The word "faith" and the "jackpot fallacy"

[ateista]

Let’s start with a simple scenario. You go to a store which sells lottery tickets, and ask the clerk: “What are my chances to hit the jackpot?”. He answers: “Well, it is 50%-50%. You either win it, or you don’t”. Obviously, the answer is incorrect. It is true that you either win it or not, but from that it does not follow that the chance of winning is 50%.

Now let’s consider the word “faith”. It means the belief in something without having concrete evidence or proof for it. When believers are “accused” of relying on faith only, many times they point out that the skeptic also accepts many things without concrete evidence for it, so he should not find fault at the process of relying on faith.

At first glance this is a reasonable stance. However it neglects the differences of having little evidence, lots of evidence or no evidence at all. In other words it commits the “jackpot fallcy”, by disregarding the difference between having overwhelming evidence for something and having very little or no evidence at all.

To assert that the acceptance of the concept of an “immortal soul” (for example) is somehow on par with the acceptance of the fidelity of a spouse - and call both of them “based on faith” is incorrect. The overlooking the world of difference is what I call the “jackpot fallacy”.

 

[john_doran]

Let’s start with a simple scenario. You go to a store which sells lottery tickets, and ask the clerk: “What are my chances to hit the jackpot?”. He answers: “Well, it is 50%-50%. You either win it, or you don’t”. Obviously, the answer is incorrect. It is true that you either win it or not, but from that it does not follow that the chance of winning is 50%.

well, epistemically, the chances of winning are 50/50, simply because there are only 2 possibilities: winning or not winning.

ontologically, however, depending on how you believe the world works, it’s a different story. for example, if the world is strictly deterministic, then the chance of you winning any lottery you enter is always 1 or 0, since the conditions of the winning draw are fixed at the time of your entry.

ateista:

Now let’s consider the word “faith”. It means the belief in something without having concrete evidence or proof for it.

that’s not what believers think it means.

faith is any belief based on something less than cartesian certainty; that is, if any part of your reason for believing p can be rationally rejected, then there is some element of “faith” in your belief in p.

ateista:

When believers are “accused” of relying on faith only, many times they point out that the skeptic also accepts many things without concrete evidence for it, so he should not find fault at the process of relying on faith.

perhaps, but this is not the argument i typically see made by believers…

what is usually pointed out (at least by me) is that skeptics hold believers to a stricter standard of proof than that to which they subject themselves.

ateista:

At first glance this is a reasonable stance. However it neglects the differences of having little evidence, lots of evidence or no evidence at all. In other words it commits the “jackpot fallcy”, by disregarding the difference between having overwhelming evidence for something and having very little or no evidence at all.

and this neglects the difference between different kinds and degrees of evidence…

i understand what you’re trying to get at here, but your attempt at simplicity, you are grossly oversimplifying instead…epistemology is a difficult and complicated subject that cannot be usefully reduced to epigrammatic clarity.

ateista:

To assert that the acceptance of the concept of an “immortal soul” (for example) is somehow on par with the acceptance of the fidelity of a spouse - and call both of them “based on faith” is incorrect. The overlooking the world of difference is what I call the “jackpot fallacy”.

while i agree that there is a world of difference between what counts as evidence for spousal fidelity and what counts as evidence for the existence of an immaterial principle of intellection, i disagree that the ultimate acceptance of either proposition does not include some component of faith…

there is no evidence that it is possible to have for either of these propositions that cannot be rationally rejected. so belief in either necessarily involves some amount of faith.

but again, this observation is epistemically uninteresting. what is interesting, though, is trying to figure out how much evidence, and of what kind, is necessary for reasonable belief in a given proposition.

 

[Contarini]

Now let’s consider the word “faith”. It means the belief in something without having concrete evidence or proof for it.

No, it doesn’t.

At first glance this is a reasonable stance. However it neglects the differences of having little evidence, lots of evidence or no evidence at all.

