironic
This is good and I know he's talking to atheists/skeptics, but I would have liked some everyday examples (like losing your keys) rather than the abstract notions of aliens and gods, which seems like a more advanced usage, since there are unknown probabilities that you have to be "generous" about and such.
Does anyone know a similar resource on how Bayes' theorem can be abused, what to look for and how to refute it? I don't buy the argument that it's a mathematical coup de grace from which believers cannot recover. They always have a way to use "science" against science, and I would bet $100 right now there's a "Bayesian" proof of God somewhere.
That's the WHOLE POINT of Bayes: most of the time, even with a wide berth of numbers plugged in (due to lack of knowledge/precision), you usually still get a small berth of results.
Atheist engineer here, but in reference to the equation at 44:52. The terms labeled P(God exists) and P(No God) are complements and must sum to 1 since they are the only two possibilities in that sample space. However, .75 and 0.5 clearly do not add to 1. The correction doesn't change the calculation much, as his result relies on the assumption that humans speak out against slavery and so should benevolent deities, but still he should get this right if he wrote a whole book about it.
If I was a theist (and I'm not), my criticism here would be how he comes up with some of these probabilities:
- The 1% chance God has the assumed excuse.
- Less than one in a million beings with the ability to speak have a valid excuse not to.
Seems these were just pulled out of thin air.
Yes. Just like God ;-)
I don't call them "evil" but I maintain there are good societal reasons for banning them and their existence don't justify them or make them good, but only show that there are sociopaths in the world
@comegetthis2 We made the time slots shorter this year to make sure everything ran smoother. Speakers still had the option to take questions but most of the ran long on the speeches and didn't have time remaining. Skepticon is so laid back that if you have a question for a speaker, it's very easy to approach them during the conference and have it answered in person, so the Q and A aren't that necessary.
Thanks for watching.
Why are we assuming the air force are giving true and correct information about the flare drops. Not to say they're not but it seems this theory depends a whole lot on presuming other circumstances being true.
+mousehead2000
Only relies on them having a fairly high probability of being true compared to the alternatives.
@@bpansky Exactly! Someone was paying attention.
Actually, Carrier calculates the conditional probability that a "benevolent" and "omnipotent" god exists given that there is evil. This is more specific. That such a God exists is in fact not a "non-repeatable event", it is (supposedly) an extant condition and should be testable.
So to establish the likelihood of my dog eating my homework we have to take in variables as, how high is the probability that I have a dog, how many dogs eat homework, out of dogs who DO eat homework how many are puppies vs how many are "grownups" - I need a pen and a paper to calculate this - oh wait, I did calculate it...
--
- But my dog ate the paper....
--
--
(in fact, once, when I was a 2nd or 3rd grader, the family dog, (a puppy at the time), actually did manage to shred my homework to pieces - when my teacher didn't believe me, I handed in the evidence, still wet from dog mouthwater)
You've restored my faith in humanity... thanks, man...
^^
Salafrance you're welcome ;-)
I once actually did use the dog-ate-my-homework excuse. No, my family didn't even have a dog.
Obviously I'd heard the argument somewhere and (in desperation) just threw it out there. .... reminds me of what many theists do when cornered into defending the existence of their "god".... like cornered wolverines they get desperate and will say ANYTHING, no matter how silly.
GorillaGuerilla It could have been worse: www.sandraandwoo.com/2010/04/26/0158-excuses-excuses/
You don't need to swear to make people like you, Richard!
What are you, his auntie?
Eeeummm...I doubt that people agree that the U.S 'won' every war, since W.W 2...Where did that conclusion come from? Was it sarcasm?
"It's a formally valid deductive argument"
NO, it's not. It's a form of INDUCTIVE reasoning.
LaResistanceChannel But proved deductively to be a valid form of inductive reasoning.
Vulgarity only exists within your mind and within cultural precepts.
That is the training procedure which is totally irrelevant to the evaluation of the claim. In the simple examples given in the talk there is only 1 criterion used to evaluate a claim. And in those simple cases you don't need any training. A simple frequency count is sufficient. One might argue that the model is inadequate or that the terms are poorly defined but no matter how complicated the model gets, the principle is applicable and stays the same
@DocZom.
