Side topic: Watching Coincidences

Occasionally I am going to deviate from my main blog thread to discuss a "side topic" due to time issues or because something is on my mind. So instead of religious truth claims, this topic is coincidences.

It seems common for people to credit unlikely things to a divine source. I can think of plenty of "ridiculous" ones... Tim Tebow throwing for 316 yards (representing John 3:16), the appearance of the virgin Mary in grilled cheese, etc. 

There are a few issues with crediting coincidences to the divine. First, plenty of very unlikely things happen whether it involves something spiritual or not. Second, You can always come up with a naturalistic explanation for certain things that happen.

However, does that mean we should be completely closed off to divine intervention? In other words, should we always assume that every unlikely event has a purely naturalistic explanation?

I think the answer to this question is no. We should not be set on this assumption if there is reason to believe that for a particular event, divine cause is more plausible than any naturalistic explanation. 

What sort of criteria could lead us to think that an event had a divine cause? I can think of three things to look at (there may be more):

1. The event is overwhelmingly unlikely

2. The event (seemingly) has spiritual significance

3. There are few, if any, plausible naturalistic explanations

Looking at the two examples above, the Tim Tebow example could fail #3 because an obvious explanation is that Tebow simply had a good game and happened to throw that many yards. Plus it's a stretch to make the spiritual connection in the first place. The grilled cheese example is questionable on #3 because a person could warp a very likely shape into something that looks like their image of Mary, like how you can warp the shape of a cloud to look like a bunny. Plus there's little practical spiritual significance.

The three factors above can add weight to a divine explanation for an event. You can always come up with a natural explanation for an event. But the question should not just be "is there is a natural explanation?", but instead should be "what is the most plausible explanation, no matter what the implications are?

With this question in mind, I now turn to a story that three years ago was sent to me, a questioning freshman, from a guy named Paul. You can choose to believe or not believe this story from his pastor. This is what Paul sent me:

"

I would like to share with you an additional event that the Pastor of my church recently shared with me that happened to him. He told me this after I told him some of the things that happened to me. He asked me if I thought that these kind of things only happen to me. I said YES!!!. I never heard any of these kinds of stores from people I knew and was never taught that they were readily available to be experienced, you just had to want to experience them

So here is what he told me,

His father once bought him a watch for good luck. The following day the watch stopped at exactly 2:15. He noticed that it stopped, then fiddled with it and set it to the right time and thought nothing further of it. The next day it again stopped at 2:15. So he thought it was simply broken and returned it to the store where it was bought. The clerk gave him the exact same replacement watch, same make-same model. The very next day the watch stopped again at 2:15, so he took the watch to the store and told the clerk. The clerk could not believe it and so started fiddling with it and set the watch for 2:14 and sure enough it stopped at 2:15 again in the store. So the clerk gave him an entirely different watch, different make/model. Sure enough the next day the watch stopped at 2:15 again. At this point, the pastor tells his wife to remember the time of 2:15 since God is telling him something about that time. The very next day, the watch doesn't stop at 2:15 but keeps on going and never stops again. A week later at 2:15 PM he gets a call from a church that he interviewed at (one of many he had interviewed at and was considering) and they offer him the job. He knows it is the will of God that he take that position and does so on the spot....

Lets examine the watch event I described. The watch always stopped at 2:15 PM, never 2:15 AM. And that's significant because there is no difference between the initial conditions of the watch at 2:15 PM versus 2:15 AM as it was an analog/mechanical watch and did not differentiate between AM and PM.

5 times the watch stopped at 2:15 exactly, plus the phone job offer came at 2:15 pm. That's 6 events. Do you know what the probability of that event happening was?

Do you know much about statistics? Rather than dive into the theory, I will use a quick example.

The probability of flipping a coin and having it land heads 6 times is
0.5^6 = .015625 = 1.56%

The probability of having a 6 sided dice land on 1 six times is
(1/6)^6 = 2.14x10-5 = .0000214 = .00214%

What is the probability that the watch would stop at 2:15 PM 6 times has 2 answers depending on whether the watch stopped to the second at 2:15 PM or only to the minute. Since he is a pastor, he would not understand the mathematic implications of one versus the other. So he never took notice, except that it was at 2:15 and NOT 2:16 or 2:17... etc..

Lets calculate the odds of to the minute first. There are 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day. Recall that it never stopped at 2:15 AM, so that means we are dealing with a trade space of 24 hours. That means there are 24 x 60 = 1440 possible minutes.

