You can also approach it slightly differently (by ignoring the analogous arguments) like this:

We want to know the probability that theism is true given that life evolved from simpler forms. We'll call theism T, and evolution E. So what we want is P(T|E).

I can't be arsed rewriting Bayes theorem again, but the logic here is to compare how likely it is that we would see evolution from simple cells to complex multi-cellular life if theism is true or P(E|T). Well, if theism is true then there is an all-powerful being who could make complex life in many different ways. God is unlimited, and his ways are mysterious. So there is an extremely wide probability space for ways that complex life could be brought into being if T is true, of which E is just one (or perhaps a small subset). Therefore P(E|T) is very small (reasonably it's approaching infinity to 1 but I don't need infinity to make the point). A theist should object to this unless they want to say that god had limited options when he decide dto create life. What about ~T (atheism)? Well, if ~T is true then as far as we know evolution is the only way to get complex life. Therefore P(E|~T) is high. Again, a theist should object here unless they want to say that it's easy to get complex life on the assumption of atheism (which they don't want to say).

If we started from perfect ignorance about P(T) we might say that it's prior probability is 0.5. Some argue about this - that it should be much lower - but I'll be generous. If we plug in the rough numbers our prior probability of theism goes down from 0.5 to something much smaller (depending on exactly how close to 1 and 0 we put P(E|T) and P(E|~T).

Therefore, the fact that we evolution has happened reduces the probability that god exists. Of course, this doesn't show that evolution is logically incompatible with theism. But by picking one of the near-infinite ways god could produce multi-cellular life (and the one that is predicted/retrodicted on the assumption of atheism) we should see that evolution increases confidence in atheism and decreases it in theism.

For the record, by applying the same reasoning, I think that NDEs are evidence for theism... NDEs are better predicted by theism than atheism. That might change as we learn more about what is happening in these experiences, but it counts in theisms favour imo.

The reason I am secure in my atheism is that aside from NDEs, virtually everything about this universe is better predicted by atheism than theism. E.g. the problem of suffering (not logically incompatible, but better predicted by atheism via Malthus etc), the existence of large, vulnerable brains (don't need them if we gots soul), failure of intercessory prayer, etc etc.

Are you suggesting that there is no one who fits that description?

Plenty of Catholics accept the CC's claim that the use of contraception is sinful and may be against a Divine plan to bring new life into the world, based on their belief that life begins at conception, because many contraceptives actually act as abortifacients. Given the magnitude of their errors wrt Heliocentricity and Evolution, why would they be any more believable/credible on this issue? Perhaps they're simply wrong about when life begins? Or perhaps the Protestant groups are wrong about their claims on the issue? If that were the case, many Protestants would be acting in defiance of a Divine wish, that's quite serious right?

Are they getting this information from a different source than the info they were mistaken about?

I have no idea what this means. The probability version of the fine tuning argument isn't a God of the gaps argument. It has nothing to do with lack of scientific explanation but with the positive assertion that order implies design because order doesn't occur irrationally.

I don't like using, and don't as a matter of fact, mathematical probability with fine tuning. I think fine tuning is evidence of design but not because of Bayes' Theory, rather because of analogy.

Your argument doesn't follow. If it did then a completely random and totally chaotic universe is what we would expect if God exists. But if God is absolute reason, which I've stated many times, then we would expect order, and if man is made in the image of God, then we would expect man to be able to determine secondary causes, of which evolution may indeed be one.

I don't use God of the gaps, nor does any other apologist of whom I'm aware. It's a straw man which is resorted to by atheists but for which I've never seen any example from any credible theologian.

You're a victim of the modern, mindless myth begun in the 19th century that there has always been a war between faith and reason. The books that started that myth have been thoroughly debunked and the real history of Christianity is one of mostly very strong support for scientific investigation. The arrogance of the modern, brain-dead science types is sometimes breathtaking.

Humans and apes have somewhat similar bodies. Not too surprising they have similar genetic makeup - like Chevies and Fords.