I disagree. Sometimes "vulgarity" is the best and most descriptive option.
oh and you are right, it's not wrong thinking, it's just naive thinking, it's just using bayes over and over again, without new data, and think I am learning anything new than what I started with in the first place. Or maybe not thinking I am learning anything new, but then I don't see why'd use bayes.
I realise that this is about the RELATIVE probabilities, but simply pulling numbers out of your butt to determine the initial likelihood is just wild guesswork. Further, looking at Rosswell you could ask "What percentage of objects crashing in Rosswell is proven to be aliens" and get the answer 0. Or you could ask, "What percentage of globally important events does the government cover up", and get the answer almost 100%. So you ask the question you want to produce your chosen results.
The main problem I see with using Bayes theorem in practice (I 100% agree with the math) is that in situations where you don't have hard numerical data it gives you a great opportunity to apply your biases in the form of a "guess" at some of the numbers in the equation you don't actually have data for. In the case of the Texas UFO, if you go into the analysis strongly convinced that aliens don't exist, then you're probably going to assign an unknown term value based on that. And lo and behold, the result supports your bias. So - it's FANTASTIC in cases where you haveee a hard indisputable way to get all the numbers - it doesn't help a lot in cases where you have "wiggle room" on some of them.
What Bayes Theorem is still good for, though, even in cases where there might be debate about the right values to plug in, is to show you that - it allows you to shift the discussion from the original question to a discussion about the factors. You've now subdivided your problem, and you can seek agreement on those factors. And once you have that, THEN Bayes Theorem tells you what conclusion you should accept.
Granted. It all depends on your presuppositions. Everyone starts with one, whether they want to admit it or not. Biases are unavoidable.
No, no, you can relax. I wasn't talking about that. Mystical like the inclusion of all humanity on the cross, mystical like healing the sick, raising the dead, prophecying the good plans of God over people's life and see it happening. Sounds crazy hey? it is good though, when you experience that type of things. Anyways, you guys are amazing and without blame, the light of the world. Let's shine!
I like how your school child's vocabulary is somehow my fault.
According to Bayes' theorem, if you're calculating God's existence probability given that you're an atheist, the probability of an outcome showing the non existence of God is around 99.87%
However if tested models are indeeed great fallacies then they must be very useful ones 'cos they work and if they don't they haven't been very well tested, have they?
(they have proven false for predicting weather)
So how is it that weather prediction is progressively improving despite the fact that weather systems are notoriously chaotic? Could it be that the models are improving?
(and now the riddle unravels what happened to all the soothsayers in the past they all went out an got science degrees)
Well it's gratifying to learn that science degrees were available to the soothsayers of yore - but judging by the quality of said 'sooths' I'm guessing your mistaken . . . again!
(people who make theories want 16mil grants)
Oh, I imagine there is no limit to their ambition . . of course whether they get it is quite another matter!
(Scientific theories (not guesses) are the most accurate, tested models we have available, based on all the facts.)
I like Richard Feynmean's definition of 'the scientific method'. Start with a guess, calculate the consequences of that guess then compare those calculations with observation to determine the efficacy of the theory. Now given that this (induction) is often a protracted process, I submit that theories do take time to either become established as facts or refuted by observation.
(Gravitation & evolution are both facts)
. . and both were just theories at one time - but I agree and if you're serious about the latter, we really don't have much to argue about.
(The theory of gravity hasn't been "upgraded" to a fact, it explains the fact.)
Ok, theories of gravity [there are several] explain why things fall - i.e. the fact that mass attracts mass. Nevertheless all these theories - Newtons second law, General relativity, gravitons etc. need[ed] to be established as facts.
(moral code over which - no [sic control?] - not objective because - person had no control over it)
Removing the 'personal' is certainly a big part of establising objectivity.
(If parents imprint moral code - it's not objective.)
Relative to the child even that would still be objective, but try millions of years of evolution and cultural influence to which parents contribute but a tiny part.
(. . simply be beyond [one's] control.)
Making it, inter alia, objective from child's point of view.
There are many scientific theories that have obtained factual status but this isn't one of them yet. However, whilst we do NOT impose even our facts on folk (with threats of damnation) I wish the same could be said of theology.
(Instincts are biological as well, so that's more or less redundant.)
