Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by TheKnight

We can never be fully sure. You don't have to be fully sure to make a decision. We are never fully sure whenever we make any decision. All we need to make a logical decision is a 50%+ evidence of probability of the choice being the correct choice.

If I can choose between A and B and I have A=49% and B=51%, that is no different than a situation where A=11% and B=89%. In both cases, the fact that you should pick B is equally sure.

You're so basically confused about how to think it's hard to set you straight. No, 51% is not very sure, it's barely past maybe. No, 89% sure is not the same as 51% sure. 89 does not equal 51. "More probable than not" is the opposite of sure. 51% means you're not sure, to everyone but you.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by TheKnight

Being sure means having a 50%+ evidence of probability of the choice being the right one.

Part of our decision making (since we cannot know things 100%) is basing our decisions off of evidence of probability. Any positive probability is enough to confidently make a decision. IE you go to the doctor and he says "Medicine A has 48% and medicine B has 52%. If you take the wrong medication than you die." The logical choice would be to take medicine B.

While you're driving down the freeway with your family, be happy that when the engineer chose the design speed for the highway, he or she didn't choose one that was only 51% likely to be high enough for the expected range of vehicle speeds.

[Autodidact]

If you're accused of a crime, thank God that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not just "by preponderance of the evidence," the standard for civil damages. That's the difference between "I think so," and "I'm sure."

[Autodidact]

sure adj
1 having or feeling no doubt or uncertainty; confident and assured; "felt certain of success"; "was sure (or certain) she had seen it"; "was very sure in his beliefs"; "sure of her friends" [syn: certain(p)] [ant: uncertain, uncertain]
2 exercising or taking care great enough to bring assurance; "be certain to disconnect the iron when you are through"; "be sure to lock the doors" [syn: certain]
3 certain to occur; destined or inevitable; "he was certain to fail"; "his fate is certain"; "In this life nothing is certain but death and taxes"- Benjamin Franklin; "he faced certain death"; "sudden but sure regret"; "he is sure to win" [syn: certain] [ant: uncertain]
4 physically secure or dependable; "a sure footing"; "was on sure ground"
5 capable of being depended on; "a quick and certain remedy"; "a sure way to distinguish the two"; "wood dust is a sure sign of termites" [syn: certain]
6 (of persons) worthy of trust or confidence; "a sure (or trusted) friend" [syn: trusted]
7 infallible or unfailing; "a sure (or true) sign of one's commitment"
8 certain not to fail; "a sure hand on the throttle"
9 impossible to doubt or dispute; "indisputable (or sure) proof" [syn: indisputable] adv : definitely or positively (`sure' is sometimes used informally for `surely'); "the results are surely encouraging"; "she certainly is a hard worker"; "it's going to be a good day for sure"; "they are coming, for certain"; "they thought he had been killed sure enough"; "he'll win sure as shooting"; "they sure smell good"; "sure he'll come" [syn: surely, certainly, for sure, for certain, sure enough, sure as shooting]

Emphasis added.

[TheKnight]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

You're so basically confused about how to think it's hard to set you straight. No, 51% is not very sure, it's barely past maybe. No, 89% sure is not the same as 51% sure. 89 does not equal 51. "More probable than not" is the opposite of sure. 51% means you're not sure, to everyone but you.

Ok, you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that whether it's 51% or 89% for B, in both cases you can be confident in picking be.

Most people illogically assume that 50%+ is not being sure. That's just stupid. People make plenty of decisions as if they are sure on less than 50%+ all the time.

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Emphasis added.

There is no such thing as knowledge that is indisputable.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by TheKnight

Ok, you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that whether it's 51% or 89% for B, in both cases you can be confident in picking be.

Most people illogically assume that 50%+ is not being sure. That's just stupid. People make plenty of decisions as if they are sure on less than 50%+ all the time.

There is no such thing as knowledge that is indisputable.

I'm going to go ahead and diagnose you with a condition common among religionists, the discontinuous mind. For you it's either "I don't know" or "I'm sure." If it's not indisputable, then it makes no difference whether you're 51% confident or 99% confident, it's all the same to you.

In fact we can have anything from 1% to 99% confidence, and how we should treat these are very different. Should you undergo surgery, or just take the medication? What are the chances of complications and chances of success? If one is 51%, and the other is 98%, you should probably choose the 98%.

A scientific, or empirical, approach, tries to keep working on that confidence level till we get it up in the 99% area, then accepts it and moves on. It's not indisputable, but it's pretty darned close, close enough to rely on until we get further information. 51% would not be accepted as established by any field of science concerning any important discovery. That's why we ask other scientists to replicate the results--to increase that confidence level.

Religion is fundamentally an unscientific approach to life.

In fact, you're not even 51% sure, because you're not relying on evidence, just your personal intuition, a notoriously unreliable source.