Actually, you are the one ignoring this. Faith does not mean believing on little or no evidence. It means (if we take the classic definition by St. Thomas Aquinas, which is surely appropriate on this forum) bridging the gap between opinion and knowledge by a commitment of the will.

To assert that the acceptance of the concept of an “immortal soul” (for example) is somehow on par with the acceptance of the fidelity of a spouse - and call both of them “based on faith” is incorrect.

Well, Aquinas would say that the immortality of the soul isn’t a matter of faith–it’s provable by reason. The resurrection of the body, now, that takes faith. . . .

However, I disagree with Aquinas on this one–I don’t think one can prove with certainty that the soul is immortal.

However, the point of the analogy you criticize is that in both cases you accept something of which you can’t be certain because the evidence you do have points in that direction, and because you have a personal relationship with the person you are trusting.

Edwin

 

[dacoobob]

…accept something of which you can’t be certain because the evidence you do have points in that direction, and because you have a personal relationship with the person you are trusting.

Yes, this is what believers mean by “faith.” To assert a different definition and then attack it is called a “straw man” argument. That’s an actual fallacy, btw, not one I just made up.

 

[ateista]

well, epistemically, the chances of winning are 50/50, simply because there are only 2 possibilities: winning or not winning.

From the fact of havig two outcomes it does not follow that the chance of winning is 50%-50%. Even if someone knows nothing about probability theory, the fact that jackpots are won only by one ticket in many dozens of millions it is obvious that the chance of winning is one in many millions.

ontologically, however, depending on how you believe the world works, it’s a different story. for example, if the world is strictly deterministic, then the chance of you winning any lottery you enter is always 1 or 0, since the conditions of the winning draw are fixed at the time of your entry.

The deterministic worldview went out of fashion ages ago.

faith is any belief based on something less than cartesian certainty; that is, if any part of your reason for believing p can be rationally rejected, then there is some element of “faith” in your belief in p.

You said the same thing I did using different words.

perhaps, but this is not the argument i typically see made by believers…

I do. And I directed this post to those who actually do that.

what is usually pointed out (at least by me) is that skeptics hold believers to a stricter standard of proof than that to which they subject themselves.

Maybe so. But if they do than they adhere to the principle which says: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. And that principle is most reasonable.

while i agree that there is a world of difference between what counts as evidence for spousal fidelity and what counts as evidence for the existence of an immaterial principle of intellection, i disagree that the ultimate acceptance of either proposition does not include some component of faith…

I agree. But I see a difference in kind, not a difference in degree.

but again, this observation is epistemically uninteresting. what is interesting, though, is trying to figure out how much evidence, and of what kind, is necessary for reasonable belief in a given proposition.

Agreed.

 

[john_doran]

From the fact of havig two outcomes it does not follow that the chance of winning is 50%-50%. Even if someone knows nothing about probability theory, the fact that jackpots are won only by one ticket in many dozens of millions it is obvious that the chance of winning is one in many millions.

i won’t bother arguing…i was making a point that perhaps needs not be made.

ateista:

The deterministic worldview went out of fashion ages ago.

no, it didn’t. whatever anyone believes about “random” and “acausal” subatomic events like vacuum fluctuations, i would hazard a guess that most scientists adhere to the deterministic worldview in every other respect.

and what does “fashion” have to do with anything?

ateista:

You said the same thing I did using different words.

i sincerely doubt it. what do you mean by “concrete evidence or proof”?

ateista:

Maybe so. But if they do than they adhere to the principle which says: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. And that principle is most reasonable.

maybe, maybe not. at any rate, claims about immortal souls aren’t extraordinary.

 

[ateista]

no, it didn’t. whatever anyone believes about “random” and “acausal” subatomic events like vacuum fluctuations, i would hazard a guess that most scientists adhere to the deterministic worldview in every other respect.