Only if you've single handedly resolved the whole nature vs. nurture debate, which I seriously doubt!
(Malcolm Muggeridge on human depravity)
What a ray of sunshine? Problem is, that much of this depravity was perperated by the very church whose inspiration & values he espoused.
My verifiable reality is; trebled population and 3 decades of no major wars, famines or genocides - a record that no theology can match even if it all ended tomorrow.
It was said of communism that our methods must be compared with their methods & not their fantasies - I would say the same applies to christianity.
(Since I have no control over my DNA, instincts or cultural heritage - that'd make 3 objective moral determinants.)
That assumes that moral compulsion is part of human genetics. That's going to be a really hard, if not impossible case to make. Instincts are biological as well, so that's more or less redundant. Culture is a definite factor. On that much, we agree. What we really disagree on is the baseline ethical nature of humanity.
(cont.)
If I inherit a moral code over which I have no control - it is, ipso facto, objective!
(Thank you for making my case for me.) That'd be made via one of my NONE-existent answers - yes?
Well, so long as we're agreed on the criterion for objectivity. Since I have no control over my DNA, instincts or cultural heritage - that'd make 3 objective moral determinants. Funny, I thought that was my case and that yours was that these were still subjective. Do try to keep up there's a good chap!
Btw, how are you getting on showing that - there'd be no scientific method without philosophy
[assertion N+1 unincumbered by justification, reason or evidence]
I did say last millenium but it would be fun to see if you can come up with anything at all.
(This is why moral relativism rules the day in academia)
. . . and no doubt some academic or moral relativist would retort - but at least we're better placed than an amoralist who can't distinguish his creed from 'might is right'.
(You . . infer my questions have some. . religious assumption at their core. I could . . have asked . . as an atheist.)
Yeah right, LOL. Good use of the 'could have' clause - I say; 'pigs,wings, lift-off'. I've met few atheists so obsessed with 'first causes'; which is a bit of a giveaway you 'could have' avoided; but being 'scriptdox' - couldn't resist. Matt 7:20 by their fruits ye shall know them! LOL.
(I'm sorry... I'm not your monkey)
I think we all know whose monkey you are - LOL
(Why are the two are necessarily connected? If I inherit a moral code over which I have no control - it is, ipso facto, objective!)
Thank you for making my case for me.
(If there has to be a first cause perhaps it could be the impulse to survive. There are many ways to answer this question none of which necessarily involve God...)
That doesn't get you even close to anything resembling an objective standard of moral ethics. This is why moral relativism rules the day in academia.
(Other than your age, you've volunteered nothing substantive. . .)
I also gave you my world view which you requested in a nutshell. Now since you seem to deal with things you don't like by denial, here it is again:-
A proposition is true to the extent that it is supported by evidence. The same worldview adopted in science, to a lesser extent history (which also fills gaps with inspired guesswork) and our legal system. If that's not substantive enough for you don't request items in a nutshell!
What is the difference between scripturally orthodox christian morality and the doctrine of might is right?
Is your inability to complete the task, the only barrier to attempting genocide in God's name?
When you said Hitler et al. were monsters was that just based on a technicality - their lack of proper authority?
How is Divine omniscience compatible with human free choice?
What has philosophy contributed to human knowlege in the last millenium?
Does Carrier use p(e) where e is not an event?
(The Qs keep increasing because you never deal with any of them directly and honestly.)
No. I simply haven't answered them to your own personal satisfaction. You seem to want yes or no, sans any qualifiers. I see no need to continually re-assert or boil down my position to your approval.
(I've volunteered plenty...)
Other than your age, you've volunteered nothing substantive.
(...folk will daw their own conclusions...)
You actually believe that these comments are significant?!?
Personally I will answer any question you like except those of the type
How do you justify ABC given XYZ where no evidence of XYZ has been provided to establish it as a 'given' in the first place; usually because it is an article of scripturally orthodox christian faith! Play by the rules and you will not find me unforthcomming. In the meantime, here are those outstanding unanswered questions again :-
(and now you put forward more questions . . . )
The Qs keep increasing because you never deal with any of them directly and honestly.
(Sorry, but at this point, it's quid pro quo... Until you start volunteering something; you get nothing more.)
I've volunteered plenty - now I'd like a few quid for my quo if you've quite finished prevaricating.
