Trying to Explain Epistemic Probability With a Dice Bag

Before we get too far, here is the video that I am responding to. I am going to be referring to parts of it throughout this post, so I suggest watching it to get the necessary context. In it, Tracie Harris is using regular six-sided dice and an opaque dice bag to explain, with the help of Matt Dillahunty, the idea that one cannot just say that something is possible, even if one does not know that such a thing is impossible. While I think that this example is very insightful and good, I think that it can be improved with the help of some more nuance, namely around the idea of possibility.

How to make the idea of possibility more nuanced? We can do this by distinguishing between two kinds of possibility: ontological possibility and epistemic possibility. For instance, in the dice bag example in the video it is either ontologically possible for an 18 to be rolled, or ontologically impossible for an 18 to be rolled. The number of dice in the bag will determine whether it is ontologically possible for an 18 to be rolled.

Epistemic possibility is a little trickier to explain. Think of it this way: if I say that both the ontological possibility of rolling an 18, and the ontological impossibility of rolling an 18 are possible in the dice bag example, I am speaking of epistemic possibility. That is, from where we are sitting, in ignorance of the ontological possibility or impossibility of rolling an 18 with the contents of that dice bag, we can still say that for all we know either case is possible. Or in saying, “it may be ontologically possible to roll an 18″, the ‘it may be‘ part is not redundant with the latter part of the statement, but rather a statement of epistemic possibility in regards to the latter part of the statement.

Now, before this gets dismissed as supporting the idea that someone could rightly say that the supernatural is possible(the kind of claim that the video was arguing against), I want to clarify that if the statement “the supernatural is possible” is using ontological possibility, it is clearly unfounded. But, if the statement “the supernatural is possible” is meant to convey the idea that “for all I know, the ontological possibility or ontological impossibility of the supernatural could be the case” then it is not so wrong-headed, or at least not wrong in the same way as the first meaning.

To concisely sum up the above, I have tried to show that the statement, “it may be possible that X” is not redundant, in that, ‘it may be‘ is speaking of a different kind of possibility than the rest of the sentence. It seems clear that to say “it is possible that X” is different than “it may be possible that X”  Now I want to take this a little further and show why this distinction is important.

The reason why this is important, separate from the fact that more nuance is generally a good thing, is that it allows us to truly proportion our beliefs to the available evidence. Let’s keep going with the dice bag example for this. It seemed that in the base example in that video, Matt is given little to no evidence to move him to justify the claim that the dice in the bag can possibly roll an 18 or the claim that it is impossible to do so. That said, we can imagine taking this dice bag example a little further and provide some information about the bag or its contents that can serve as evidence. This evidence can then move us to think that either the claim that it is possible to roll an 18 is more likely to be true than the claim that it is impossible to roll an 18, or vice-versa.

For instance, if Tracie(who knows exactly how many dice are in the bag) decided to just say that there are three dice in the bag, we could evaluate whether her statement serves as evidence for either claim. Perhaps she sounds serious when she says this, and doesn’t appear to be bluffing, and suppose that we know that she is generally trustworthy, well then we might then think that her statement is strong evidence for the claim that it is possible for the dice to roll an 18. Of course, she could be misremembering, or she could in fact be bluffing, so the statement of her’s might not be the strongest evidence for the claim that it is possible to roll an 18, but one could say that given the tone, and her track record, it seems much more likely that she is telling the truth, and thus it seems much more likely that it is possible to roll an 18. This evidence does not conclusively prove whether it is possible or impossible, but it can sway us closer to one of those sides.

We could imagine more kinds of evidence, like perhaps the bag just looks really full, or really empty, or making lots of clanging sounds as it is moved(indicating many dice) or little to no sounds(indicating 1 die). There are many observations that we can make that can serve as evidence for either claim, and ideally, we would consider all the available evidence and proportion our belief in either the claim that it is possible, or the claim that it is impossible, based on the weight of the total evidence.

Proportioning one’s beliefs based on the available evidence is not merely trying to hold more true beliefs than false ones, but rather trying to believe claims in proportion to the evidence supporting them.

Anyway, thoughts?


Long Time No See

So… some of my friends who also blog here have been giving me shit(in a nice way) for not blogging lately. I admit it, I am a bit lazy when it comes to writing. Between my favorite shows and my PS4 and my PC games, I have a lot of ways to distract myself from writing. I cannot promise that I will keep myself on a regular schedule from here out, but I will try to write at least more than I have since I started this blog.

