Quantifying Beliefs

This Blog Will Go Through Some Fun Things About Modeling Beliefs with Bayesian Methods

The relationship between Bayesian conditional probability and theological discussions, particularly the existence or understanding of God, has been a subject of philosophical and theological debate for centuries. I will first explain the Bayesian conditional probability equation in a simple way and then explore how it might relate to theological concepts like belief in God.

Bayesian Conditional Probability

At its core, Bayes’ Theorem helps us update our beliefs when we receive new evidence. It tells us how likely something is to be true (the posterior probability) given what we already believe (the prior probability) and the new evidence we observe.

Bayes’ Theorem is expressed as:

$$
P(A | B) = \frac{P(B | A) \cdot P(A)}{P(B)}
$$

Where:

  • $ P(A | B) $ is the posterior probability: the probability of $ A $ being true given that we observe $ B $.
  • $ P(B | A) $ is the likelihood: how likely we would be to observe $ B $ if $ A $ is true.
  • $ P(A) $ is the prior probability: our initial belief about $ A $ before seeing any evidence.
  • $ P(B) $ is the marginal probability: the total probability of observing $ B $, regardless of whether $ A $ is true or not.

In essence, Bayes’ Theorem helps us update our beliefs in the light of new evidence. For example, it is often used in medical diagnostics, where we update the likelihood of a patient having a disease based on new test results.

Bayesian Reasoning and God

Now, how does this relate to God or theology?

  1. Belief in God as a Hypothesis:
  • You can think of belief in God as the hypothesis $ A $, and some kind of evidence as $ B $. This evidence could be anything that people consider relevant, such as personal experiences, miracles, the existence of the universe, or moral values.
  1. Prior Probability $ P(A) $:
  • This represents a person’s initial belief about whether God exists before considering the evidence. Different people have different prior probabilities depending on their background, education, culture, and other factors. Some people may have a strong belief in God’s existence (high prior), while others may be more skeptical (low prior).
  1. Likelihood $ P(B | A) $:
  • This is the probability of observing the evidence $ B $ if God exists. For example, if the hypothesis is that God exists and the evidence is the fine-tuning of the universe, you would ask: how likely is it that this fine-tuning would exist if God exists?
  1. Posterior Probability $ P(A | B) $:
  • After considering the evidence (e.g., personal experiences, philosophical arguments, scientific observations), Bayes’ Theorem helps us calculate the updated probability (posterior) of the hypothesis (i.e., belief in God). This represents how our belief in the existence of God changes after taking the new evidence into account.

Using Bayes’ Theorem to Argue for or Against God’s Existence:

Bayes’ Theorem has been used in debates both for and against the existence of God. Here’s how different arguments might be framed using Bayesian reasoning:

  1. Theistic Argument (Evidence Supporting God):
  • A common theistic argument might use the fine-tuning of the universe as the evidence $ B $. Proponents argue that the existence of such precise conditions for life is much more likely if God exists (high $ P(B | A) $) than if God does not exist (low $ P(B) $).
  • If we assign a reasonable prior probability $ P(A) $ to God’s existence, then the posterior probability $ P(A | B) $ might be higher after considering the evidence.
  1. Atheistic Argument (Evidence Against God):
  • On the other hand, someone skeptical of the existence of God might point to the problem of evil as evidence $ B $. They could argue that the existence of so much suffering and evil in the world is more likely if God does not exist than if He does (i.e., $ P(B | A) $ is low if God exists).
  • This would reduce the posterior probability $ P(A | B) $, leading to a lower belief in God’s existence after considering the evidence of evil.

Bayesian Belief and Faith:

It’s important to note that while Bayesian reasoning is a powerful tool for updating beliefs in light of evidence, religious belief often involves elements of faith that may not be easily reducible to probabilistic reasoning. Faith can involve trust, personal experiences, and relationships that go beyond mere empirical evidence.

  • Faith might be seen as an area where prior beliefs are so strong that evidence $ B $ doesn’t significantly shift the posterior probability. For example, for a devout person, negative evidence might have little effect on belief in God because their prior probability $ P(A) $ is so high.

Limitations of Bayesian Reasoning in Theological Contexts:

  1. Subjectivity of Priors:
  • The choice of the prior probability $ P(A) $ (belief in God before evidence) is subjective and varies significantly between individuals. What one person considers a strong prior (e.g., due to cultural or personal reasons) might be weak for another.
  1. Interpretation of Evidence:
  • Evidence $ B $ can also be interpreted differently. For example, a natural disaster might be seen by some as evidence against God (because of suffering), while others might interpret it as a test of faith or part of a divine plan.
  1. Non-empirical Nature of Religious Experience:
  • Many aspects of religious belief, such as spiritual experiences or faith in sacred texts, may not be directly quantifiable in the same way that physical or scientific evidence is.

Conclusion:

Bayesian conditional probability provides a formal way to update beliefs based on new evidence, and it can certainly be applied to discussions about the existence of God. However, the Bayesian framework relies heavily on subjective priors and how evidence is interpreted, which can vary greatly among individuals. While it can be a useful tool in philosophical debates about God’s existence, belief in God often transcends empirical evidence and enters the realm of faith, which might not fit neatly into a probabilistic model.