You may respond or not, but I will keep asking and folk will daw their own conclusions from your incessant nit picking, pettifogging evasions.
(2) During said Rennaissance Galileo was placed under house arrest and threatened with torture whilst Newton delayed his magnum opus for fear of prosecution - that does not happen now!
(Science is wonderful, but, if you're being honest, not ALL we .)
. . but the putative question was; what did critical thinking achieve in the last 400 years to which a perfectly honest answer is 'science'. Muddy the waters as much as you like but the question remains what has philosophy achieved in that time?
(...in the last 30 years (the most secular) there have been no major wars, famines or genocides.)
I half agree with you. There haven't been any of these things in the Western hemisphere. Big difference. Also; the last 30 years have arguably NOT been the most secular. There were periods during the Renaissance that were just as secular as today, if not more so.
(I could have answered with one word 'Science'.)
Science is wonderful, but, if you're being honest, not ALL we live our lives by.
You can ask me any question you like as long as it's a straight question uncouched in evangelical assumptions. For example, it does not follow that a moral system is subjective just because it fails to conform to YOUR VIEW of what God demands.
Said moral system may be objective regardless of assumptions about God.
Your view may be profoundly mistaken.
There may be no God.
There may be several with conflicting demands.
This is not an exhaustive list, merely a sample!
Outstanding questions:-
What has philosophy contributed to the sum of human knowlege in the last millenium?
What is the difference between christian fundamentalist morality(sic) and the doctrine of might is right?
Is your inability to complete the task the only barrier to attempting genocide in God's name?
When you said Hitler et al. were monsters was that just based on a technicality? Lack of proper authority?
Have you found an example yet where Carrier uses p(e) where e is not an event?
(Are you asking me to clarify MY position or God's . . ? It's . .difficult . . when I don't . . where YOU stand. .)
Since nobody is in a position to clarify God's position - it can only mean your position, which remains your position regardless of where anybody else stands. I suggest that if you don't like being questioned on said position you should stop being so assertive as to it's rectitude. Now stop being shifty and and answer the question! In fact there's quite a backlog building up!
(You're either being deliberately evasive, obstinate, or you don't think it's germane (narcissism))
Oh I see, so in evangelical parlance perceived lack of relevance equates to narcissism does it? Time to consult your dictionary again I think. Look, it's quite simple I don't state a position because I don't advocate a position - I don't require anybody to think like me and I don't threaten them when they don't.
(I'm not advocating for stoic philosophy. Sarcasm translates so poorly through typed comments. I must strive to continue to remember this.)
Don't flatter yourself . . but if you fire a crooked arrow don't complain when you get a straight one back!
(You've . . . haven't said anything about what you stand for.)
Neither have you, explicitly! However, you are so verbally incontinent, it's not hard to divine your position. Either 'man up' or leave the kitchen - but in any event stop whingeing.
(what has critical thinking done for us over the last 100 years?")
I can do even better, I'm 63 and in my lifetime world population has trebled yet in the last 30 years (the most secular) there have been no major wars, famines or genocides.
(What has philosophy done for us in the last millenium?!?!)
Is that your considered answer - “?!?!“ ?
Had you said 'the last 400 years' - I could have answered with one word 'Science'. Your turn, Mr. (I'm so much more forthright in my answers than you).
(If you want 'whys' and 'nots' start producing some to clarify your own position first! Lead by example!)
Well, considering that you've answered NONE of my questions, I thought I was leading by example.
Are you asking me to clarify MY position or God's (as I understand it)? It's also really difficult to have a dialogue on any subject when I don't have any idea where YOU stand on the issue. You're either being deliberately evasive, obstinate, or you don't think it's germane (narcissism).
What else is there to go on, when you insist on volunteering zilch in terms of your personal position on anything? You've posited nothing regarding your foundational views.
Let me reframe it for you... Since I can only assume your position based on everything you've protested against; how about you argue against this quasi-Nietzschean statement (might makes right), from a utilitarian position like yours?
Again what does the 'it' refer to? What exactly are you turning around? Enough of this verbal incontinence! If you turn my question around it becomes what 'would I do if God commanded me to commit genocide' not 'what do I think about specific acts of war, genocide etc.'! However the answer is, I'm not in favour of them, whoever so commands . If you want 'whys' and 'nots' start producing some to clarify your own position first! Lead by example!
