| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
« Multilevel Hazard Models in Log-Time Metric? | Main | Applied Statistics - Andrew Thomas »
4 October 2005
Drew Thomas
Stephen D. Unwin made headlines - at least, in the Odds and Ends section – two years ago, with the publication of his book "The Probability of God". His idea was to determine, using some numerical method, whether conditions on earth would be enough to predict whether the Judeo-Christian construction of God does indeed exist.
Thankfully, the book is classified as humor. The actual problem being solved is somewhat irrelevant to the greater community, since matters of faith are conducted in the absence of fact. But this does represent the fringe of our discipline, and how numbers are perceived in the real world.
In this "real world," there are too many examples of numbers distorted for the sake of an agenda. For example, that 4 out 5 dentists choose a particular toothpaste to endorse tells us nothing about the sample size (or about a possible line of dentists they tossed beforehand). Sports statistics are mangled and mishandled all the time without a mention of sample size concerns or actual relevance. (The misuse of numbers in society is a favorite theme of mine; keep looking for it in my entries.)
At least Dr. Unwin has not only a clearly stated agenda behind his work, but also a clearly stated method and an acknowledgement of subjectivity. Unwin’s calculation puts the probability of God’s existence at 67%; Richard Dawkins, the famed atheist, used the same method and obtained a result of 2% -- about 2% higher than Dawkins would otherwise be willing to admit.
Most of this information came from a radio interview with the good Dr. Unwin. Stay tuned for the book review and a look at his technique.
Posted by James Greiner at October 4, 2005 6:07 AM
It would sound more simple and sensible to put forward a mathmatical approach instead of applied mathematical approach(probablity approach) to prove the existence of God. To say that, we all know that whichever exists in this world is either the "cause" or the "effect" of its cause. So if you keep on finding the causes of the creation of the universe, you wouldn't necessarily stop at big-bang theory (Sequence goes to infinity.) Similary, going ahead will not end at the day of judgment rather it will go to +ve infinity. And we all know that there isn't a real thing as such-inifity. Hence there was an origin-God.
Posted by: Ejaz at January 23, 2007 1:42 AM