Issues with Probability in Arguing for the Resurrection, Evolution, etc

[Faizal_Ali]

@swamidass

There seems to be a mix up here. The Ressurection hypothesis presumes that we would not usually see organisms rising from the dead from the get go. The hypothesis is not “it is regularly observable (even if rare) that organisms rise from the dead.” It is rather, “we never see organism rise from the dead, except in this particular case.”

Nonetheless, it remains that case than when something or someone dies, it is very unlikely they will come back to life.

It is also the case that the odds of an asteroid of the size of the one causing the extinction of the dinosaurs hitting the earth at any given point of time is very low. Which is a good thing, IMHO.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@swamidass

The hypothesis is not “it is regularly observable (even if rare) that organisms rise from the dead.” It is rather, “we never see organism rise from the dead, except in this particular case.”

Indeed. Accordingly, if one is going to argue that the gods must exist because this occurrence testifies to their existence, and if one is then confronted with people saying that they do not find the evidence that it did happen to be of a kind and character sufficient to demonstrate the occurrence of something apparently impossible, one cannot invoke the existence of gods as making the occurrence less improbable. One has got to turn to evidence of the occurrence itself, not to a philosophical whip-around where one assumes the very fact in issue. When that process is followed, of course, it becomes plain that evidence of such a kind and character does not exist, and then the theist winds up arguing that the gods exist because something otherwise impossible happened, and that it’s reasonable to believe that this impossible thing happened because the gods exist.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Faizal_Ali

This could be an effective treatment (though I will also admit the evidence on that is not a unequivocal as I would like it to be) without the psychoanalytic understanding of how the mind works being correct.

How good is the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatment? How does it compare to chiropractic practices, for example?

@Faizal_Ali

To be more specific: It might well be scientifically demonstrated that a patient is helped by interpreting and responding to what he says as if the Oedipus complex exists. This does not mean that the Oedipus complex actually exists.

Would you be open to treating a patient with the assumption that their religion is true if it helps them?