Friday, 9th of July, 2004

In the current issue of Scientific American, Michael Shermer’s column is particularly enjoyable. He draws our attention to a new entry into the science-of-religion genre, The Probability of God (Crown Forum, 2003), by Stephen D. Unwin.
In this book the author formulates a Bayseian equation to estimate the probability of God’s existence, iterating it through a number of steps to come up with the result that the probability that God exists is 67%.

Remarkable, hey?
Well he does admit that the particular figures (pretty hazily defined, but let’s generously assume that’s because they’re summarised in a magazine column) are subjectively chosen based on Unwin’s own assessment of the evidence. No kidding! Shermer goes on to demonstrate how it would turn out using his estimates of the quantities:

Indeed, based on my own theory of the evolutionary origins of morality and the sociocultural foundation of religious beliefs and faith, I would begin (as Unwin does) with a 50 percent probability of God’s existence and plug in these figures: recognition of goodness (D = 0.5), existence of moral evil (D = 0.1), existence of natural evil (D = 0.1), intranatural miracles (D = 1), extranatural miracles (D = 0.5), and religious experiences (D = 0.1). I estimate the probability that God exists is 0.02, or 2 percent.

That’s as good a demonstration as any that all “scientific” “proofs” of God’s existence come down to a statement of faith. This one just happens to be a little more honest than most. My own estimate would probably come out as something infinitesimal - whether using Unwin’s Bayseian theory or some kind of natural-language argument; hence my self-description as an atheist. I can’t exactly prove that God doesn’t exist, no more than I can prove that there aren’t little green Martians living on the opposite face of the moon, forever unobservable by us. So what?

Follow this link to read the article.

Comments are closed.