Sunday, September 11, 2011

Following up on Pascal's wager: the probability of God

Last time I sort of just asserted that "the probability the bible is true is actually very, very close to one."  What if this were true.  What if, when you consider all of the evidence, then the probability of the bible being true is really, really high?  In that case, as we go back to the question of Pascal's wager, not only do you have an infinite reward in this wager, but you have extremely good odds of that infinite reward existing.  Not exactly how the Vegas bookies would set things up, is it?


However, I never gave any sort of evidence for that assertion.  Unfortunately, that is the subject of this entire blog, and it would be very difficult to encompass in a single post, but I will try to list several reasons for this to be true.

  1. The universe had a beginning.
  2. The universe (the laws of physics and the overall make-up of the universe) is exquisitely designed.
  3. The special set circumstances that must have occurred in order to produce a life-friendly planet was exquisitely finely-tuned (location and composition of the solar system, size of our moon, etc.).
  4. The origin of life occurred in a geological instant.
  5. The earliest life was incredibly complex.
  6. The simplest life is incredibly complex.
  7. The events that have taken place on this planet, in order for the planet to continue to be life-friendly for the past 4 billion years, have been exquisitely finely-tuned, (and must have taken planning).
  8. The sequence of events that have taken place before the appearance of man seem designed for the benefit of man.
  9. The timing of the formation of the solar system is finely-tuned.
  10. The timing of the appearance of man is finely-tuned.
  11. Our position in the history of the universe and our location within our universe provides us with the optimal conditions to study our universe.
  12. The order and rationality of the universe demands an explanation beyond randomness.  How can these things emerge out of chaos?
  13. The existence of immaterial, abstract, transcendent entities (including mathematics, logic, yes, even morality) demands an explanation beyond the material world.
  14. The existence of the mind and free will demands an explanation beyond the Naturalistic Theory of Evolution.
  15. The events recorded in Genesis 1 are almost perfectly consistent with the sequence of cosmological, geological, and biological events discerned from science. (Yes, I'm serious.)
  16. The biblical record has never been adequately challenged from either a historical or archaeological standpoint.
  17. The preponderance of fulfilled prophecy in the bible is remarkable.
  18. The emergence of the apostolic church is only consistent with the bible accurately depicting the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure there are more, but I believe this is enough.  In fact, if I ever get readers on my blog, you probably would fall asleep before getting through that list.  But, perhaps in the coming weeks I'll expand on some or all of these.  For now, suffice it to say that the case for Christianity is more than just based on faith.  It is a case built on the cumulative evidence from almost every academic discipline you can think of.  Sure, each argument can by itself be avoided, but in most cases, in order to deny any single argument, you must appeal to a small, ad hoc probabilities.  When taken together, I assert that you have to twist and turn so many times, the mountain of evidence in favor of the Christian view is so great, to deny it is a matter of volition, not rationality.  (Of course, I am certain many would disagree with me.  Hence, this blog.)

2 comments:

  1. Greg,

    There is a very troubling problem with this line of reasoning that you are pursuing (i.e., that the probability of Scripture being true is "very close to one"). Consider what obtains if we push it to its logical conclusion: If Scripture is only probably true, then Scripture is possibly false. How do you reconcile that with the fact that Scripture is 'theopneustos' (breathed-out by God)? That is, how can any word from God be possibly false? Is it not quickly apparent what such thinking does to one's theology?

    I appreciate that you have a passionate interest in the rational basis for your beliefs; as someone who is actively involved in apologetics it is something in which I am deeply interested and invested too. But I have to tell you, Greg, if you build your theological house on that kind of foundation the whole thing will collapse before you even finish framing. The probability of Scripture being true is not very close to one, but fully one; i.e., it is impossible for Scripture to be false. Harken your mind back to the Edenic narrative and recall the cause of man's fall into sin: second-guessing God and his word. And it is a sin that mankind still commits to this very day, deciding for himself whether or not God can be believed.

    Temptations be damned, the children of God stand firmly on his word and his covenant faithfulness. The truth of God and his self-revelation in Scripture is our starting point. There is nothing prior to or more basic. There is no foundation more solid upon which to build than the sure witness of God. We argue from this truth, not to it. As Michael Butler put it, "If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture."

    ReplyDelete
  2. David,
    I appreciate your comment, sorry it took me so long to respond to it. While I agree with you in some aspects of it, I disagree in others.

    But first, I just want to lay out more clearly the context in which I said, "the probability of God is very close to one." I was speaking of the conclusion one should arrive at if only taking the scientific data. Surely some philosophies say there is a necessary being, and this being must be perfectly "great" (whatever that means), leaving you with the necessity of the Christian God. I was not addressing that, so I stand by my statement.

    Of course, I believe that God exists. On the other hand, as a scientist (and even were I a philosopher... which I am not) I am always wary of saying we know something with 100% certainty. The reason why is because a claim like that can never be tested, and if it can never be tested, it boils down to dogma. Here's an example. Ken Samples of RTB was in a debate once, where the atheist said, "All you Christians just have blind faith. Is there something that would shake your faith?" And Ken said, "Yes, if it could be shown that the universe is eternal." Then Ken asked the same of the atheist, who said, "No, there is nothing you could say or do that would challenge my belief that there is no god." That's called blind faith. (All quotes were paraphrases.)

    But I agree we should trust scripture, but even God used reason and "proof" to teach his people.

    Take care!
    Greg

    ReplyDelete