Using the same math as before

(1/1440)^6 = =1.12e-19 = 0.000000000000000000112

If it were to the second, then it would be
24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 86400 possible seconds

(1/86400)^6 = 2.4e-30 = .0000000000000000000000000000024


Do you know what the probability of winning the lottery is ?

1:22,957,480 = 4.36e-8=.0000000436

Odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime (80 years)

1:5000 = .0002

Now consider the odds I mentioned about the watch in comparison to the other events. That's why I call them "Miracles of incalculable odds". People don't understand 2.4e-30 terms. They understand 1:5000 as with lightning, but they can not grasp the other.

Let me make a better comparison for you. Found this write up on

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/539329.html

So how many grains of sand are there in the world? You could start
off by trying to guess how many grains of sand there are in a spoon of
sand. Use a magnifying glass to count how many grains fit in a small
section. Then, count how many of those sections fit in your spoon.
Multiply the two numbers together to get an estimate.
"Using this same principle, plus some additional information,
mathematicians at the University of Hawaii tried to guess how many
grains of sand are on the world's beaches. They came up with
7,500,000,000,000,000,000, or seven quintillion five quadrillion
grains of sand."

That number is 7.5 x 10^18 or 7.5 billion billion.

How many stars, galaxies, clusters, QSO's etc. in the Universe?

"To get the total stellar population in the Milky Way [that is, in our
galaxy alone], we must take the number of luminous stars that we can
see at large distances and assume that we know how many fainter stars
go along with them. Recent numbers give about 400,000,000,000 (400
billion) stars, but a 50% error either way is quite plausible."

So in our galaxy alone, there might be between 2 x 10^11 and 6 x 10^11 stars

How many galaxies in the Universe?

"the Hubble telescope is capable of detecting about 80 billion
galaxies (although not all of these within the foreseeable future!).
In fact, there must be many more than this, even within the observable
Universe, since the most
common kind of galaxy in our own neighborhood is the faint dwarfs
which are difficult enough to see nearby, much less at large
cosmological distances. For example, in our own local group, there are
3 or 4 giant galaxies which would be detectable at a billion
light-years or more (Andromeda, the Milky Way, the Pinwheel in
Triangulum, and maybe the Large Magellanic Cloud). However, there are
at least another 20 faint members, which would be difficult to find at
100 million light-years, much less the billions of light years to
which the brightest galaxies can be seen."

So the lower end estimate for the number of galaxies is 8 x 10^10

If we accept even the lower end of these Hubble figures, and if our
Milky Way has a typical number of stars in it, that puts the number of
stars in the universe to be at least
(2 x 10^11) x (8 x 10^10) = 16 x 10^ 21

So if we round the number of sand grains to, say, 10^20
and round the number of stars to, say 10^22
then there are at least 100 stars in the universe for every grain of sand on earth.

Using the same math as before

1.12e-19 = 0.000000000000000000112, for to the minute accuracy Watch

2.4e-30 = 0.0000000000000000000000000000024, for to the second accuracy Watch

7.5e18 = 7,500,000,000,000,000,000, for number of grains of sand in the world

16e21= 16,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 # stars in the universe

So the factual reality is that if I were to mark a G on a piece of sand anywhere in the world, you would be more likely to find that one piece with one pick, than for the watch event to have happened.

Actually they are very close 1.12e-19 versus 1.33e-19, if we round down they are the same. Interesting

If I use the model of accuracy to the second, then it isnt even close.

Lets examine the stars effect, if I were to ,metaphorically speaking, mark a G on a star anywhere in the universe, you would be more likely to find that hidden star with one pick, than for the watch event to have happened.

In fact you would be 26 million times more likely to find the hidden star than to repeat the watch example.

The interesting thing is that the Pastor only thought that it was maybe a 1/1000 event, and had only shared that story with a few people. These kinds of miracles happen all the time, but they remain hidden because most people dont know how special they are.

"

Now, after reading this story, I look back at the criteria:

1. The event is overwhelmingly unlikely

- That was one of the main points of this story. Check out the statistical figures given.

2. The event (seemingly) has spiritual significance

- This event affirmed this pastor's decision to lead the church that called him at 2:15. This decision has significant implications; this pastor will likely be leading the people of this church for several years.

3. There are few, if any, plausible naturalistic explanations

- This is the key point I want to focus on. Of course, you could chalk this story (and others) up to coincidence. But if this event were to be explained in naturalistic terms, many pieces (rare in themselves)  would have to come together to fully explain how these events happened. Although possible, it would be very difficult to come up with plausible naturalistic explanation(s) that explain the entirety of this story. At this point, I think we need to be at the least open to the idea that there was divine involvement in this situation, especially in light of the spiritual implications involved.

However, I am only talking about one isolated situation here. As Paul hinted, there are a lot of stories involving miracle claims - extremely unlikely events with spiritual implications. If the total naturalistic viewpoint is held, ALL of these claims require a natural explanation, whether there is a plausible one or not. This view creates a nature-of-the-gaps scenario, where every event, no matter how unlikely or unexplainable, is credited to a natural explanation.

The opposite can occur as well (crediting only God when there is a clear natural explanation), so I am not saying that we should assume God is the explanation of all coincidences. I am saying that if a certain explanation of an event is the most reasonable one, we should consider it even if it involves bringing the divine into the discussion.

Excluse me, but it's all true

I now turn to another area of life, religion, to see how the relative view affects it. The view I will focus on is the view that religion is essentially "internal"; whatever religious view you hold is true to yourself. To make this topic easier to explain, I will mostly discuss views involving spiritual belief, and not atheistic views.

There may be different reasons for holding a relative religious view, such as the desire for someone to tolerate people of different faiths and the fact that "people of faith" universally seem to feel a peace due to their religious beliefs. Thus, in this last reason, it does not matter what specific religion a person follows; religious peace a person finds internally is what matters.

I thought I was going to start with talking about relativity, but I will actually now talk about exclusivity.  One definition of this word is "Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exclusivity. 

Try thinking of a hypothetical belief system that would not contain an exclusive religious view. An example I can think of is a system with the central claim that "all people who believe there is a spiritual essence (i.e. whether belief in one or multiple gods) follow a true religion". I'll call this the "all true" system.

This belief system has potential to work at first thought. If you believe in spiritual things, as people of all religions do, you are following the truth. There's no exclusivity (again, barring Atheism). That is... until you look at specific central claims of religious systems. 

For example, some religions have a claim that religious truth is only contained in one specific god (let's call this the "one true" view). Therefore, if truth is NOT contained in that one god, a person holding this religious belief is incorrect. And if truth IS contained in that god, then someone who denies this god is not following truth. A person holding the "one true" naturally disagrees with the claim that "all people who believe in a spiritual essence follow a true religion".

What does this mean? the "all true" system is exclusive, just like any other belief system. It implies that a person does not believe there is only one true spiritual being. However, there are people who hold the "one true" view, which automatically excludes them from following the "all true" belief system. 

Why is this important? It's an example that religious views are exclusive. There is always an underlying claim that people can accept or deny. You can also extend this point to atheism, as that system implies a general disbelief in spiritual things. However, you are excluded from this system by believing in a spiritual being. 

Turning back to relativity, is it possible for the relative religious view to hold up? In order to answer this question, we need to look at the foundational claims that a particular religion makes. It is possible that religious relativism is true, as long as the "all true" or a similar system actually describes reality. But it is not true if a "one true" system actually describes reality. 

I'm thinking the next question to ask is "What do these 'one true' systems or other systems actually claim?" In other words, we need to look at the systems themselves, not just what a person believes about a religion internally. Also, can the "all true" relative system hold up in light of these claims?

And the next important question is "What reasons are there to believe a particular claim describes the way the world actually is?" To say the least, these questions demand much more than one or two posts.

Million Dollar Madness

In my last post, I explained that there is objective truth in the world. I have only talked about complete objective or complete subjective truth thus far, but there are "shades" in between those two ends. Some people believe there is some objective truth, and they could be wrong about some things, but certain areas of truth are dependent on an individual's views.

One of these areas is morality. Even if relative morality can be argued, there is still one main issue with it. A person holding this view cannot logically enforce their views of morality on others! Since the setandard of what is correct changes from person to person, someone is justified to do anything they want to if they believe it is justified. The act remains justified no matter what someone else's view about the morality of that act is, especially since there is no "outside" standard to determine whether the act is moral or immoral.

For example, Bob has a million dollar check that is his. He holds a relative moral view. Jake comes in, picks up the million dollar check, and walks away. Bob starts an uproar. "WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?! YOU CAN'T STEAL THAT FROM ME!", screams Bob.

Jake tries to calm Bob down. "Dude, it's all good", Jake says, "I'm gonna cash this check and give it all to that one foundation that builds a bunch of wells in Nigeria. You were just gonna use the money to expand your world-record Twinkie collection. Taking the check seems right in my eyes".

In this simple example, Bob holds a relative morality view, yet seems to enforce what he believes is wrong (stealing the check) to Jake, even though Jake believes that stealing the check is right/moral in this situation. So, Bob suddenly appears to hold much more of an objective view of morality (that there's some sort of moral standard that everyone should follow). In this case, the standard would be "stealing something from me is wrong".