As long as this post seems to be about me, I suppose I will share a little of where my mind is at in regards to religion, philosophy, and atheism. Currently, I am still pretty obsessed with the “New Atheists” and how badly they get so much wrong. I don’t have anything in regards to that topic waiting to be written, as in, I do not have anything specific to share at the moment. That said, I plan on making myself sit through some debates or shows featuring the atheists I most disagree with and reviewing/responding to what they say. I cannot promise it will be pretty, but I suspect that the degree to which such posts will be interesting is inversely correlated with the degree of their “prettiness”.

Less importantly, I am constantly thinking of ways that my favorite shows and games relate to philosophy, religion, etc. Top on that list right now in my mind is the game I just snagged for my PS4: The Witcher 3. As in many open-world RPGs, this game puts you in moral situations and asks you to choose. One of the first such situations for me in the game was when I choose to help a dwarf find out who burned down his forge. It was easy to find the culprit, but that was because he was injured and drunk. Turns out he did it the night before in a drunken fit because he (wrongly, as I knew) believed that the dwarf was getting rich and hording the wealth while the rest of the village was in hardship. I could either let this man bribe me to leave him be or bring him to the dwarf. I choose the latter, thinking that the man needed to own up to what he did and make amends. I was then surprised that the dwarf immediately called the soldiers over and the man was hanged. I immediately regretted turning him in, but I don’t think I was wrong to do so on the expectations that I had.

Anyway, that was just one brief example among many I have experienced in the few hours I have played so far of the game. Perhaps I will take some time every so often to check in with you all, share an interesting story from the game. As it is right now, I just wanted to put something out there so that I will be motivated to do some more soon. And just so that I commit myself to something, I will say that my next post will be elaborating on an interesting ten-minute video on YouTube featuring Tracie Harris and Matt Dillahunty. Expect that post within the next couple days.

Atheist Movement Philosophy

Bad Atheism: Part One

I am calling this ongoing series “Bad Atheism” because it is simple, provocative, and because I am too lazy to think of different titles for every post I am going to make on what I see as wrong with modern atheist thinking. “Part X” is just so much simpler. Additionally, in case anyone was wondering, I have no clue about how long this series will be going, or all the different things I will write about. I just wanted a nice catch-all for any potential topic I may get inspired to write about.

I really dislike the common “lack of belief” definition of atheism. You hear it all the time, and it usually goes something like this, “atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in God or gods.” There are a few different things I find annoying about this definition, and here I will attempt to list them.

First though, a preliminary note: the definitions of words are not set in stone. There is no great dictionary-in-the-sky that makes some words only have a certain definition or definitions. So, herein I am not trying to argue for the “correct” definition of atheism, and likewise, I do not take any “but this is THE definition of atheism” argument seriously. Even if someone points out the whole, “atheism is a-theism, the a- means without, therefore, it is simply without theism” breakdown of the word itself, I do not find that convincing, as we go against what a word, when broken down, literally means all the time. For instance, when sportscasters speak of a team “decimating” another team, they are speaking of them really beating the other team, not literally killing 1/10th of the players on the other team. Long story short, arguments about definitions of words should be about what definitions will be more useful and/or meaningful than other ones, not just saying there is A definition that we have to follow.

With that out of the way, I want to briefly sketch out what I find annoying about the “lack of belief” definition of atheism. Among the reasons that I can think of at the top of my head, here are some which I will deal with in order:

  • The definition is psychologically untenable for the most part for adult humans
  • The definition makes the atheist “position” no different from a cat’s or a rock’s
  • We do not normally define ourselves by mere lack of a belief in something
  • I suspect that there is a dishonest motive behind the definition, to dodge atheism’s “burden of proof”

The “lack of belief” definition is psychologically untenable because it really doesn’t match how human minds work. After we have heard a claim X, we cannot then just lack a belief about that claim X. Sure, we can lack a belief that claim X is true, but we still possess some belief about X. That belief does not necessarily have to be “I believe that X is not true”, but at the very least it is, “I believe that claim X has insufficient evidence to justify me believing that it is true”. We may not explicitly hold those beliefs, but surely, we do not just have a vacuum in our minds about subjects we have heard before, especially when it is a claim as ubiquitous as God claims.

The “lack of belief” definition makes the atheist “position” no different from a cat’s or rock’s because they too lack positive belief in a God. Now, should we actually label them as atheists? That would seem silly, wouldn’t it? That is because there is more going on then simply lacking belief in God claims. For humans, they can be labeled atheists, as opposed to rocks, because humans have minds to process God claims. But if that is the case, if the fact that we have minds matter, then the way our minds really work in regards to claims we have heard also matters, so lack of belief doesn’t really work any more.

We do not normally define ourselves by our mere lack of belief in a claim. We do not go about calling ourselves “aunicornists” or “a-9/11conspiracytheory-ists” or stuff like that. So obviously, mere not believing in a claim doesn’t make a label we normally use. Rather, if we do use the word atheist to signify not believing in God claims it is because our culture somewhat imposes that belief on us, so we set up the word “atheist” in opposition to that. If there were a culture pushing belief in the tooth fairy all the time, we may need a word to define our not believing in that claim. That is because it is the cultural situation and our opposition to it that matters, not the mere lack of belief in something.

I suspect that there is a dishonest motive behind the definition, to dodge atheism’s “burden of proof.” It seems to me that in defining atheism as simply “lacking belief” in God claims, that people are trying to set up atheism as a non-position, and as such, requiring no justification. To them, it is all on the theist, the only person making a claim to them, to meet a burden of proof. Well that seems convenient, doesn’t it? It seems too good to be true because it is. As I pointed out in the first point, we do not just lack a position about a claim we have heard, especially one like God-claims. Additionally, most atheists or other scientifically minded people will not accept just lacking belief in something as reasonable.

For instance, would we accept a climate change denier’s mere lack of being convinced by the science? Of course not! We would say that they SHOULD be convinced by the scientific evidence, if they were being reasonable about it. They cannot just throw up their hands and say something like their position is just lacking belief that climate change is real, and that is all they have to do, that the burden of proof is all on the scientists, and they have failed to meet it. If that approach were at all reasonable, anyone could deny anything and just say someone has failed to meet their burden. The fact is that the climate scientists have met their burden, and as such, any person who denies that is actually being unreasonable. They cannot just hide behind “lack of belief” climate denial anymore, because that so-called “lack of belief” is unreasonable. If they want their claim that the climate scientists have failed to meet their burden of proof to be taken seriously, they have to give reasons why the climate scientists have failed to meet their burden. That is because that is a positive claim that someone is making, that the other side has failed to meet their burden, and as such, it begs justification.

So at best what we have is a weak claim like, “theists have failed to meet their burden of proof in regards to God” but then notice that it is now on the atheist to give reasons why that claim is true. They cannot just assert it and expect people to take their claim “on faith”. Speaking of faith, maybe that will be my next topic, if I feel up to it.

What do you think? Think I am on to something, or that I am dead wrong?

Also, this is a relevant post by William Lane Craig on the topic:


A Clarification About My Blogging Intentions

I suppose this sort of thing should go without saying, as I alluded to it in my introduction post, but some recent events have called into question just how obvious it is. I fully intend to write about social justice issues, especially how they are relevant to the modern atheist movements. I don’t intend to do so because I am some sort of great expert on the topic, or because I have some great original ideas to put forth, but rather as a means to let out ideas that I have that I would normally keep inside. This blog is just as much a means for me to just vent as it is for me to do real writing that I intend to help others with.

Now, I don’t want to write about social justice issues exclusively, as I have more varied interests than just that, but yeah, I am not going to stop doing that either. If anyone reading my stuff about social justice thinks I am wrong, feel free to comment about it. Unless the comment is over-the-line in some aspect(abusive, threatening, propagating racism/sexism/ableism, etc), I will not squelch it, and will attempt to respond to it reasonably. Perhaps through reasonable discourse one of us can be convinced of the other’s position, or at the very least we can learn something.



Atheist Hypocrisy Regarding Social Justice Issues

I intend this to be a semi-short post, as it is just something that has been on my mind lately, but nothing that I will pretend to be original. It really annoys me that some atheists feel comfortable with using the language and ideas of social justice movements to point out that there is pronounced Religious–specifically Christian–privilege in the US, but then failing to use the same reasoning to point out male or straight or white or cis, etc, privilege in the US as well. Even worse is that when you point such things out those atheists often get dismissive and/or hostile. Male privilege in the US, or Dawkins-forbid, Atheism? No way–especially in Atheism. We are the enlightened bunch, right?

