Good points. I also think its entirely possible to accept B and deny that observing 'Made by Good' in the stars should result in an update for God's existence. The apologist raising this point is just relying on the intuitive notion that we should, which doesn't actually say anything about what kind of Bayesian update should be made based on an actual calculation of priors and likelihoods.
I'm quite new to applying Bayes' Theorem within the standards of analytic philosophy, but I'm concerned that disallowing its use for theistic reasoning might undermine the justification for using Bayesian reasoning to update scientific theories.
One could (I think reasonably) say that we use Bayesian probabilistic reasoning to update our scientific theories given some evidence from a space of infinitely many possible theories, a space on which assigning meaningful priors seems quite difficult.
Given that, what are the substantial reasons for treating this differently from the fine-tuning case?
As an academic scientist working with Bayesian statistics, I don't think there's more than superficial similarities between what's often done in PhilRel and in scientific research. Such that I don't lose the latter by rejecting the former.
In short: our likelihoods are based on many clear observations and mathematically defined & scientifically testable models with clear mathematical predictions.
Whereas PhilRels' are often based on a single and/or contested observation(s), and their 'predictions' are based on vibes.
Nevertheless, the 'Bayes Factors' often seen in PhilRel talk (e.g., for fine-tuning, or resurrection of Jesus) are much much higher than any of the Bayes Factors I ever observed in research. Even when tens of thousands of precise observations have been collected! In science, you are not getting massive Bayes Factors when your models and their implications are vague at best, and the observations are few and contested.
As a caveat: scientists also often mess-up justifications for the prior.
Well put, as usual. I think that the “made by god in the sky” argument is fallacious for many reasons.
First, suppose that our observation, that the stars in the sky are arranged to form the sentence “made by god”, came about through reasons that all imply randomness or mindlessness, or even some cognitive trick on our part, what do we make of that, then? How are we to confidently assert that this observation alone is sufficient in that inference?
In other words, I think this rhetorical argument implies inferences that we already reject. To elaborate, I think that by that same logic, it would imply that, for example, our knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection (which, mind you, *boil down to chance and necessity*) does nothing to the now-obsolete inference from observed “design” to a designer. A proponent of the “made-by-god” argument could say: ‘yea it ends in physical necessity but it still looks designed’. In other words, applying the logic of that argument dismisses relevant facts about how the observations in question came about that should surely bear on our inferences (one of those relevant facts might be: genes being modified in a random way that has nothing to do with whether it improves the organism’s chance of survival, you know, the same way how our observation of the “made-by-god” arrangement of stars in the sky might also have came about due to mindless cognitive tricks). The proponent of the “made by god” argument could still say: “They still look designed and I’d infer a mind behind them, even if the explanation boils down to physical necessity”. I don’t think that’s reasonable.
Second, I genuinely am at a loss at where exactly does the theist stop asking for explanations; where exactly do we draw the line between the necessary explanations that the theist would still insist require other explanation(s), and other necessary explanations that the theist would think are sufficient?
Third, I doubt how symmetrical that scenario (stars being arranged in a “made-by-god” fashion) actually is to Fine-Tuning or Psychophysical Harmony, each in their own context, but I guess that’d need its own separate treatment.
Yea I’ve read it a while ago, and I thought it was pretty well written and goes step by step through both the intuition behind and the rhetorical power of the argument before it discusses why it eventually doesn’t convince you.
I guess where we’re both coming is from a place of considering our general objections to teleological arguments and seeing how those would fare with the sloppy ‘made by god’ argument. It’d make sense for you, on the one hand, to raise certain points (such as the unsupported assumption of God choosing to communicate with us rather than e.g. being hidden, or God choosing this *exact* way of communicating…etc) because you already raise similar objections to FTA and Psychophysical Harmony, because you rightfully think that God has a vast space of logical possibilities to choose from should he even choose to create anything. I, on the other hand, would also predictably raise something along the lines of the one I raised in my first point because I see Hume and Darwin as having dealt powerful blows to teleological arguments, and so I’d reflect on their considerations and see how they fare with the new sloppy iteration of teleological arguments that is the ‘made by god’ argument.
I’m not suggesting our approaches are treading different grounds or anything, just wanted to reflect out loud. My bad for the unnecessarily long reply tho! 😂
Google's AI overview says "Seaside rock, also known as a stick of rock or pulled candy, is a traditional British confection made from sugar, glucose, and food coloring. It is a popular souvenir, especially in seaside towns, and is characterized by its hard, crunchy texture and vibrant colors."
What it fails to mention is that it traditionally had the name of the town written all through it.
Occasionally you could get it made to your own design, (tho I think you had to buy quite a lot!)
I always fancied getting a batch with "Made by God" written through it.
PS: need to point out that the ?original form of this argument in Leslie in his book, Universes, was that the message was found in rocks.
but wait..if you’re not using contemporary analytic Bayesian standards then you won’t be rational in a special magical way independent of your goals, standards, and values. You don’t *actually* want to care about ‘the things you care about’ rather than ‘the things you should care about independent of what you do care about’ do you?
It's just a drone swarm.
Good points. I also think its entirely possible to accept B and deny that observing 'Made by Good' in the stars should result in an update for God's existence. The apologist raising this point is just relying on the intuitive notion that we should, which doesn't actually say anything about what kind of Bayesian update should be made based on an actual calculation of priors and likelihoods.