The main reason it wouldn't happen without design on the macro scale is the time factor weighed against the "power" of mutation plus natural selection. Because of this and new biological insights I think you are already seeing a pull back from strict neo-Darwinism into a view that tries to incorporate ideas like evo-devo. But Darwinism itself seems a bit unlikely as a full explanation of life's development.

Same mistake as in the other thread, you are conflating the probability of an ordered universe given god and probability of god given ordered universe. For a striking example of how different these things are consider the probability that someone is pregnant given that they are a woman [P(P|W)] versus the probability that someone is a woman given that they are pregnant [P(W|P)].



When the fine-tuning is given as evidence for theism, it is vulnerable to the objections I've raised. The a priori deductive arguments that order implies a mind all fail, so if that is what you want to do, go for it.

Seems to me that you dislike formal probabilistic language but are happy to use informal probabilistic language.

If this was true, why are theologians famous for using examples where science doesn't have it's own explanation? Why isn't there the Gravitational Argument for the existence of god? Or the Special Relativity argument for the existence of god? Or the snowflake argument for the existence of god? No, instead we see all theologians using abiogenesis, consciousness, fine-tuning etc.

Mightyboosh: It's interesting that you chose the RCC stance on contraceptive use as an example, because my understanding is that a substantial majority of catholics in the western world use contraceptives despite the church's position.

It looks like there is some controversy about the meaningfulness of the 98% stat that the Guttmacher Institute arrived at, but in any case the data doesn't seem to support a claim that the church's position on contraceptive use is a deterrent to catholics using contraception

No but that's not your point or at least it doesn't appear to be.

aha this idiom now makes sense! lolz

If you don't accept that a majority of theists consider their religious leaders to be a unimpeachable source of information wrt their Gods, do you think then that the majority of theists simply pick and choose what to believe when examining claims made by organised religions wrt what their Gods want? For example, the majority of Catholics ignore the church's claim about what God wants wrt to contraception/abortion (as per the study you linked), but a significant number attend Mass and Confession, as instructed to by the church.

Presumably this must include then, a large number of people who do go along with what they're asked to do (styles of dress, religious ceremonies/behaviour, lifestyle choices etc etc) for some other reason than that they believe that their God really wants them to do that as they've been told by their church/synagogue/temple (whatever)?

(In any case, the study didn't include men, woudl still leave an estimated 2.4 million Catholics unaccounted for, and we don't know how many Catholics actually do accept the CC's claims and use contraception anyway)

You're confusing me. If you accept that there are people who consider their religious leaders to be unimpeachable sources of info wrt their Gods, then those are the people whose behaviour I don't understand.

Next week: "Raining cats and dogs"

There are widely varying views here among theists. Just because you think theists blindly follow what their leaders say doesn't mean it is that way in reality. I would say relatively few theists IME view their leaders as "unimpeachable sources of information".

EDIT

lolz I can't wait... I love idioms

Anyway, surprised nobody has posted this, as "Noah's Ark" has been in the news lately.

Noah's Ark Was Round

As I said, I don't use math probability with fine tuning - more because there's no sample space than because of your position, but there is some merit to yours as well.


Like I said I think fine tuning (order in the universe) has the appearance of design. Do you disagree?

There is an ultimate God of the gaps argument - Leibniz raised it - why is there something rather than nothing? In the end you have to claim the natural world has no explanation or it does. If it doesn't, if the universe or material reality is ultimate, then there are certain consequences that follow. If it does, then that explanation must be God (i.e., a mind). So if someone uses abiogenesis to argue for God and science comes up with a scientific explanation for it, that explanation will require an explanation - eventually we end up back at Leibniz.

Fine I thought you were suggesting that theists are bound to hold the church as ultimate and unimpeachable.

Sure. Pretty much every religious person I've ever known has at least modestly idiosyncratic beliefs in comparison to the religious organization they belong to, and of course many religious people don't even belong to any particular church. Anyway, it's undoubtedly true that there exist religious people who treat a particular religious ideology as absolute and infallible, but Roman Catholicism is probably not a very good example of it in terms of the behavior of adherents, and especially not with regard to contraception.

