This post comes courtesy of Joseph Delaney. It is a meaty article and topic, so to provide incentive to take it on, I am making the following offer: If your comment makes it readily apparent that you have read and are responding to a legitimate aspect of the article, your comment will count as two journal entries.
Review of The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne
This article is a review of a book called The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne. He essentially is presenting a philosopher's response to the arguments in the book and covers almost all the topics we have dealt with in class. It is interesting to see an actual philosopher using phrases like "justification of one's beliefs" or "epistemic probabilities". Clearly he picks apart Swinburne's logic until the core is exposed and only the most stable of arguments are upheld. To be noted is how the reviewer hardly seems to question his use of mathematics in his argument but instead focuses on the reasons and presuppositions behind the numerical values. Probability and certainty are weaved into every argument leading to the fact that this is not a proof and was not meant to be. This of course brings up ideas of "degrees of beliefs" and "relative certainty" about even our most passionate of beliefs. A few decades ago, people would have dismissed this as being too vague and not poignant enough to bring about change. Today, people are just relieved if the probability numbers fall their way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
After I read the first paragraph, I looked up Bayes' theorem, because the topic didn't seem very provable mathematically, but I figured I would give it a chance upon some inspection. However, what I found indicated that Bayes' theorem isn't used for judgments and proof like truth tables, but it is instead a formula used to determine the probability when the situation is conditional and the variables random, but measurable by simple devices like counting (one sample problem was about different types of cookies in two different jars, for example). It didn't seem to me like numbers could logically be assigned to the likelihood of Jesus being God incarnate then, and after reading the rest of the article, the way the author assigned number values still seems sort of silly. Instead of being based on logic, it instead seems to be based on his own religious convictions. Take for example the probability values he assigned to P(f/c&k) (Jesus is God incarnate) and P(~f/c&k) (he's not). After giving P(f/c&k) a liberal (I think) probability of 1/10, he justifies it with claims that Jesus acted as any good God incarnate should act, but, as the reviewer also notes, lots of people could do the same incarnate-like things the author cites - prophets, religious fanatics, or even just crazy people. The author says that God would not bring about a person exhibiting these characteristics if he or she were not God incarnate, but that is obviously false, as people who have had those traits have existed and he does not believe them to be God incarnate. The author says that it would be "very unlikely that we’d get the evidence we have unless God planned it" and planned for Jesus to be his incarnate. However, tons of religions have comparable evidence (holy books) for the existence of their own figures, but the author does not consider them. I'm not really sure what he's trying to get at with the "divided incarnation" thing, so I won't comment on it. Mostly, his evidence and rationale for assigning probability to the different situations in his argument seem more like those of a faithful Christian than a thoughtful philosopher, which leads me to think that his calculations are not to be completely trusted (or, really, trusted at all).
First and formost, this article is overwhelmingly controversial.With all honesty, I am ignorant in the sense of relegion, thus at times this article seemed forign. Although that it is true, I find that the deeper meaning of the article isn't to decide whether or not that Jesus is or isn't God in carnate, but how in an individual comes to such a conclusion. As the review discusses, Swinburne utilized evidence only in the last section of his book. We have been taught that evidence is what sustains an argument. Yet, Swinburne utilizes a key piece of evidence that many find concrete. Mathematics. This is what makes it interesting because Math has been deemed a universal language and is said to only results in one TRUE answer. As a result, it would be difficult to disregard Swinburne's conclusion since society has so much regard and dependency upon such a proof. When discussing the evidence, Swinburne deems his evidence both reasonable and logical. In what sense? Who determines what is logical and reasonalble? Isn't it unique for each individual?
First off i would like to say i hate the word "incarnate" the guy said it like 3 times in one sentence and that word is engraved in my head and I am soo irritated by that word.
okay now that I let that one out. i kind of found this guys justifications of why God exists pointless, with all of the probability stuff and the math equations. The why i see it there is no real way of really proving there is God unless you experience him somehow or for some they need to see Him. But how can you explain the existence of God with math?
The article was interesting but I found it more of a head ache than anything, I felt that swinburne's justifications for his belief were more of mumbo jumbo than anything, once again I can't see how you can prove God's existence with just some math. And I really didn't see where his point was going. I felt that swinburne was ineffective.
After reading the article and the three responses there an idea that keeps reoccurring in my mind. How do the original values for the probabilities get assigned? I did read the foot notes for things such as 1/4 change god will become incarnate because there is a 1/2 chance that he exists and 1/2 chance that he will become incarnate, so (1/2)(1/2) = 1/4 But how did the original one half come about. The article itself said that some people would give the probably of God existing only 1/3. So I do not see his original values based on anything mathematical and I see that as a huge blow to his argument because he takes the angle of a mathematical proof. Also I understand that he used the Bayes’ theorem to come up with the value 1/4 but the process of multiplication to try and find out if God was Jesus just seems crazy. God is something that I do not see being proved by math. The author of the book seems to be putting on a the facade of over his own thoughts.
Thought the entire article statistics are used, if they could even be called real statistics. However there is a big problem with statistics, they are just statistics. I read that the “Odds that a first marriage will survive without separation or divorce for 15 years: 1.3 to 1 “ However does that really give me any idea of whether a specific couple will break up? No. It gives me do real indication of what will happen. It does tell me what has happened to the majority in the past but each new couple is their own specific case that the statistics cannot predict. Which is another reason why is see proving God by statistics just crazy. According to the author there is a 1/4 chance that Jesus is God, that still does not tell me at all whether or not he really is.
Basically proving God by numbers is crazy because not all things can be shown by numbers. God and the matters of the soul transcend the world of calculations to a place where math and the long arm of numbers simply cannot reach.
