RSS

Category Archives: William Lane Craig

The Likelihood Ratio

In a previous post I explained what it means when we say some fact or claim “E” is evidence for some hypothesis “H”. That is, P(H|E) > P(H), or, the probability of some hypothesis H given some evidence E is greater than the probability of some hypothesis H. If P(H|E) = P(H) then E cannot be used as evidence for H; when this happens, by definition, E exist independently of H. This is the failure of probability that most religious people unsuspectingly apply when appealing to evidence for their god (this is different than P(H|E) < P(H) since this means that E is evidence against H but is not independent of H).
 
The simpler form of Bayes Theorem is P(H|E) = P(H)*P(E|H) / P(E). Looking at this equation, if P(H|E) = P(H), then this necessitates that P(E|H) = P(E). That's because if we have some equation that is 10 = 10 * x / y, the two unknown terms together must equal 1. Invariably, this means that the two unknown terms are also equal. Reciprocally, if P(E|H) = P(E) then this means that P(H|E) = P(H) and again, E is independent of H. This means that, at a glance, if P(E|H) / P(E) > 1, then it means that this is evidence in favor of H. If P(E|H) / P(E) is less than 1, then this means that some alternative hypothesis accounts for the evidence better than H.
 
Here we would have to use Bayes with two or more hypotheses (the longer form I've been using throughout all of the previous posts); if there are two hypotheses it should be that P(E|H) > P(E|~H) if E indeed is evidence for H. In other words, that the evidence is more likely under the hypothesis than under the alternative. Figuring that out is the essense of Bayes' Theorem. This weighing of the evidence is sometimes expressed by the Likelihood Ratio P(E|H) / P(E|~H).
 
In Bayes' Theorem, the Likelihood Ratio is how likely your hypothesis is in relation to all other hypotheses posited, and also shows how strongly the evidence favors, or disfavors, your hypothesis. This is simply dividing P(E|H) by P(E|~H). Let's say we're presented with the following scenario:
Two people have left traces of their own blood at the scene of a crime.  A suspect, Oliver, is tested and found to have type O blood.  The blood groups of the two traces are found to be of type O (a common type in the local population, having frequency 60%) and of type AB (a rare type, with frequency 1%).  Do these data (the blood types found at the scene) give evidence in favour of the proposition that Oliver was one of the two people whose blood was found at the scene?
So in this scenario, if Oliver accounts for the O type blood, then one unknown person accounts for the the AB. This gives us the P(E|H) = 1% or 0.01. You may say, at this point, that it fits the hypothesis of Oliver being there, since if Oliver was there, and he left blood, then at least one of the samples of blood would be type O.
 
On the other hand, if Oliver is not guilty, ~H, then this gives us P(E|~H). Or that two unknown people left blood at the scene. What is the probability of finding the evidence at hand if Oliver is not guilty? This means we have two people at random who at each random selection has to account for either the 1% or the 60%. This becomes 2 * 0.01 * .6, which is 1.2% or 0.012.
 
What happens when we find out the Likelihood ratio? This is 0.01 / 0.012, which equals ~0.8334. What does this mean?    

K

dB

bits

Strength of evidence

< 1:1

< 0

Negative (supports ~H)

1:1 to 3:1

0 to 5

0 to 1.6

Barely worth mentioning

3:1 to 10:1

5 to 10

1.6 to 3.3

Substantial

10:1 to 30:1

    10 to 15    

    3.3 to 5.0    

Strong

30:1 to 100:1

15 to 20

5.0 to 6.6

Very strong

>100:1

>20

>6.6

Decisive

As you can see from this chart, a Likelihood Ratio that is lower than 1 means that it slightly supports the hypothesis that Oliver is not guilty! Or in other words, there's a higher probability of finding the evidence that we have if Oliver were indeed not at the scene of the crime and two other random people committed the murder. Going back to the simpler form of Bayes Theorem, P(E|H) would be the 0.01 and that is denominated by P(E). P(E) in this case would be the probability of finding the evidence at hand period, which is 2 * 0.01 * .6, which is 1.2% or 0.012. Again, P(E|H) < P(E). So even though the evidence intuitively fits the hypothesis that Oliver is guilty, it is more likely, due to the math implicit in the evidence, that Oliver is not guilty.
 
So much for intuition.
  
But, what if, instead of Oliver having type O blood, Oliver had type AB blood? The likelihood ratio then becomes .6 / 0.012, which equals 50. As you can see from the Wikipedia chart, this is highly decisive evidence that Oliver is guilty. If we think about it, say there are only 1000 people in the town. This means that there are 600 people with type O and 10 people with type AB. If Oliver has type O, this means that there are 599 other people that the prosecution has to eliminate to claim that Oliver was at the scene. A lot more legwork. We would actually have better luck grabbing two people at random and claiming they were at the scene. But if Oliver has type AB, then there are only 9 other people that the prosecution has to eliminate to put Oliver at the scene. A significantly higher probability that Oliver was there.
 
We might have control over the numerator, but the denominator in the Likelihood Ratio — the probability of seeing the evidence if our hypothesis is false (or in the case of the simpler Bayes Theorem, the probability of the evidence as it is given) — is out of our control; and this is the true deciding factor.
 
In my previous post on the likelihood of Romans 1.2-6 being an interpolation, all of the Likelihood Ratios are “barely worth mentioning”. Indeed, many scholars do in fact claim that those issues I presented are barely worth a mention. Yet, as can be seen, the accumulation of multiple slices of evidence that are barely worth mentioning accrete to a total hypothesis that is worth mentioning. And like I wrote in that previous post on Romans 1.2-6, Creationists might dismiss all of the evidence for evolution as “barely worth mentioning”, but their accumulation and conscilience is the true strength of the theory of evolution.
 
A lot like Voltron.
 
Voltron_in_the_sun.jpg
 
Misuse of the Likelihood Ratio
 
In a recent debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss, Craig seems to commit the Prosecutor's Fallacy. He makes the argument that the existence of contingent beings is evidence for the existence of a necessary being, thus god. He even explains this in Bayesian terms: the probability of the existence of contingent beings is higher given the existence of god. That is P(E | G) > P(E). Even better, at the beginning of the debate he explains the meaning of evidence much in the same way I described it above.
 
But wait a minute. What is P(E), the Total Probability? Or what is P(E | ~G)? While P(E | G) might be .99, who is to say that P(E) isn't also .99? As I wrote above, if this was the case then P(E | G) = P(E). This means that G is independent of E; that is, in Craig's formulation of probability theory, god exists independently of the existence of contingent beings. Remember, the denominator should ideally not be in our control. If it is, then we can win any debate we want by manipulating the numbers in our favor. Since Craig does not have the denominator, he seems to have confused P(E | G) [the probability of the existence of contingent beings given the existence of a necessary god] with P(G | E) [the probability of a necessary god given the existence of contingent beings], what he was initially trying to argue.
 
Craig seems to have misused the Likelihood Ratio, and misunderstood Bayes Theorem (or at least used it incompletely); the Likelihood Ratio is to be evaluated using the conditional probabilities, not the posterior.
 
Look at it this way. What is the probability of winning the lottery, P(E)? Probably something ridiculous like 1 out of a million (.0000001). What is the probability of winning the lottery given that a person cheats, P(E | H)? Probabily something much higher, maybe .99. Does this mean that the person cheated, i.e. P(H | E) is high? No. Even though the Likelihood Ratio is a whopping 990,000 decibles we have no idea what P(H) is. To conclude that the person cheated given a theoretically high Likelihood Ratio is an incomplete use of Bayes Theorem. It is actually an example of the Prosecutor's Fallacy: confusing P(E | H) with P(H | E). Your end goal is to find the posterior probability of your hypothesis given the evidence, not to find the posterior probability of the evidence assuming your hypothesis is true (a species of begging the question).
 
