Okay, it's Sunday

Updated So what the heck, it's a slow traffic day, I figured why not. I came across something this morning, an old item it would seem, since it makes reference to a book published over three years ago as if it was recent, but no matter. It's just such a wonderful illustration of the kind of logical fallacies people fall into when they try to "scientifically" prove their religious beliefs that it's worth taking a few moments to examine.

Oxford University professor Richard Swinburne, a leading philosopher of religion, has seemingly done the impossible. Using logic and mathematics, he has created a formula that he says shows a 97 percent certainty that Jesus Christ was resurrected by God the Father, report The Age and Catholic News.

This stunning conclusion was made based on a series of complex calculations grounded in the following logic:

1. The probability of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.

Okaaaayyyy....

The math, at least to the points listed, seems, well, a little off. If the "probability of God's existence is one in two," that means the odds of God existing are 50-50, i.e., there's a 50% probability. Same for "the probability that God became incarnate." Point 3 offers no figure to calculate and I take point 4 to mean that if God does exist and did take on human form, and was resurrected, there's a 90% probability that latter event would be reported in the Gospels. Simply taking Swinburne's figures at face value makes the probability all three things happening, necessary for the proof to be valid, to be .5 x .5 x .9 = .225 or a 22.5% chance of the resurrection. And that doesn't include a probability for this "incarnate" God to have been resurrected after an Earthly death. If we use Swinburne's logic and say there's a 50% probability (it either happened or it didn't) the figure drops to 11.25%. How that becomes a "one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true" - that is, a 99.9% probability that it is true - must be another of those religious mysteries we are simply supposed to accept as Truth.

Now, I haven't seem the book so I'm prepared to give Swinburne the benefit of the doubt that the "complex calculations" in his book are rather more involved that the nonsense being peddled here. But no matter the cleverness or "complexity," nonsense it remains. Let's go beyond the numbers for a second of two.

"The probability of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't." Wrong, wrong, wrong! A completely non-logical argument. While you can certainly make the banal observation that "God either exists or doesn't," the probability of that is one in two only if there is an equal chance of either case occurring. But there is absolutely no reason to say there is. As an example, consider that I have voted in every national and state level election for where I was living ever since I became of voting age. (I have missed a few local ones.) Come the 2006 Congressional elections, you can certainly say that either I will vote or I will not. But based on my record so far, it would clearly be ridiculous to say that I'm as likely not to vote as I am to vote. Swinburne's assumption of a 50% probability is just that: an assumption. For his proof to proceed, he must first establish a probability of God's existence. Since that is something philosophers have been trying to do for quite some time now (and the fact that they're still trying shows how much success they've had), there would seem to be a major problem right at the start. Even if you get past that, you are of course faced with the same argument applying to his point 2.

Point 3 is an absurdity. "Evidence for God's existence" is certainly a prerequisite for any "proof" of the resurrection (no God, no resurrection) but it is not an argument for it. Evidence for God's existence is evidence for God's existence, period. It is not evidence for anything beyond that. It is entirely possible to argue for the existence of God without endorsing even by implication the resurrection or even the possibility of it. Or is Swinburne saying that Islam, Judaism, native American religions, and every other non-Christian belief or philosophy that includes a god is actually arguing for a belief in the resurrection of Jesus?

There have been many attempts to logically prove the existence of God; among Christians at least, those of Anselm, Aquinas, and Augustine are likely the best known. They share common flaws in that they contain hidden assumptions and of necessity ignore the ability of the human mind to create irreconcilable contradictions (For example, is the following sentence true or false: "I am lying.") - but that's truly neither here nor there. The point is that what we have here is not proof or even argument, but foolishness.

Okay, so what's the point of this whole exercise? I said at the top it's another example of how faith rarely if ever can be upheld by logic. But a more accurate rendition of that idea is that it's another illustration of how logic so often breaks down in the face of faith. (Anselm even argues that without faith, we can't hope to understand God - but once we believe, we can come to understand the logic of God's existence and actions. Which reminds me of what the old fortunetellers on the boardwalk used to say: If you don't believe it, it won't come true.)

That inability of logic or scientific proof to penetrate dense walls of faith that would deny them can be seen in a more recent, more relevant incident.

Washington (AP, August 2) - President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

(Sidebar: I wish the reporter had followed up with "Uh, no, Mr. President, I wasn't asking about 'schools of thought.' I was asking if intelligent design should be taught as science." Of course, that didn't happen, which is not surprising, given the state of our media - but that's a different post.)

And oh my word, wasn't the Discovery Institute, the scientifically-illiterate nitwits for who "intelligent design" is merely a fall-back position for their actual creationist views, delighted. Bush was "defending free speech on evolution," they enthused, and "supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views." Oh yes, indeed, that's what it's about: free speech. Maybe they argue it that way because they know full well that, despite their bravado, scientifically, they haven't got a single leg to stand on.

"Intelligent design," the notion that, as the Discovery Institute itself says, "proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause" rather than by evolution or physical laws, is a farce. A farrago of unfounded assumptions and negative proofs leading to conclusions that are nothing more than religion-driven speculation, it is a disgrace to attempt to label it "science." More: It's an embarrassment to the English language to associate it with the word "intelligent."

Speaking of embarrassment, perhaps the most embarrassed person in Washington this week was

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, [who] was quoted in The New York Times this week [before Bush's statement] as saying intelligent design was not a scientific concept, and [after it] that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean he thinks the concept should be taught as part of the "social context" in science classes.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Some accounts have indicated that Bush was caught off-guard by the question, and I'm convinced his answer was sincere and did not refer to any "social context" but to the agenda of the radical pseudo-Christian right and reflected his own faith-based ignorance of science and scientific method.

In fact, ID is so much of a fake that even Rick Santorum is on the other side: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom," he said. And the usually reliably wacko Charles Krauthammer worries that this may be going too far:

"Religion is back out of the closet. But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion," Krauthammer wrote in Time Magazine.

In discussing John Roberts in comments on another blog, I noted that the ever-present strains between the corporate and pseudo-religious wingnut factions in Bush's base were starting to show. They just opened a crack more. I suspect that those who have tried to straddle that gap - such as Santorum - are at some point going to have to decide which side they are on. Which one they choose will tell us a great deal about which battles we're going to have to fight.

I've posted before about "intelligent design" on January 27, 2004,, March 26, 2004, November 28, 2004, December 1, 2004, January 13, 2005, February 1, 2005, and March 31, 2005.

Updated with a few additional comments and some minor edits for clarity.
PBU32