Timeline for Is Christianity compatible with Objective Bayesian Epistemology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2 at 18:34 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler♦ | The reason I think it's incompatible with the Objective Bayesian Epistemology you described is because, as you described it, it seems like "freedom from bias and avoidance of overly strong opinions" is very important, which is antithetical to developing and living by faith. | |
| Dec 2 at 18:33 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler♦ | @user80226 It's not confusing at all if you don't treat faith as binary. It isn't a trait like blue eyes, something that you either have or you don't. The Holy Ghost, and hearing the word through preaching, both help you to obtain faith, and can guide you to help to strengthen it, but it's like any other skill: you have to put in the work to develop it and get better at it. Ultimately, faith is a way of life, a way of living. It's not just a feeling or a belief. | |
| Dec 2 at 17:41 | comment | added | user80226 | And you also talk about proselytizing through preaching. So in fact there are 3 elements being conflated in a confusing manner: (1) supernatural posterior probability updates caused by the Holy Ghost touching hearts, (2) preaching, (3) study and practice. Which is it? And why would this invalidate Bayesian epistemology? | |
| Dec 2 at 17:37 | comment | added | user80226 | You seem to be conflating two things in a confusing way. On one hand, you talk about the Holy Ghost touching hearts, which if true, would technically count as evidence of a supernatural kind. If so, I don't see why this would invalidate Bayesian epistemology. Supernatural evidence is still evidence, presumably capable of causing a dramatic spike in posterior probability for whatever belief the Holy Ghost intends to promote. On the other hand, you talk about "learning" faith via study and practice. Wait a second, didn't you just (implicitly) say that the Holy Ghost causes faith? So which is it? | |
| Dec 2 at 15:50 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler♦ | "And why would a Bayesian epistemologist do that?" Perhaps because they learned for themselves that there are other valid ways of acquiring true knowledge. When the Holy Ghost touches your heart, it's a profoundly different experience from anything they've experienced in the mundane physical world. | |
| Dec 2 at 15:48 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler♦ | @user80226 Yes, people make choices based on the choices available to them. This is why religions proselytize, and have been doing so for thousands of years; if it didn't work they wouldn't keep doing it. ("How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" -- Romans 10:14) "how is that supposed to work?" You learn faith same way as any other skill: through study and practice. | |
| Dec 2 at 10:22 | comment | added | user80226 | Well, people tend to believe in the religion they were brought up to believe in by their parents/culture/geographical location. That's why you see over 90% of people in Thailand biased toward Buddhism (which is atheistic), for example. Now, you say that anyone at any age can "learn" to have religious faith, but how is that supposed to work? And why would a Bayesian epistemologist do that? | |
| Dec 2 at 3:41 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler♦ | @user80226 "But faith as a prior would only work if one was raised with a strong bias toward faith as a child in the first place." Why do you say that? People can learn to have faith at any age. | |
| Dec 2 at 2:24 | comment | added | user80226 | Christian apologists usually seek to persuade via arguments and evidence, but that approach seems rather consistent with bayesianism. You don't normally hear apologists say "just have faith!". | |
| Dec 2 at 2:22 | comment | added | user80226 | But faith as a prior would only work if one was raised with a strong bias toward faith as a child in the first place. But if a person lacks that prior, and instead is strongly sympathetic to objective bayesianism, seeking to update their beliefs in accordance with the evidence, what reason would such a person have for suddenly switching their priors to faith (as if that kind of dramatic epistemic switch were even possible)? | |
| Dec 2 at 1:54 | history | answered | Mason Wheeler♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |