On Belief in God X

[FallentoReason]

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...

[genkaus]

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 point of this counter is usually not to posit improbability as evidence against the belief but as justification for better scrutiny.

The use of poker analogy is flawed because it is possible to have more than one royal flushes in different games (or even in the same game), but, usually according to religious beliefs, it is not possible for more than one god or religion to be simultaneously true. The correct analogy would be if someone says "I've got a royal flush" and the reply is, "Really? Because the other five players are also saying that they have a royal flush". It does not prove that you don't have the royal flush, but it does show that atleast one player is lying or cheating or mistaken. While the chances of one person having a royal flush are low as it is, the chances of all of them having it are zero. So the least you could do is take a look at your cards once more.

[FallentoReason]

Absolutely, but as I briefly said in the OP, the truthfulness of the belief is irrelevant. As far as the believer is concerned, they have experiential justification for their belief. This undermines any sort of comparison between them and other royal flush holders. From *their* perspective, everyone else is cheating and they know because they have this experiential justification with the hand they possess.

[genkaus]

Absolutely, but as I briefly said in the OP, the truthfulness of the belief is irrelevant. As far as the believer is concerned, they have experiential justification for their belief. This undermines any sort of comparison between them and other royal flush holders. From *their* perspective, everyone else is cheating and they know because they have this experiential justification with the hand they possess.

Then he should not be afraid to have his experiential justification tested. Show us the royal flush and we'll believe you.

[Ryantology]

Then he should not be afraid to have his experiential justification tested. Show us the royal flush and we'll believe you.

This.

In fact, it's worse. We have a game in which every player claiming to hold a royal flush (which necessarily means that all but four of them are certainly lying) but none are willing to show their hands, insisting that they win this hand unless somebody proves that their hand is not a royal flush.

[Full Circle]

Even worse than that. It is a poker game being played with an imaginary deck of cards, all five players claiming a royal flush after the imaginary deal and each calling the others a liar since the probability of a royal flush is so low AND none willing to show their imaginary winning hand.

Madness.

[FallentoReason]

Absolutely, but as I briefly said in the OP, the truthfulness of the belief is irrelevant. As far as the believer is concerned, they have experiential justification for their belief. This undermines any sort of comparison between them and other royal flush holders. From *their* perspective, everyone else is cheating and they know because they have this experiential justification with the hand they possess.

Then he should not be afraid to have his experiential justification tested. Show us the royal flush and we'll believe you.

How do we translate that to the real world? Open his brains up, wire it up to a tv, press play and experience what they experienced? That's the unfortunate problem.. just like we can't see other players' hands in a game of poker, we can't experience what someone else has experienced.

---

Then he should not be afraid to have his experiential justification tested. Show us the royal flush and we'll believe you.

This.

In fact, it's worse. We have a game in which every player claiming to hold a royal flush (which necessarily means that all but four of them are certainly lying) but none are willing to show their hands,

In the real world, they *can't* show their "hand". The best they can do is describe to you what that "hand" looks like.

insisting that they win this hand unless somebody proves that their hand is not a royal flush.

I think this is actually the only route that would yield better results. Maybe they need an explanation of *what* a royal flush is! Something or other would do the job of undermining their experiential justification and render it trivial, useless, a delusion in such a way that they would undergo internal reflection between their updated metaphysics of a royal flush and what they percieve(d) and see that there's conflict.

[Minimalist]

How do we translate that to the real world? Open his brains up, wire it up to a tv, press play and experience what they experienced?

How about we attach electrodes to his nuts, turn on the juice and leave the room?

[bennyboy]

It's not a proof. However, it debunks the idea that the feelings a person has about his religion constitute proof. "I know Jesus is real because I can feeeeeel him in my heart." "I know Boobledyboo is real because I can feeeeeel him in my heart."

[FallentoReason]

It's not a proof. However, it debunks the idea that the feelings a person has about his religion constitute proof. "I know Jesus is real because I can feeeeeel him in my heart." "I know Boobledyboo is real because I can feeeeeel him in my heart."

"I know I have a royal flush because I can seeeee my hand".

Who has more authority to comment on that? The players around the table or the guy holding the hand?