Amazing. Scientists - physicists - believing that radioactive particles decay in a deterministic fashion?

i sincerely doubt it. what do you mean by “concrete evidence or proof”?

Proof is an evidence can cannot be doubted. I used the phrase “concrete evidence” as a synonym.

maybe, maybe not. at any rate, claims about immortal souls aren’t extraordinary.

My dear friend, you just managed to leave me absolutely speechless WOW! Immortal soul is not extraordiary! What can I say… not a thing. Are miracles also commonplace in your neighborhood? Resurrections happening every day? People walking on water?

 

[dacoobob]

ateista:

My dear friend, you just managed to leave me absolutely speechless WOW! Immortal soul is not extraordiary! What can I say… not a thing. Are miracles also commonplace in your neighborhood? Resurrections happening every day? People walking on water?

Sorry, but atheism/materialism has always been and continues to be a minority opinion among humanity. Most people have taken and do take the existence of immaterial souls (immortal or not) and of some sort of God (or gods) for granted. Your claims are the extraordinary ones.

 

[ateista]

Sorry, but atheism/materialism has always been and continues to be a minority opinion among humanity. Most people have taken and do take the existence of immaterial souls (immortal or not) and of some sort of God (or gods) for granted. Your claims are the extraordinary ones.

Most people during the millenia also thought that the Earth was flat. What does “opinion” have to do with reality? When was truth of a claim decided by the majority?

Let me enlighten you (a la Lucifer - the lightbringer): Yes there was a time when most people (in Europe) believed in the God of Christianity; and it was called the Dark Ages.

 

[tomarin]

Let me enlighten you (a la Lucifer - the lightbringer): Yes there was a time when most people (in Europe) believed in the God of Christianity; and it was called the Dark Ages.

let’s call this the “dark ages” fallacy. contrary to what you’ve heard, faith and reason are not mutually incompatible.

 

[john_doran]

Amazing. Scientists - physicists - believing that radioactive particles decay in a deterministic fashion?

you think those scientists don’t think that their laser interferometers operate deterministically? or their cloud chambers? or their particle accelerators? or their televisions? or their cars? or their dishwashers? or the pool-balls on their pool-tables? or…

ateista:

Proof is an evidence can cannot be doubted. I used the phrase “concrete evidence” as a synonym.

ok…so everyone believes everything, ultimately, on faith, since no one has indubitable evidence for anything.

My dear friend, you just managed to leave me absolutely speechless WOW! Immortal soul is not extraordiary! What can I say… not a thing. Are miracles also commonplace in your neighborhood? Resurrections happening every day? People walking on water?

well, i don’t doubt that it’s extraordinary to your positivistic empiricism, but then, accoding to my realistic rationalism, many of your beliefs are extraordinary…

whether or not soemthing is “extra” ordinary obviously depends on what counts “ordinary”. and the idea of an immaterial component to persons is, in a non-naturalist philosophy, decidedly ordinary.

 

[ateista]

well, i don’t doubt that it’s extraordinary to your positivistic empiricism, but then, accoding to my realistic rationalism, many of your beliefs are extraordinary…

whether or not soemthing is “extra” ordinary obviously depends on what counts “ordinary”. and the idea of an immaterial component to persons is, in a non-naturalist philosophy, decidedly ordinary.

I admit, I never thought about it this way. Let’s bring it to its logical conclusion: “No matter how farfetched a claim is, the believers of that claim consider it ‘ordinary’. Therefore there are no universally accepted extraordinary claims”.

The proponents of astrology consider their claims “ordinary”. The New Agers think that the curative powers of crystals are “ordinary”. Those who believe in ESP or telekinesis find nothing extraordinary regarding their claims. So shall we dispense with extensive verification, with the wole process of asking evidence for any claim? Shall give equal credence to anyone, no matter how esoteric their claim might be?

Let me quote you (and imitation is the highest form of flattery): “To be logical is easy, to be logical to the bitter end, now that is hard!”.

