The numbers racket

BILL CURRY SAID:

Steve,

“I am not sure that I understand your point of your example. Assuming that there were about 6 billion people alive today, there’s only a one-in-six billion chance that Bill Curry even exists.”

“Are you saying that 1) this is an example of Bayesian inference and 2) this shows the absurdity of Bayesian methods applied to everyday reasoning? Would it be helpful if I recast your argument in what I think are more proper Bayesian terms?”

What I’m saying, as I said before, is that I’m reasoning the way Michael Martin does in TET, pp50-51.

1.Is there some reason I need to keep repeating myself when I already explained exactly what I meant?

2.Keep in mind that you’re the one who wants to frame the issue in terms of Bayesean probability theory, not me. I reject that framework with reference to historical evidence.

3.Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we accept this framework, what you would need to do, just for starters, is to produce an atheological version o f Swinburne’s “Appendix: Formalizing the Argument,” in his book on The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford 2003).

Even that appendix largely summarizes the more detailed argumentation he has offered elsewhere (e.g. Epistemic Justification; The Existence of God).

So you’d have to go beyond the appendix to take in the other material, doing what Swinburne has done, but doing everything reverse—to produce an atheological rather than theological version of the same.

You haven’t even begun to do the basic spadework necessary to either justify your metahistorical assumptions or mount a formal Bayesean argument against the Resurrection. All you’ve given us are verbal vouchers.

“One reason that I was reluctant to use your example is that the hypothesis space seems ambiguous.”

Yes, I’m sure it is. Which is one of the problems with your framework. The choice of variables.

“Why would you say the there is a one-in-six billion chance that Bill Curry event exits? There are a lot of humans named Bill Curry that are not me.”

Are you trying to be cute? Was I referring to the occurrence of the name in the NYC phone book?

No, I was talking about you.

“There are even more none human things that are not me (the Orion nebula, the Homestead Act of 1862, the number 42).”

Yes, you can up the ante way beyond one-in-six billion. Various combinations from quarks from quasars. But raising the probability by multiple orders of magnitude hardly makes your task any easier.

“I am will to try and discuss this in accord with the advice found in 1 Peter 1:17 and 1 Peter 3:9-16 with regard to respect and honoring everyone, but it is your call.”

In their historical context, these passages aren’t talking about “everyone.” Rather, they’re talking about pagan gentiles who have had no exposure to the gospel.

Our historical position is very different from theirs. You and your brother are not in the same epistemic situation as mid-1C AD pagans.

There are passages in Scripture targeting apostates which are far more analogous to your own circumstances.