8 thoughts on “religious baskin robbins

  1. But again, that is only if they all have an equal chance of being true. Some religious claims are philosophically impossible, rendering them impossible to be true. Take Mormonism for example. It claims an infinate regress of gods. Infinate regresses are impossible, therefore Mormonsim cannot be true.

    Some Eastern religions will claim that all religions are true. They are willing to affirm that two contradictory claims can somehow both be true. So basically, Christianity claims Jesus was God, Islam denies that. According to some Eastern religions, they are both true. That affirmation of the philosophically impossible renders it false.

    So it is not like every claim is running on the same probability plane to begin with, which is what your post implies. You don’t take into account any background information. For example, (and a less mocking one, I admit) the statement with all the different parent child combinations out there how can Nina claim to be Mr. and Mrs. Ntrygg’s (you know what I mean) daughter with a straight face?

    You see, its not about the number of possibilities, its about reasonable possibilities. For example, if you are white, we can exclude a majority of the Earth’s population. If you were born in a certain Province in Canada, then we can eliminate anyone not in that Province at the time of your birth. And so on.

    So with religion, even though you chalk everything up as equally improbable, that is a very intellectually irresponsible way to approach the subject. The claims and background information really matter and serves to narrow the field. It’s not as simple as throwing a dart at a dart board.

    • I see the argument you’re making, but it flows from a false distinction.

      Mormonism is no more patently false on the face of it than any other religion, the only difference is that the origins of Mormonism are well documented. Ditto for Scientology. Whereas other religions practiced today arose so far back that the origins are unclear, so provide an appearance of truth just because the ideas and the social structure supporting them have managed to last in a continuous form – although, religions have evolved – hence the number of sects and variations upon the original versions.

      Which is where my premise comes into play – if there was a true religion, then there shouldn’t be sub-sects.

      A better comparison would be religion to sports – both are cultural products that have significant overlap – indeed, in South American tribes, sports were an expression of the religion being practiced – the Atzecs played a game on a court and the captain of the winning team was sacrificed to the Sun god for example.

      Whereas, numbers are too connected to reality to compare them to religion – and as for parentage, similarity in appearance, mannerisms, these all play a part to connect the dots between parents and offspring.

      The real issues isn’t which religion is more credible or probable in any event, but rather religion, taken as a whole, isn’t credible a premise to start with.

      So the details of this one versus that one, isn’t meaningful when the concept of religion is patently false on the face of the claim.

      The willingness to give a better probability for one over another is more a function of familiarity and social acceptability – you are going to give more to a religion that you follow or a similar one than a religion that is drastically different than one you are familiar with.

      Even for atheists – it was a shock to me for example, to learn recently that the majority of religions practiced in the world do not include the premise of you’re born, you live, you die and go to an eternal afterlife depending on how you lived. That’s only the three Abrahamic ones.

      The most other religions practiced are reincarnation/karma based – you are continually reborn, experience a variety of between life states, and you move through a variety of existences until you learn and experience enough to enter the final afterlife/oblivion or a new form of existence

      Cosmic recycling of energy – even conscious energy – makes more sense than a short life and eternal afterlife.

      The Abrahamic faiths are simple and petty compared to this longer view of existing and experiencing through eternity.

  2. This is possibly the worst possible objection to religious exclusivism.

    With all the possible numbers, how could anyone say with a straight face 2+2=4? After all, there’s 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15…

    You might have a point if it were merely a random choosing.

    • So basically, you are disagreeing – which is acceptable – but by your own criteria of demanding a rationale, you are falling short of the mark as the plethora of religions compounded by the variations within a particular religion, does say something about the probability and likelihood of any religion being true.

      Taking that and applying it to numbers is not a meaningful comparison, since numbers are fixed and meaningful – something which is not true of religion.

    • I suspect that every religious person assumes his own belief system is the “4” in the 2+2 equation. It may not be random choosing, but it is certainly geographic. A devout evangelical Christian from Nebraska, born amidst and surrounded by like-minded people, thinks his religion is clearly the correct one, just like any devout Muslim from Saudia Arabia raised and surrounded by devout Muslims will think his is correct.

      As far as Mormonism being false… Why is a religion based on recent hearsay less plausible than one based on ancient hearsay? The older the story, the more diluted the message, especially without objective evidence to back it up.

      • The older the story, not only diluted the message, but the true origins are lost.

        It’s only because we know who created and invented Scientology, Mormonism or the fastest growing new religion – Pastafarianism that these seem less credible

        but, I think that religion in the future will continue to be based on more interesting things and people. I plan to be a Presleytarianst myself.

        Elvisly yours


  3. I am not a Christian but there must be sensible Christians who don’t claim this. Admit though that there are plenty who do. Tolerance of other faiths has not been one of its strengths. What is a baskin robbins?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s