I'm quite new to applying Bayes' Theorem within the standards of analytic philosophy, but I'm concerned that disallowing its use for theistic reasoning might undermine the justification for using Bayesian reasoning to update scientific theories.
One could (I think reasonably) say that we use Bayesian probabilistic reasoning to update our scientific theories given some evidence from a space of infinitely many possible theories, a space on which assigning meaningful priors seems quite difficult.
Given that, what are the substantial reasons for treating this differently from the fine-tuning case?
Empirically defined models. Defined PDF's. Causal models. See Mayo Severe Testing.
Also, historically, "we" havent done that. Some people have used Bayes in certain contexts. It hasnt always been useful or successful.
As an academic scientist working with Bayesian statistics, I don't think there's more than superficial similarities between what's often done in PhilRel and in scientific research. Such that I don't lose the latter by rejecting the former.
In short: our likelihoods are based on many clear observations and mathematically defined & scientifically testable models with clear mathematical predictions.
Whereas PhilRels' are often based on a single and/or contested observation(s), and their 'predictions' are based on vibes.
Nevertheless, the 'Bayes Factors' often seen in PhilRel talk (e.g., for fine-tuning, or resurrection of Jesus) are much much higher than any of the Bayes Factors I ever observed in research. Even when tens of thousands of precise observations have been collected! In science, you are not getting massive Bayes Factors when your models and their implications are vague at best, and the observations are few and contested.
As a caveat: scientists also often mess-up justifications for the prior.
Completely agree
A quick google later and Mayo Severe Testing seems quite interesting and very relevant. Will read about it, thanks
Well put, as usual. I think that the “made by god in the sky” argument is fallacious for many reasons.
First, suppose that our observation, that the stars in the sky are arranged to form the sentence “made by god”, came about through reasons that all imply randomness or mindlessness, or even some cognitive trick on our part, what do we make of that, then? How are we to confidently assert that this observation alone is sufficient in that inference?
In other words, I think this rhetorical argument implies inferences that we already reject. To elaborate, I think that by that same logic, it would imply that, for example, our knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection (which, mind you, *boil down to chance and necessity*) does nothing to the now-obsolete inference from observed “design” to a designer. A proponent of the “made-by-god” argument could say: ‘yea it ends in physical necessity but it still looks designed’. In other words, applying the logic of that argument dismisses relevant facts about how the observations in question came about that should surely bear on our inferences (one of those relevant facts might be: genes being modified in a random way that has nothing to do with whether it improves the organism’s chance of survival, you know, the same way how our observation of the “made-by-god” arrangement of stars in the sky might also have came about due to mindless cognitive tricks). The proponent of the “made by god” argument could still say: “They still look designed and I’d infer a mind behind them, even if the explanation boils down to physical necessity”. I don’t think that’s reasonable.
Second, I genuinely am at a loss at where exactly does the theist stop asking for explanations; where exactly do we draw the line between the necessary explanations that the theist would still insist require other explanation(s), and other necessary explanations that the theist would think are sufficient?
Third, I doubt how symmetrical that scenario (stars being arranged in a “made-by-god” fashion) actually is to Fine-Tuning or Psychophysical Harmony, each in their own context, but I guess that’d need its own separate treatment.
I agree, I also gave some of these in the longer post too!
Yea I’ve read it a while ago, and I thought it was pretty well written and goes step by step through both the intuition behind and the rhetorical power of the argument before it discusses why it eventually doesn’t convince you.
I guess where we’re both coming is from a place of considering our general objections to teleological arguments and seeing how those would fare with the sloppy ‘made by god’ argument. It’d make sense for you, on the one hand, to raise certain points (such as the unsupported assumption of God choosing to communicate with us rather than e.g. being hidden, or God choosing this *exact* way of communicating…etc) because you already raise similar objections to FTA and Psychophysical Harmony, because you rightfully think that God has a vast space of logical possibilities to choose from should he even choose to create anything. I, on the other hand, would also predictably raise something along the lines of the one I raised in my first point because I see Hume and Darwin as having dealt powerful blows to teleological arguments, and so I’d reflect on their considerations and see how they fare with the new sloppy iteration of teleological arguments that is the ‘made by god’ argument.
I’m not suggesting our approaches are treading different grounds or anything, just wanted to reflect out loud. My bad for the unnecessarily long reply tho! 😂
Yes and if a flying saucer landed in my garden I'd believe that aliens visited Earth. But it hasn't. So I remain sceptical.
Google's AI overview says "Seaside rock, also known as a stick of rock or pulled candy, is a traditional British confection made from sugar, glucose, and food coloring. It is a popular souvenir, especially in seaside towns, and is characterized by its hard, crunchy texture and vibrant colors."
What it fails to mention is that it traditionally had the name of the town written all through it.
Occasionally you could get it made to your own design, (tho I think you had to buy quite a lot!)
I always fancied getting a batch with "Made by God" written through it.
PS: need to point out that the ?original form of this argument in Leslie in his book, Universes, was that the message was found in rocks.
but wait..if you’re not using contemporary analytic Bayesian standards then you won’t be rational in a special magical way independent of your goals, standards, and values. You don’t *actually* want to care about ‘the things you care about’ rather than ‘the things you should care about independent of what you do care about’ do you?