 

[john_doran]

I admit, I never thought about it this way. Let’s bring it to its logical conclusion: “No matter how farfetched a claim is, the believers of that claim consider it ‘ordinary’. Therefore there are no universally accepted extraordinary claims”.

The proponents of astrology consider their claims “ordinary”. The New Agers think that the curative powers of crystals are “ordinary”. Those who believe in ESP or telekinesis find nothing extraordinary regarding their claims. So shall we dispense with extensive verification, with the wole process of asking evidence for any claim?

look, the proposition “there are no extraordinary claims” does not entail “evidence for, and verification of claims is not required”; that is, that any less evidence is required - it simply entails that no extra evidence or verification is required.

and i don’t ask astrologists for any extra evidence for the truth of their (astrological) beliefs. why would i? are you suggesting that if an astrologist could, for example, demonstrate their atrological propositions with the rigor of any of the other physical sciences, that they would not have done enough? that astrology needs more proof than astronomy or cosmology? why should anyone believe something like that?

i mean, when young, fresnel, and poisson were arguing for the wave theory of light against the entrenched newtonian corpuscular theory, the establishment consider their claims extraordinary. does that mean they should have been held to a higher evidentiary standard than newton himself (who presumably would have needed more evidence for his theory than his predecessors)?

ateista:

Shall give equal credence to anyone, no matter how esoteric their claim might be?

no. one’s credence function should correspond to the available evidence. period. equal evidence just means equal credence. if you think that equal evidence entails unequal credence, then you’re going to have to provide a compelling argument as to why that should be the case.

 

[ateista]

look, the proposition “there are no extraordinary claims” does not entail “evidence for, and verification of claims is not required”; that is, that any less evidence is required - it simply entails that no extra evidence or verification is required.

I stand corrected. You are right and I was wrong. I did not think it through properly, and was carried away by the catchy phrase. No more evidence should be required for any kind of claim, just because it looks too farfecthed by current standards. Equal evidence should be required.

 

[Contarini]

Most people during the millenia also thought that the Earth was flat.

Perhaps, if you count prehistoric people, ancient Middle Easterners, people from non-Western cultures. I’m not too sure about all of these cultures. However, the cultural tradition I am most familiar with–the Western tradition–had determined that the earth was round by the Hellenistic era, and (Daniel Boorstin to the contrary) there was no point after that at which most educated Westerners believed otherwise (Cosmas Indicopleustes was the exception, and not the rule as Boorstin claims–if indeed Cosmas was making a claim about the flatness of the earth).

Let me enlighten you (a la Lucifer - the lightbringer):

A fitting name, since like Lucifer’s the “light” you bring is highly delusive. However, Lucifer’s falsehoods are a good deal harder to detect.

Yes there was a time when most people (in Europe) believed in the God of Christianity; and it was called the Dark Ages.

The Middle Ages as a whole have not been called that by any serious historian during the past century. You reveal your ignorance as well as your prejudice by this language.

Your point is a valid one–truth is not determined by majority vote. But your examples are singularly ill-chosen and reveal just how little you know about the history of the religion you are attacking.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[dacoobob]

What does “opinion” have to do with reality? When was truth of a claim decided by the majority?

Of course truth isn’t decided by majority. Whether or not an opinion can be considered “extraordinary” is, by definition, determined by the majority opinion.

 

[ErikaA]

I hate weighing in on this. I really do, but it absolutely annoys the hell out of me. And this is the problem with all the banter - it’s disingenuous prattle from people who betray little knowledge of true suffering.

To any atheist (which is what I was once), I ask this question, not in a hypothetical nor academic sense. Have you ever watched your son die? Tell me then what you want to believe. Why why why do people care so much about their own egos, they would try to wrench from a grieving parent the only salve that can lessen suffering?