I like how Briana described it (it made more sense) of the rational of Jesus being an incarnate God. Bayes is trying to use mathematics to reasonably make such a claim, such as noting his perfect life. But Briana also said, "but instead of it being based on logic, it instead seems to be based on his own religious convictions." I find this half true. I believe that because of his religious convictions, he sought to prove the validity of Jesus' godlike nature and incarnation. But I do not believe his theorem/study to be based on his religious convictions; instead, it was fueled by those beliefs. For instance, the Book of Mormon is about a family that leaves Jarusalem and landed in the Americas, and deciphering the geography, scholars have determined it was probably around Central America. There are likely to be Mormon archeologists in those lands as I speak looking for artifacts to support such claims, but their convictions, however, are not the base.
After reading the article by Richard Swinburne, I felt that the author himself tried to base whether Jesus is God's incarnate on his own religious convictions, although he seemed to have mathematical proof. As he was trying to prove whether Jesus was God's incarnate, he seems to mainly focus on the probability that Jesus was God's incarnate and so the opposition is rarely heard. This makes me wonder what actually constitutes as evidence that one can trust? Although many people believe that the Bible is true, what is to say that it is not full of false stories used to make people try to act in a certain way? All of the information that Richard Swinburne uses to try to show the probability of Jesus being the incarnate of God is based off of the Bible, so can it be trusted if there is no evidence showing this besides the Bible? It is my belief that if there were other types of evidence besides the Bible that could show that Jesus is God's incarnate, I might believe Richard Swinburne more, but no other evidence seems to be shown. I also wonder why Richard Swinburne believes that God would act a certain way, if he became an incarnate. Just because you expect something to be a certain way, it doesn't mean that it will happen. For example, two beautiful people may get married and have a baby. It does not necessarily mean that the baby will also be beautiful. For all we know, there could be a chance that if there is a God and he did become an incarnate, that he would choose to become a normal person with no special ability. There is no evidence that contradicts this option or refutes it. There are just to many unknowns to conclude whether or not Jesus is God's incarnate, since it does not seem that Richard Swinburne does not have enough evidence to back up his belief or toss down his opposition. So with this thought in mind, I commend Briana on her comment because it basically sums up my beliefs in a simple way.
(pardon misspellings, did not proof read)
The review for the book The Resurrection of God Incarnate attempts to forward a thesis, regardless of how credible it might seem at first sentence. The author must begin credit taking a different approach to arguing that God was incarnate in Jesus. The communication of ideas is done via mathematics which I would generalize as highly unconventional. Maybe the author is trying to appeal to individuals who might not be full spiritual believers. His target audience I could presume is not the spiritually dedicated masses. I could see even in the responses of my classmates, that they feel that God cannot be explained by mathematics, He is above such. This is were I identified the first possible flaw in the book. It is unclear who the audience is, because in order for his argument to develop, already the readers have to agree to god’s exists. And then the fact that he would never purposely deceive us. Those who believe, believe in the truth of that and they would be accentually the readers. However, as I identified above, they would less be less likely to be receptive to prescribing God to mathematical probability. I would think that they would be more satisfied with philosophical explanations rather than numerical. So with the audience is unclear which is the first downfall of creating an argument.
Now let me analyze his actual ideas and justifications. It seems to me that he uses probability rules with conviction that conclusion based on them are concrete and thus appear to be more truthful than intuition for example. However, he fails to adequately follow the rules of probability. As the review points out the author continues to add on factors to the probability mash throughout his book. All the evidence is assumed to be relevant, but not exampled the criteria of evidence being relevant or not. Now, with each additional factor that favors the authors argument he automatically assumes that the probability for his argument increases. However, in probability theorems the more factors added to the problem the greater the ambiguity and uncertainty of the conclusion. Thus as the author pollutes the probability with numerous factors, the end conclusion becomes inaccurate. It seems like a manipulation to arrive at a conclusion favoring his hypothesis that God was incarnated in Jesus.
Another aspect of his argument to consider is if probability is applicable in this case. Do mathematical theorems provide clarity or ambiguity? The way the author was attempting to categorize the probabilities did not seem clear to me. For example he refers to tree options; probability of the evidence we have if God became incarnate, the probability of this evidence that God did not become incarnate, and the prior probability that God will become incarnate. At first glance those categories seem fair and inclusive and the Bayes' theorem. However, I find it odd that the probability that he will not become incarnated is left out. That seem to skew the odds in favor of God having been in incarnated or to be in the future.
The points put forth by author outline what God is/was more likely than not incarnated in Jesus. The certain properties of his being are what form the foundation for the author’s hypothesis. He also claims that all relevant evidence is taken into account when developing the probabilities, but does not provide an explanation to even this base claim. Overall, interesting review to read, because of its approach in explaining religious beliefs.
To be honest i did not understand this article at all and i think that is a good thing. After being in this class i have questioned my faith more then ever and i think by reading this article it will again make me question my faith even more, and that is something i dont want to do. I have not yet questioned it enough to stop believing in jesus as our savior but has just made me see how and why people are soo questionable to the idea of christainity, which i now understand.
I agree with Sally. In order for this data to be considered there needs to be some other form of verification to it. I lost it after the confusing equation. But I do like this concept of using math to solve a religious dispute. By using a different form of logic to consider the possibilities and evaluate them through formulas opens up a Pandora's box to possibilities in which both sides can justify their beliefs. If they begin to see their own belief failing in the problem, would they manipulate it in order to gain acknowledgement for their beliefs? This then plays into morals. How far would you go for your religion?
Post a Comment