"what if God commanded you to commit genocide?"
I honestly don't know if I would be up to the task, to be perfectly honest. But, I certainly wouldn't be spitting in God's face for making such a decree, given the understanding of who He is and what He knows.
So, now let's turn it around... Do you believe that mass retaliation/revenge is ever justified (ie. Hutu/Tutsi, Albanian/Serb genocides, etc.) Why or why not?
"what if God commanded you to commit genocide?"
Weren't you the one who charged begging the question? Who's the one doing the defining of "good" and "evil" here, not to mention justice? Assuming the existence of God; as the maker and ruler of all things, does He not have absolute ownership and authority? Possessing omniscience; can He not see the outcome in all situations, and within every permutation? Are you assuming genocide and ethnic cleansing are synonymous?
"Newsflash - might is right is not a moral stance!"
I never suggested any such thing. Seriously, where are you getting this from?! However, since you brought it up, please attempt to argue against it from a pragmatic position (in the absence of a transcendent law giver, that's all you have). Good luck.
"Suggested homework:..."
You would have been better off suggesting Meditations by Marcus AureIius, but we already know that you consider philosophy a waste of time and beneath you. Right?
Newsflash - might is right is not a moral stance!
Suggested homework: research the topics; 'moral', 'immoral', 'amoral', 'circular argument','rules of evidence', 'subjective', 'hard-wired',' why someting can't be both hard-wired and subjective','the difference between absolute power and justice', 'genocide - why it is wrong', and 'cloud cuckoo land'.
Finally, reflect on the wisdom of attempting to bullshit people who actually know what they're talking about!
You claimed
(The link shows how Carrier misunderstands that Bayes does not apply in every domain)
however it does not so show, there is no exegesis, let alone a lengthy one and you clearly don't understand the term 'domain' otherwise you wouldn't bang on about square pegs, round holes and other irrelevances. It is you who obfuscates. The tables have been turned all right, I've answered your questions but you keep avoiding mine.What is a 'domain' and what if God commanded you to commit genocide?
"He doesn't need to point out that which is always true (mathematically trivial)."
Right, but the point is he's not trying to obfuscate the issue.
"Which the author alleges but neglects to demonstrate - he pleads lack of space!"
Does succinctly showing that a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole always necessitate a lengthy epexegesis on the matter? I find it curious that such a burden is always placed on the theist, yet the opposition expects a pass when the tables are turned.
"However since rigour of exposition laregely depends on the target audience this can always be said to be true."
(Which the author readily points out.)
He doesn't need to point out that which is always true (mathematically trivial). Especially when there are more serious points to prove - which he doesn't
(That doesn't vindicate a misapplication of BT.)
Which the author alleges but neglects to demonstrate - he pleads lack of space!
(The link shows Carrier misunderstands that Bayes does not apply in every domain.)
Actually it shows nothing of the kind, it (rather typically) merely alleges it and suggests that Carrier's exposition (as opposed to method) lacks sufficient rigour (a strange complaint from a contributor to Irriducible Complexity). However since rigour of exposition laregely depends on the target audience this can always be said to be true. Interestingly he ends by agreeing with many of Carrier's conclusions.
(I pointed out that Carrier is confused in his application of Bayes Theorem.)
Again, how on Earth (or in heaven for that matter) would you know?
(If Craig is also wrong, that's fine, but it doesn't change anything regarding Carrier.)
Actually there is nothing wrong with Craig's use of Bayes formula, its his selective conclusions which are absurd; as I have demonstrated by using his analysis to conclude the exact opposite - hence the reductio.
Post modernism?!? You must be joking. It is glaringly obvious that you're using terms that you don't understand, let alone have command over. As someone who has insinuated that he doesn't believe in absolute truth; you should apply the term to your own beliefs.
"...God of the gaps." -- That's an impotent argument. God isn't something that is accessible/provable by the scientific method. At least Michio Kaku is honest about this.
The "what's important to us", from Carl speaks volumes.
