Thomas
Bayes was an 18th century mathematician, philosopher and Presbyterian
preacher. In what has become a pretty popular concept even in
biology (I remember when I was interviewing for faculty positions four years
ago a chair of an oncology department at a university in Boston asked me what I
thought about using Bayesian probability to develop cancer treatments, and I
deflected for a couple obvious reasons) I came across an interesting use of
Bayesian probability by Don Page, who is considered by people in the field to
be one of the top theoretical physicists in the world (and got his Ph.D. under
Stephen Hawking).
Page,
although its clear not the reason he is a Christian, uses Bayesian probability
to justify his belief in God, and specifically the Christian God. Bayesian
probability is a system of probability that incorporates traditional
measurements of probability (frequency and chance) with components of propositional
logic, to form a system where proposition and hypothesis can be combined with
frequency and chance. This can in turn be used for things like what are the
statistically best cancer treatments for a cancer when much of the figuring out
which treatment is best is based on uncertain hypothesis, or, as Page uses it,
for a worldview.
Page
reasons it out something like this: Given even just a low probability that an
intelligent Creator is responsible for our universe and us, the historical
evidence of Jesus Christ and the Resurrection event moves it from the overall
chance for God from a low probably to a high and very likely probability.
It is
obviously completely devoid of any philosophical arguments for God, and as
such, is catered towards those inclined to think about God in purely
mathematical terms. I personally believe that it is warranted (as I have
written about) to consider belief if God a, as Alvin Plantinga would categorize
it, proper belief (a belief that needs to be assumed to make sense of anything,
in particular sense itself), but that will not satisfy many, not even the most
open-minded. I also believe, as you would imagine, that de novo the chance of God (meaning an intelligent Creator) is very
high, as I think at this point of our understanding a matrix-like reality is
the only plausible alternative to a reality created by an intelligent Creator.
But to the credit of Page, he has assigned a very conservative value to the
existence of God, and put the onus on the evidence of Jesus and His
Resurrection as the major probability mover. And I like that. It also forces
anyone taking Page seriously on this to take an equally serious look at the evidence
for the Resurrection and genuine start of Christianity (as I’ve noted in the
past, a thoroughly convincing case is laid out in N.T. Wright’s “The
Resurrection of the Son of God”). I believe this is where the real strength of
this approach is, from an evangelical standpoint. This will hardly matter for
hard and ardent atheists who have fully closed their heart to the possibility
of God (which, as I’ve said in the past, has nothing to with the reasons, per
se, for God, but like all of us, are highly influenced by other factors). But
for those with open minds and hearts to the possibility, it very well could
turn the tide. And that is what good evangelizing is: gentle, respectful,
genuine urging to share in the greatest story every told; which just happens to
be true.
