Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Just like clockwork!

Well, Reppert responded, "VR: How in blazes do you calculate probabilities?"

There actually is a method for this, it's called statistics. It's been well demonstrated; physics, chemistry, medicine, etc. use it all the time (they report things like error bars and "p" numbers and such).

As far as prior probabilities? Yes, you certainly can insert any number there you want, but to be a truly realistic analysis (one that makes accurate, testable predictions), that number must be based on the data to date (that's an explicit assumption in the analysis).

So, a prior probability for a resurrection? If we base it on the data (how many claims of resurrections there were vs. demonstrated resurrections)...? No wonder Reppert wants it to seem impossible to conceive of.


This is a popular infidel objection. I’ve discussed it before, but I’ll expand a bit on what’s wrong with it.

One problem is that atheists have a habit of reading rather than thinking. They read other atheists, but they don’t stop to evaluate what they’ve read. They just repeat it.

And this is because, if you’re already convinced that a position is wrong, that predisposes you to agree with arguments that try to disprove the position. You’re not inclined to scrutinize arguments in opposition to a position you think is wrong. You’re automatically sympathetic to an argument attacking a position you think is wrong.

Needless to say, the rarity of the Resurrection tells us nothing about its probability, for it’s not like a naturally occurring event (or machine), which, if it occurs at all, occurs more than once. Indeed, at predictable intervals. As long as the initial conditions are in place, it happens all by itself–just like clockwork.

Rather, it’s a question of whether God had a reason to raise someone from the dead at that particular time and place. How that fits into an overarching plan.

Let’s take an illustration. I graduated from high school in 1978. Yes, I know. That proves the creationist contention that men and dinosaurs once coexisted.

In all the intervening years (over 34!), I’ve been back to my high school just once. Once in about 12,530 days.

So by this wooden atheistic methodology, it’s highly unlikely that I ever revisited my high school. And by the same token, it’s scarcely credible than I ever revisited my high school. It would take extraordinary evidence to overcome the crushing presumption that I never revisited my high school. The odds are stacked against it!

But, of course, that’s a preposterous way of weighing the likelihood that I ever returned to my alma mater. For the probability that I went back there turns on the probability that I had a reason for going back. And the reason I had for going back once is the same reason I had for not going back more than once.

I revisited my high school 11 years after I graduated. And why is that? Well, I’d been to my 10th high school reunion a year before. There were actually three events. I only went to the last one, which turned out to be sparsely attended. There I ran into a student I knew from junior high and high school. And, of course, that’s the point of attending your high school reunion.

Anyway, that got me thinking that maybe I should brush up on my old classmates. I hadn’t bothered to buy a yearbook at the time, so I decided to pay a visit to the school library and look at their copy, to refresh my recollection. I even made some photocopies.

Having satisfied my curiosity, having got the information I needed, there was no further reason to go back there. It’s as simple as that.

The atheist talks about probabilities in physics, chemistry, &c. But, of course, that’s the wrong frame of reference. Chemical reactions don’t have reasons for reacting as they do. The Resurrection isn’t like a cuckoo clock which runs through the same musical routine every hour on the hour. Rational agents have reasons for what they do or refrain from doing. Frequency is irrelevant. We build machines to delegate  routine chores.

Here we have an atheist who’s obviously so pleased with himself, yet he hasn’t got a clue.

No comments:

Post a Comment