We believe because we have to. You can never convince someone of the illigitemacy of their beliefs any more than I can convince you of the hypocrisy of your’s. So why even try? Because you like to hear yourself talk, because you sit comfortably in your upper class home, sipping Chardonnay and congratulating yourself on your high-minded thoughts. Because in the end, you don’t want to admit that what you really seek is to bring to everyone else the emptiness you yourself feel gnawing at you.

There is no concern, no compassion in atheism. There never has been. There is bitterness and pride. There is self-love that is really a deluded form of self-loathing. And there is no real truth. If you have never watched a parent lose a child, a parent who never believed in God, who hated the very idea of God and then watch that same parent say, “I’ll see you soon,” you are playing childish games of make-believe. These are the moments of truth, when all the ego and posturing is left behind and we stand naked before ourselves. Believing in God is the most logical thing we can ever do. It makes as much sense as eating because we’re hungry. It makes more sense actually when you see a mother’s anguish and her desperate need to believe in something beyond death. But now I’m prattling because I’m angry at all the posing I see around me. And there is nothing more to say.

 

[drmcpike]

Perhaps, if you count prehistoric people, ancient Middle Easterners, people from non-Western cultures. I’m not too sure about all of these cultures. However, the cultural tradition I am most familiar with–the Western tradition–had determined that the earth was round by the Hellenistic era, and (Daniel Boorstin to the contrary) there was no point after that at which most educated Westerners believed otherwise (Cosmas Indicopleustes was the exception, and not the rule as Boorstin claims–if indeed Cosmas was making a claim about the flatness of the earth).

A fitting name, since like Lucifer’s the “light” you bring is highly delusive. However, Lucifer’s falsehoods are a good deal harder to detect.

The Middle Ages as a whole have not been called that by any serious historian during the past century. You reveal your ignorance as well as your prejudice by this language.

Your point is a valid one–truth is not determined by majority vote. But your examples are singularly ill-chosen and reveal just how little you know about the history of the religion you are attacking.

In Christ,

Edwin

Very well put, don’t you agree ateista? You do have the ability to recognize when you are wrong I hope. It’s hard for me to be gracious about this kind of thing too, but in order to qualify as reasonable we have to be prepared to learn to think carefully, to recognize that all people are capable of having prejudices apt to mislead them (especially those who are convinced that they are exceptions to this rule) and these false prejudices are much more likely to be overcome by having an open mind than by being adversarial.

 

[ateista]

Very well put, don’t you agree ateista? You do have the ability to recognize when you are wrong I hope. It’s hard for me to be gracious about this kind of thing too, but in order to qualify as reasonable we have to be prepared to learn to think carefully, to recognize that all people are capable of having prejudices apt to mislead them (especially those who are convinced that they are exceptions to this rule) and these false prejudices are much more likely to be overcome by having an open mind than by being adversarial.

In principle I agree with you. But not as the post you quoted, that is why I left it unanswered.

I started this tread to point out that not all types of “faiths” should be considered equal in merit, and his post dealt with something else, while accepting that truth is not decided by majority vote.

Pretty irrelevant to the topic, don’t you agree?

 

[strngrnrth]

The immortal soul is not the same as people walking on water. These are two different subjects.
As for the dark ages, this is an old-fashioned term for the period after the fall of Rome to pagan invaders, and before the first Crusade. It has fallen into disuse because it meant a time of both physical darkness in the Northern Hemisphere and lack of high-quality art. Now we know that the arts flourished as well as the economies of Europe and Asia allowed throughout the period. The sciences moved forward as well. The main drag on the development of culture at the time was actually a climatic shift that led the peoples of colder regions (Norse and Huns e.g.) to resort to raiding and pillaging other peoples to survive, while those who were pillaged also suffered from the low crop yields and fuel shortages. It did as much damage as it did because earlier, the pagan Romans had disarmed those they conquered and took control of their governments. With the Romans gone there were no means of defense left.
Faith thus didn’t cause the dark ages. Indeed more of Europe was Christian in the Renaissance than in the early middle ages.