"Clearly it's too vast for you to handle so I assume that 'Bye' is a general surrender under the guise of injured pride - You can't win the argument so you affect hurt feelings on behalf of God." - You seem to conflate a refusal to endure constant insult with hurt feelings. The reality is I'm indifferent to someones opinion of me in public. Opinion on the internet is even more laughable.
God doesn't require my defense. I'm well aware. "Land punches"? That wasn't MY intent to begin with.
(For a good example of how Carrier misapplies Bayes ...?)
How would you know it's a good example, you've admitted that it's not your field having twisted my arm to provide evidence of Craig's excesses. That involved mere high school algebra but clearly exceeded your understanding. Typical christian apolagist dishonesty - demand answers and then invoke other peoples work (regarless of whether you comprehend any of it) when the questions get too difficult for you!
I'm sure you do. It gives you yet another misguided opportunity to use the word "babble" in a sentence. I'm waiting for "insipid" to make another appearance. If all you're going to do is disparage me, at least expand your vocabulary.
I've already pointed out that Carrier is right on Bayes Theorem, but his application of it is flawed. Others have previously gone to pains to give specific examples of where and how. I have no interest in doing the same so that you can ipso facto dismiss it.
That's quite a presumptuous leap considering you know nothing about me except what I've conveyed through comments. Perhaps you've done an armchair psycho analysis in a dozen or so posts? That would be an amazing achievement even for a trained psychologist/psychiatrist.
"...you would be obliged to comit genocide if commanded by your putative boss..."
It always comes down to the problem with divine command, doesn't it? Ah, the struggle for autonomy. At least Hitchens was able to admit it.
Since the only person you're confusing is yourself, let's dispense with these silly word games masquerading as high philisophy and cut to the chase. We all know where this is going, you've managed to convince yourself that you have a well defined morality by virtue of your belief in a supreme power to whom you defer in all matters moral and that those who don't share your view are, ergo, all at sea.
Now because your stance does not permit you to distinguish power from virtue I submit that this renders you amoral whereas we have good moral instincts even if they are a little ill-defined. The upshot is that where we may fail in lots of little ways you flunk the big tests of practical everyday morality. We are merely inconsistent wheras you would be obliged to comit genocide if commanded by your putative boss and under these circumstances genocide would become, for you, a perfectly moral act.
He used the existence of evil as an argument against the existence of God. This assumes that evil SHOULD NOT exist in a theistic universe (ie. why would a God that is "all good" allow the existence of evil?). That in itself posits a superior moral position and assumes superior knowledge and purpose. Epicurus, in effect, supplants Gods purposes with his own. Human autonomous, libertarian arrogance.
Yet, you go on to say...
"I suppose from a purely semantic viewpoint morality is a state or condition which you can't do much with, but describe." -- All categories require description. It doesn't change the fact that morality describes principles for distinguishing right from wrong.
Then you say...
"Morals on the other hand may or may not be prescribed." -- May or may not? That's rather vague. Almost obfuscatory. I can only guess that you're alluding to prescriptive vs proscriptive?
"Furthermore, the eradication of "evil" would be the eradication of choice."
So Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot weren't bad people at all, merely facilitators of choice. Of ourse, how blind I've been! If only someone had thought to tell the victims, I'm sure it would have been a huge comfort.
We wouldn't want to eradicate evil would we - that would be a bad thing. I think I'm ready for the lecture on moral relativism now, you've just made a compelling case for it!
You see, old fashioned me still believes that a mathematical argument is either valid or invalid. If the premise is true and the argument is valid then the conclusion is true. So please, either put up or shut up. Either show us a false premise or mathematically invalid argument in Carrier's presentation or go away. If the appearance of truth does indeed break down under analysis then please provide that analysis; that's mathematical analysis not more philosophical waffle, please!
"The argument has been stated countless times by others... You cannot have a universal, objective moral code without a code giver. Period."
I suspect it'll be raised countless more times if all you have to offer is the old chicken and egg question in disguise. It doesn't necessarily have to be universal - we are unlikely to meet citizens from the Galaxy Andromeda so their morals need not concern us too much. Moreover, as long as we can't actually choose our own code it will be objective.
That's a bit dodgy, don't you think? I asked you for some particulars, and you respond by saying you could provide the specific schematic, but... you'll just volley to me as a courtesy? That comes off as pretty evasive.
