David,
>Okay. But then why use the same term to refer to
>whatever-it-is-we're-talking-about-here?
For the same reason physicists chose the terms energy, work, momentum...
It evokes something of the right imagery, which gets you a good part of the
way to communication.
>> But can you back up your statement that this is "God as defined in
>> public discourse?"
>>
>
>Sure. The simple fact that you evidently know what I'm talking about is
>prima facie proof.
OK, I agree, this is ONE of the meanings of "God as defined in public
discourse." But I was trying to make it abundantly clear that this was not
my meaning. I received several "private" emails telling me I had
articulated people's philosophical positions very well
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The God of the Hebrew Bible explicitly forbids anthropomorphizing. Not
>> only are we not supposed to build graven images (prevents us from
>> imagining the statue is God), but we are not even supposed to say his
>> name.
>>
>
>Er, "his" name? Isn't that an anthropomorphization? Isn't the fact that
>"he" speaks (in hebrew, initially), is so clearly psychologically a human
>being, etc., isn't that rather strong anthropomorphization?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >("There's this thing I call 'glosboss' that I think exists,
>>
>> >and is very important to me personally, but no, I can't tell you what
>> I
>>
>> >mean by the term. Isn't this profound? Shouldn't we talk about it at
>>
>> >length?")
>>
>>
>> Oh, but I CAN tell you what I mean by the term.
>>
>
>I was referring here to the quote that prefaced my email, in which 'God'
>was defined, in essence, as that which is undefinable. (A nice trick, by
>the way, for those discomfited by how vulnerable all their successive
>definitions have turned out to be.)
>
>See how much trouble we run into when we aren't precise about which
>meaning we assign to the term "God"? :-)
>
>
>
>*************************
>
>
>
>The central point is that if 'God' is considered as a proposition to be
>addressed the same way as any other in science (or more generally,
>Bayesian statistics), then anyone who professes to assign it a high
>probability while assigning Zeus, Kali, or the tooth fairy low
>probabilities appears to be rather inconsistent.
>
>The detailed calculations of those probabilities, involving specification
>of the event space, prior probabilities, etc., do NOT need to be gone
>through to reach this conclusion. Rather the burden is on the believer in
>God to point out which part of those calculations they treat differently
>when considering God and when considering astrology (for example).
>
>And then justify that difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>David Wolpert