I can't vouch for the methodological soundness of the survey, but "leaving out 2.4 million people" shouldn't be an issue given the usual statistical methods, nor would eaving out men, since most contraceptives are designed to be used by women.

I suppose if you're interested only in whether people say they agree with the church's position or not, then you want to survey the men, but if the argument is about religious people treating their leaders as unimpeachable and infallible then it would seem that failing to actually live by those same leaders precepts puts a dent into that whether they say they agree or not, and as far as seeing what people actually do, surveying the women should suffice

Let's say I disagree. Show me why the particular values of the constants has the appearance of design rather than being a brute fact. You'll want to do this without using probabilistic arguments or language.

Why must it be a mind?

That's why I don't reject macro outright. It's theoretically possible. That Hodge book I mentioned has a section in which he reviews the history of the theory of evolution pre-Darwin - which includes many theists as supporting some version of evolution.

But do you? If not, the rest is just eggs.

...

In the third post Atlantean epoch or cultural age is the Egypto/Chaldean Age. Unlike the previous Persian Age one could say that the individual human being had a sentience that , which came about from the divine, and brought forth wisdom. this was the time for the development of what in Anthroposophy as the "sentient soul".

the Chaldean scientist brought this sentient ability to the cosmos and effectually were the precursors of our modern science of astronomy/astrology and science in general.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy

The ratcheting down of the human consciousness from Persia to Chaldea is manifested in this science with the human being having an "instinctive sentience' through which "wisdom or knowledge" evolved. this is also apparent in the Egyptian world,during this period of time in which the Egyptian saw the heavens as the "script of the gods". This Egyptian also saw themselves as contained within this script and actually made of this stellar script.

This Egyptian, through initiate wisdom and related to the Pharough, would then guide his culture and life in the sense that he and all of mankind were moving together with the progression of the stars (includes the planets). You and I may know of this from grammar school history that the Egyptians planted crops referent to the flooding of the Nile but it was more of a inner cognition of the regularity of heavenly movements. An example ws that the movement of the sun, relative to the stars, presented a regularity as the rhythm of the heartbeat in relationship to the breath presented a regularity. The Inner Egyptian sensed these regularities within the "sentient soul" which led to wisdom.

Again, the intellect had not come to earth, within man, but there were the beginnings of writing or script during this time period. Ancient languages were written down to a lesser or greater extent.

A very interesting presentation came about which has become known to us as "The Platonic Year".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Year

From reading the reference it becomes almost inconceivable, given our present intellectual understanding, as to how the ancient Chaldean/Egyptian scientists could come to this realization.

I'll give what I've got and the reference may help. the Great Year consists of a period of about 25,920 years. This number is ascertained by observation of the sun traveling through the universal space and noting when the spring equinox appears with the 12 zodiacal star formations in the background.

Eight hundred years before the birth of Christ the sun entered into the sign of Aries and we are now within the sign of Pisces. The Lamb or sacrificial lamb is associated with the Aries sign or lamb. prior to this the sun was within the sign of Taurus the Bull (Egyptian period) and the Egyptians worshiped Apis and the Persians worshiped Mithra the bull. In the first post Atlantean time (Old Indian) the sun rose in Cancer or interweaving spirals.

To get the picture, the sun travels and in the background are the Zodiacal stars and each year the sun travels from on sign to the next. This period of movement is 25,920 years to complete the cycle. OK, now sit on your hands and note that I previously wrote that each of the cultural ages were of a period of 2160 years; 2160 * 12 = 25,920.

I'm really only trying to give the idea that the ancient Egyptian/Chaldean had a inner sentient ability to read the stars or cosmos and bring forth this wisdom or knowledge. The mental abilities (better word?) of humankind is in evolution .

I've posted this before but to me its amazing so if , on average, the human being takes 18 breaths per minute within one hour the number of breaths is 60*18= 1080 breaths per hour *24 hours in a day = 25,920 breaths per day. the cosmos within.... Peace

this conflates "explanation" with "purpose".

I'm certainly no defender of Darwinism (I don't actually know what that is). As I understand it, the issue of timescale is a genuine puzzle and one being worked on. I haven't seen anyone suggest its insoluble though.