Of course, the idea that women have full equality in the US, much less in Atheism, is just silly, and I am not going to waste time or space here attempting to demonstrate why I say that. Those who deny the existence of male privilege will deny any facts I bring up, and those who accept the idea don’t need me to produce more facts. What I will say is that atheism is really missing out when they do not accept feminism and related movements(let’s call it “Intersectional Feminism” or IF. I did not think of this name myself). The reason they are missing out is because they are right in pointing out religious privilege in the US, but they could craft a much more powerful, effective, and true message if they tied religious privilege into the IF thinking.

For instance, merely pointing out the religious oppression aspect of anti-abortion movements misses out on all the other aspects of what motivates it. It is more than just the privilege of fundamentalist religion, it is oppression of women, of people of color, of poor people, etc. If you want to fight against anti-abortion movements, why only attack it from one angle when you can attack from many? You not only craft a much more effective message, but you tap into the vast literature surrounding the issue, and into the vast resources of people who are already fighting that fight. Even other more narrowly atheist issues like church-state separation, or creationism being taught in public schools, have other social justice aspects of it that one can tap into.

Now, to be clear, the most important thing about atheist denial of other social justice realities is that it does real harm, by propagating those forms of oppression, and by neglecting to fight against them. That said, I think that another important point to bring up is that not only is it intellectually inconsistent to use social justice tools and thinking in atheism and deny other forms of privilege and oppression, but that Atheism is really missing out on stuff that can advance their own goals much further. I am glad to see that there are many who do get this, but I wish it were more.


An Introduction Is In Order

I guess when one gets into this kind of thing that one is somewhat obligated to make a first post to introduce themselves and to lay out their “mission” of sorts with the blog, so that is what I am going to attempt to do here. First things first, the name I chose for the blog is TheAtheismo, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the icons of today’s atheism and how their words are revered in a way not dissimilar from how fundamental Christians revere the words of their Bible. At one point in designing the banner, I had put one of the icon’s face in where God’s is to make the point more explicit, but I decided afterward that such a thing didn’t look as good as the original, and it would probably get missed by most people. It did look funny though.

My original idea with this blog, when I first thought of the name and reserved the twitter account(@TheAtheismo) was that I would play a sort of Stephen Colbert role in satirizing the type of atheism that I find pretty terrible. I would take on the pseudo-role of the privileged, white male upper-class New Atheist who calls religion a mind-virus, who dismisses feminism in the movement(among pretty much all other struggles against institutional privilege). At first blush, such a thing seemed like it would be really funny, especially since I would probably get actually mistaken for one of those that I was making fun of, showing that even the most ridiculous positions don’t seem out of place among the most popular forms of atheism.

After I thought about it more, though, I realized that I would be walking a really fine line; I would always in danger of being just unfunny or ineffective, or on the other extreme just promoting the kind of horrible things that I saw myself as fighting against. Colbert had the advantage of being on screen, of being charismatic, of having audible laughter in the background, things that made it inescapably clear that he was performing satire(and he still messed up big time in some regards). I would have mere text, a medium which can cause one to be easily misunderstood, on top the fact that I am not a very good writer. The possibility that I would do what I called satire in playing the privileged anti-feminist atheist, but having those words understood by the people I am satirizing as actual support, or being understood by feminists as promoting misogyny, was just too scary. Worse, is that it would very likely propagate those “satirized” ideas, thus doing actual harm. I would not risk doing real harm to a movement–and people–that I support just for some laughs.

So what’s left? Simply put, I still want to focus mostly on fighting against what I see as the worst of today’s atheism, but in a more serious role. To be sure, I will not be taking myself too seriously, but I at least will not be punching down in an attempt at cheap humor. More specifically, I want to talk a bit about the movement’s anti-feminism, about its bad philosophy, bad theology, and just bad thinking. I will not promise to write exclusively on those subjects, but I see those as the ones that I am most interested in at the moment. I really hope that in the process I write things that I am happy about even a decade later when my mind has matured a bit more, and I hope that you, whoever you are reading this far into this post, find something of use or at the very least entertainment in these posts.