Let's say you think God is talking to you and telling you to kill your neighbor's baby. How can you be 3%, 53%, or 93% sure it's God? You can't--so you shouldn't do it.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by TheKnight

Ok, you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that whether it's 51% or 89% for B, in both cases you can be confident in picking be.

Most people illogically assume that 50%+ is not being sure. That's just stupid. People make plenty of decisions as if they are sure on less than 50%+ all the time.

And when the outcome doesn't matter too much, there's nothing wrong with that. If I'm trying to decide between the pancakes or the French Toast for breakfast, sure, 50%+ certainty is fine. Heck, even 33%+ certainty would do when I'm choosing between the bacon, sausage or ham to go with it.

However, if I'm deciding on the maximum allowable weight for a crane that will be hoisting heavy loads over an orphanage, nothing less will do than a near-100% certainty that the crane can take the load.

Generally, the level of certainty required depends on two things:

- the effort needed to become more certain.
- the magnitude of the outcome if you turn out to be wrong.

In a lot of things in life, the outcome is horrible bad if you're wrong and the price of being more certain is relatively low... hence why they usually use a safety factor of 10 (IIRC) for rigging: a bit more rope or cable is cheap insurance against killing someone.

Same thing if you think you've been commanded by God to kill someone. If you're wrong, someone will be needlessly dead and you will have committed murder. In my mind, a negative consequence of that magnitude means that I would need to be a lot more than 50% certain that I was doing the right thing.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by TheKnight

Being sure means having a 50%+ evidence of probability of the choice being the right one.

Part of our decision making (since we cannot know things 100%) is basing our decisions off of evidence of probability. Any positive probability is enough to confidently make a decision. IE you go to the doctor and he says "Medicine A has 48% and medicine B has 52%. If you take the wrong medication than you die." The logical choice would be to take medicine B.


We can never be fully sure. You don't have to be fully sure to make a decision. We are never fully sure whenever we make any decision. All we need to make a logical decision is a 50%+ evidence of probability of the choice being the correct choice.

If I can choose between A and B and I have A=49% and B=51%, that is no different than a situation where A=11% and B=89%. In both cases, the fact that you should pick B is equally sure.

But being 51% certain and being 89% certain are not the same thing. We have to consider not only our degree of certainty, but also the consequences of our decision. Consider that I present you with a medication that has a 51% chance of working, and a 49% chance of failing. Would you take that medication? Before you answer consider that what this medication does is cure your acne. It has a 51% chance of curing your acne, and a 49% chance of killing you. I realize that this is so obvious that it is absurd. But lets us consider less obvious decisions. Let’s say it has a 51% chance of curing your cancer, and a 49% chance of killing you instantly. You might take this medicine, or you might not. Without the medicine you still might live years before the cancer kills you, is it worth the risk? You can understand why someone might decide not to take the medicine even though it has a 51% chance of curing their cancer. But what if it had a 99% chance of curing your cancer and only a 1% chance of killing you. The degree of certainty makes a difference.

This is just like what you said.

Originally Posted by TheKnight

No. I would only reject a command that I didn't agree with or feel like doing. If He said "Go to Egypt and free my people." Well that's a relatively easy command. He's not commanding me to go kill an entire race people. I have no problems going down to Egypt to fight for the freedom of an enslaved nation.

If He were to come to me right now (in a burning bush or the like) and tell me to go to Africa and fight against the LRA in Darfur Sudan then I would do it. That's not something I have a problem with. If He came and told me to kill the president I'd say "Well God, I believe that it might be you who's talking, but you're going to have to show me at least as much as you showed Israel 3300 years ago when you took them out of Egypt if you want me to go and kill someone (or He'd have to give me reason enough to kill him)."

If “God” appeared to you and commanded that you fight against slavery or injustice, that you strive to help people, to protect innocent lives, then you would likey do it. In this case you would only need to be 51% sure it was “God”, who knows you might even decide to do it even if you didn’t think it was “God” speaking to you but still though it was a good idea and “God” would approve. But if “God” command you to kill innocent people, including children and infants, you would – in your own words – ask “God” to “show me at least as much as you showed Israel 3300 years ago”. Why? Because obviously in the case of killing innocent people you would need to be more certain. 51% would not be enough, you would need to be at least 80 or 90% sure that it really was “God’s command”.



I asked you a question earlier in this thread that you didn’t answer, it’s ok, a long thread and mainly you responding to a lot of people, but I would really like to hear your response.

Imagine you were on a jury deciding the guilt or innocence of a person charged with 1st degree murder. And after all the evidence was presented and after your deliberation you were able to come to a 51% certainty that the person was actually guilty. In such a case with only a 51% certainty of this person’s guilt, how would you vote? Do you understand how you would be legally obligated to vote in this situation? Why do you think our legal system is set up in such a way that you would be obligated to vote “not guilty” even if you were 51% certain the person is guilty?