This example shows how difficult holding a strict relative moral view would actually be. You cannot enforce what you believe is moral, even if someone performs an act that is clearly immoral. Besides, there is nothing that is "clearly immoral", because there is no absolute standard available to determine what is moral/immoral. Relative morality ends debate on what is good/moral, because a person's view on what is moral is automatically correct.

In summary, the relative moral view is almost impossible to hold practically, and leads to contradictory views about the same topic. This contradiction issue is the same one found in the relative truth view. There is some kind of objective standard of morality. A person can have a wrong view about what is moral. 

Although I have not backed this next statement up yet, I believe there is a standard that applies to all people. Once again, I am discussing "extreme" views - total relative/objective morals. There are other views, like societies determine morals, but I will hold off on them right now. I have also not discussed the foundation of objective truth.

Since I don't want to make these blog posts too long, I will split up this topic and relative religious views (my next post). I also plan to add website sources to reference once the topics start getting more complicated.

The True Question

This post marks the beginning of a blog I am hoping to write to weekly. If no one reads the posts, it is still worth it for me to be thinking about some important topics and to have a future reference to look to. I am going to attempt to write this first post using two assumptions: that we have the ability to use logic and have the ability to draw reasonable conclusions using that logic.

What is truth? This question is very important to consider. To show why, I am going to explain the two "extreme" viewpoints of what truth is and then describe the implications of these two views.

1. Relative truth - truth is what you want/think it to be. It depends on the individual and can change from person to person. It comes solely from the "inside" or "heart" of an individual. 

Basic example: I find it true that the temperature was 45 degrees in Green Bay, WI at 3 PM CST on 1/5/12. You find it true that the temperature was 65 degrees in Green Bay, WI at 3 PM CST on 1/5/12. We are both correct about the temperature since our statement is true to us individually.

2. Objective truth -  Truth is universal and timeless, no matter what an individual thinks or feels about a particular topic. Truth is "outside" of an individual and does not change based on one's viewpoint. A particular truth is true for everyone, everywhere. A good definition of truth would be the correspondence to the way the world actually is.

Basic example: The temperature was actually 45 degrees in Green Bay, WI at 3 PM CST on 1/5/12. I am correct about the temperature (45 degrees) since my statement reflects an objective reality in the world. You are incorrect that the temperature was 65 degrees no matter how much you believed it was true; your statement did not correspond to reality. This situation holds no matter where you are in the world or when you lived after that date. In the year 3000 the temperature will still have been 45 degrees at that time and at that location.

There is a flaw in the relative truth example above. The two statements on the temperatures contradict each other; in other words, they reflect two different potential realities. Using logic, we can determine that two contradictory statements about the same reality cannot both be true (i.e. the temperature could not have been 45 AND 65 degrees at the exact same moment in the exact same location). Therefore, one or both statements must be false.

How does that example relate to relative truth as a whole? First of all, the relative truth viewpoint leads to the possibility of two contradictory claims to be true. In fact, a strict relative truth view allows an individual's statement to ALWAYS be true (at least to that person)! Also, the statement "all truth is relative" is contradictory in itself because that statement claim refers to a reality that is true for everyone (more could be said about this, but I want to limit space).

 What are the implications of a person with one of these views about truth? If you hold the relative truth view, then what you find to be true for yourself is in fact true. So, is little need to challenge what you believe is true if you KNOW that you are always correct. There would also be no motivation to tell others what you think is true; whatever you believe (even if it's different than what they believe) is true to you. 

If you hold the objective truth view, you think your view does not necessarily correspond to reality/truth. So, there is much more reason to "search" for what is true and to discuss views with others, especially on topics that are important.  

This truth question is important because it could affect many things you do in life, and would especially affect the way you view the world.

A person can still claim "what I believe is true for me", but based on some of the issues above, it is more reasonable that there is objective truth outside of an individual's belief in a statement. 

That is all for now! I will end with a few side comments:

This point may not hold for everything. For example, a person has emotions that only he can know, so there may be some "relativeness" there (i.e. I believe I am happy so I am happy). However, I am mainly referring to a statement about reality that is outside of a person's thoughts and feelings. For example, the statement "I believe the temperature was 65 degrees" may be true (referring to a person's thoughts), but saying "the temperature was 65 degrees" would be false (referring to an "outside" reality).

There are also degrees of belief within these two extreme viewpoints (i.e. certain topics like religion and morals being relative) and other views about truth (agnosticism). I will likely talk about these views if I post again.