The superficial appearance of Carriers argument is perfectly to the point. davidthecook described it as having verisimilitude. I think that's a perfect word to use. It insinuates an outward "appearance" of truth. An appearance which breaks down under analysis.
Oh boy! You just opened up Pandora's box on that one. If you believe that morality in individually hardwired, you have a whole new set of problems on your hands. You might just as well not make any moral objections against anyones behavior or actions ever again. Or, if you do, at least have the honesty to acknowledge that it's nothing more than your individual opinion, with no superior value to anyone else's.
I could provide the formulae but since I've oulined how it's done why not have a go yourself ?
I'm still evaluating Carrier's analysis of relative probabilities in the formula to establish that, the 'could be' alibis beloved of biblical apologists, actually makes things worse for them. Superficially, it looks as though he may have a point.
Personally I find it easier simply to observe that the justification 'XXXX could be true' tends to undermine 'your definitely going to hell if you disagree'
"If you're not a moral relativist, what is your basis for an objective moral standard?"
I'm not certain that knowing the basis of something is essential to establishing its existence. For example, I have white skin but I'm not sure I fully understand on what basis. If pressed I suspect that both my skin colour and moral disposition have something to do with my DNA. Its objective because I don't get to choose my genetic legacy!
"The argument has visceral appeal."
Its not an argument, it's a series of questions and pithy responses; none of which rely on circularity. Moreover, if mere rhetoric were a sin, all Christians would stand condemned.
"It is not logic-based."
It's a perfectly logical and comprehensible series of qestions based on what theists of various persuasions claim to know about God. You may not like it, but it's perfectly logical.
Morality, by definition, infers a state of affairs that "ought to be". This, however, is the foundational antithesis of moral relativism. If you're not a moral relativist, what is your basis for an objective moral standard?
I have amply shown the circularity of Epicurus reasoning. He posits or assumes a standard by which to repudiate Gods actions. However, without God, there is no universal moral standard. The argument has visceral appeal. It is not logic-based.
What profiteth a man to gain an absolute point of moral reference if he lose' his moral compass with respect to universally accepted landmarks such as, say, the evil of genocide?
I'm not a moral relativist, but your formulation fails a critical test of any kind of morality.
Again I ask you to show circularity (the essence of question begging) in Epicure's reasoning; as opposed to the mere contradiction of a cherished belief. Morality does not have to serve any 'grand scheme' of your choosing!
Also, the argument assumes that, even if we could come to some univocal definition for evil, that evil serves no purpose in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, it assumes that evil can be eliminated from reality, which is in itself fallacious. Without a point of reference, the term "good" itself is meaningless. The question itself implodes. Also, it assumes that humans have a superior standard of morality to God to call his judgements into question. A standard, which doesn't exist.
Quite right. The first part of the argument assumes that we've defined our terms. But, the problem is, that we can't seem to come up with any meaningful definition of evil within the scope of atheistic naturalism. Most atheistic philosophers agree on this point. Evil is primarily understood as a departure from, or the antithesis of good. But, this assumes a standard by which to measure these categories. Atheistic presuppositions deny such a standard exists. Feet planted in mid air.
"Were"? I think you mean "where". As far as evidence goes,... what part of my statement requires evidence to back it up? There is a general consensus among the academic atheist community (let alone the theist community), that Carrier is a rude, smarmy, and snooty man. He is condescending and, often, hostile to opinions and viewpoints that differ from his own. As far as evidence of repudiation; go google Jen McCreight, Carrier and atheism+. She quickly distanced herself from him.
What is the probability that American slavery is not actually a bad/important thing in long term human history? From your standpoint it fuels your "moral grounds"... Which means you benefit from it same as everyone else in today's world. Maybe it was a required lesson...
Bayes is only good if you ask a formal question. Religious questions don't really fit. You could as well say that you don't like certain religion and get the same result as using Bayesian reasoning. Honesty is required for BT.
Probability can be fairly subjective. Two actuarians can come up with two different answers given the same data/framework/formulas/etc. There might perhaps exist an objective probability, but we're blind to many contingencies, which means we can't account for 100% of events in what-if scenarios.
This is only dealing with VERY basic probabilities. You don't require someone to provide a proof of the quadratic equation before they use it. This involves the same elementary understanding.