[Autodidact]

Better and more tactful explanations from fantome and 9/10 than mine. Thanks.

[TheKnight]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

A scientific, or empirical, approach, tries to keep working on that confidence level till we get it up in the 99% area, then accepts it and moves on. It's not indisputable, but it's pretty darned close, close enough to rely on until we get further information. 51% would not be accepted as established by any field of science concerning any important discovery. That's why we ask other scientists to replicate the results--to increase that confidence level.

I'm not saying there's no difference between 89% and 50%+, I'm saying that if the higher percentage favors B, then B is the right option, whether the percentage is 89% or 50%. I'm saying that to make a decision, all one needs is a 50%+ of option A being correct as opposed to option B. Sure, 99% would be nice but when that is unavailable, a higher percentage is always better.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

However, if I'm deciding on the maximum allowable weight for a crane that will be hoisting heavy loads over an orphanage, nothing less will do than a near-100% certainty that the crane can take the load.

As I said above, closer to 100% is better, but all that is required to have reasonable confidence that the decision is correct is 50%+

Same thing if you think you've been commanded by God to kill someone. If you're wrong, someone will be needlessly dead and you will have committed murder. In my mind, a negative consequence of that magnitude means that I would need to be a lot more than 50% certain that I was doing the right thing.

Magnitude of the outcome doesn't affect whether or not you should make the decision. If you were in a hospital and a doctor said "So, you either have disease A or disease B. There's a 48% chance that you have disease A, and a 52% chance that you have disease B. Luckily for you, we have a cure for both (A* and B*). Now, here's the problem, if you have disease A and we give you B*, you will die in two months. If you have disease B and we give you A* then you will die in two months. If we don't do anything, then you will die from the disease in two months."

What, in this scenario would be the most logical decision to make? The logical decision would be to take B* because chances are higher that you have disease B. The magnitude of the outcome of this decision is that you will die if you decide incorrectly. What would you do? Would you tell the doctor "You know, I think I'll just not do anything because I need more than a 52% chance for a decision of this magnitude."?

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

But being 51% certain and being 89% certain are not the same thing. We have to consider not only our degree of certainty, but also the consequences of our decision. Consider that I present you with a medication that has a 51% chance of working, and a 49% chance of failing. Would you take that medication? Before you answer consider that what this medication does is cure your acne. It has a 51% chance of curing your acne, and a 49% chance of killing you. I realize that this is so obvious that it is absurd. But lets us consider less obvious decisions. Let’s say it has a 51% chance of curing your cancer, and a 49% chance of killing you instantly. You might take this medicine, or you might not. Without the medicine you still might live years before the cancer kills you, is it worth the risk? You can understand why someone might decide not to take the medicine even though it has a 51% chance of curing their cancer. But what if it had a 99% chance of curing your cancer and only a 1% chance of killing you. The degree of certainty makes a difference.

The problem with your scenarios is that you don't give probability of what happens if I don't take the medication. For instance, in the first one...acne isn't going to kill you. So why take a risk where you will die if you're not going to die in the first place.

In the second one, what is the probability and time frame of the cancer killing you if you don't take the medicine?

If “God” appeared to you and commanded that you fight against slavery or injustice, that you strive to help people, to protect innocent lives, then you would likey do it. In this case you would only need to be 51% sure it was “God”, who knows you might even decide to do it even if you didn’t think it was “God” speaking to you but still though it was a good idea and “God” would approve. But if “God” command you to kill innocent people, including children and infants, you would – in your own words – ask “God” to “show me at least as much as you showed Israel 3300 years ago”. Why? Because obviously in the case of killing innocent people you would need to be more certain. 51% would not be enough, you would need to be at least 80 or 90% sure that it really was “God’s command”.

The reason why is not because I'd need a higher degree of certainty. The reason why is, I believe that I am commanded not to murder because of the fact that I believe that 3300 years ago God told the Jews to tell the world "Do not murder."

In essence it's like this. I have God, who after doing all of the things He did for Israel when He brought them out of Egypt 3300 years ago, saying "Do not murder."

Then I have "God", a little voice in my head, that says "Go murder Jonny."

Now, in both cases, I have commands that come from God. The command that has all the miracles and what not before it has a lot more weight than the command that doesn't. Therefore, the only way I could make the decision to kill Jonny would be if God increased the probability of the voice in my head being God by doing just as much as He did when He told me not to murder.

Does that make sense?

Do you understand how you would be legally obligated to vote in this situation? Why do you think our legal system is set up in such a way that you would be obligated to vote “not guilty” even if you were 51% certain the person is guilty?

Yes, I would have to vote guilty. A reasonable doubt means that the probability of their being not guilty is either 50% or more. If the probability is 51%, then there is no reasonable doubt.