(July 7, 2013 at 11:16 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Recently I've realised that it's not correct to counter someone's belief in god x by pointing to n number of historically possible gods and deducing that x/n is low. This is incorrect if, and only if, the believer has experiential justification for their belief.
This thought is exactly the same as if we were all playing poker and we were dealt 5 cards. Someone could look at their hand and say "I've got a royal flush!" and then someone could counter by saying "it's unlikely because the probability of that happening is 1/x". Well, the *fact* is that they have got a properly basic belief that they have a royal flush (i.e. their belief has come directly via the senses). Therefore, they are justified in believing they have a royal flush even if the odds are 1/(10^99).
This is where the believer is positioned. Whether their senses *actually* gave them a true encounter is another matter, but my point is (I guess) that saying the truth of their belief is statistically unlikely is meaningless to someone with a justified belief (of some degree), hence why the two parties just slip right past each other without really engaging in a proper discussion.
Eager to see what the atheist response would be to this...
The analogy is flawed. The flaw is that the believer believes in the straight flush without having seen the hand. There is no evidence that his particular religion is the right one. None.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