So let's run with these lottery numbers. Our Likelihood Ratio is 990,000 decibles. What if our prior probability for having cheated is extremely unlikely, like say .000001 (i.e. how many people cheat the lottery)? This gives us a posterior probability of .49, which is barely below random chance. The real prior is probably a lot lower than .000001 since I don't know how many people have cheated to win the lottery.
 
All the Likelihood Ratio does is show you how strong the evidence weighs in favor of your hypothesis. If your initial hypothesis itself is highly unlikely, a high Likelihood Ratio doesn't help.
 
Comments Off on The Likelihood Ratio

Posted by on November 4, 2011 in Bayes, William Lane Craig

 

William Lane Craig and the Immorality of Apostasy

This is a quote that Craig has posted on his webite Reasonable Faith. In response to a Christian struggling with doubt, he writes:

…..Be on guard for Satan’s deceptions. Never lose sight of the fact that you are involved in a spiritual warfare and that there is an enemy of your soul who hates you intensely, whose goal is your destruction, and who will stop at nothing to destroy you. Which leads me to ask: why are you reading those infidel websites anyway, when you know how destructive they are to your faith? These sites are literally pornographic (evil writing) and so ought in general to be shunned. Sure, somebody has to read them and refute them; but why does it have to be you? Let somebody else, who can handle it, do it. Remember: Doubt is not just a matter of academic debate or disinterested intellectual discussion; it involves a battle for your very soul, and if Satan can use doubt to immobilize you or destroy you, then he will.

I firmly believe, and I think the Bizarro-testimonies of those who have lost their faith and apostatized bears out, that moral and spiritual lapses are the principal cause for failure to persevere rather than intellectual doubts. But intellectual doubts become a convenient and self-flattering excuse for spiritual failure because we thereby portray ourselves as such intelligent persons rather than as moral and spiritual failures. I think that the key to victorious Christian living is not to have all your questions answered — which is probably impossible in a finite lifetime — but to learn to live successfully with unanswered questions. The key is to prevent unanswered questions from becoming destructive doubts. I believe that can be done by keeping in mind the proper ground of our knowledge of Christianity’s truth and by cultivating the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives….

The first thing I take issue with is his abuse of the etymology of the word “pornography”. It doesn't “literally” mean evil writings, the Greek word πορνεια::porneia is specifically used in a sexual context. It would be closer to sexual immorality (or even “sexual evil”) not just plain old evil. Evil writings would be something like cacography. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 5.1:
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and a kind [of sexual immorality] that does not occur even among pagans
Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν
Anyway, now that I've gotten my superficial pedantry out of the way, I want to address the meat of Craig's response. I personally have a soft spot for II (Internet Infidels) because their writings and (now defunct) message board educated me a lot in the ways of scholarly Christianity. I can't claim (or blame, as Craig intimates) II led to my deconversion because I was already a non-Christian when I started reading their material sometime around 2002. What I take offense at is Craig's implication that the intellect has nothing to do with the moral.
 
On the contrary to Craig's argument here, I don't think that II is immoral. I personally think that Christian faith itself is immoral (note: I'm not saying that Christians as people are immoral). I went over my reasons in a somewhat recent post here. All of my reasons are intellectual reasons; non-intellectual morality leads to certain gut level reactions that produce “moral reasoning” like xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, and other formerly moral dictates that we as a society have moved beyond. What really irks me about this is that Craig is equivocating apostasy with immorality. Sure, this makes sense in a Christian worldview, but not in the modern world. A modern world where we rightfully balk at Muslim countries who say that execution for apostasy is just. It wouldn't surprise me if Craig thought that apostates should be killed, since he already defends genocide. Though, I do guess it follows logically that if you are to burn in hell for all eternity for not believing in Christ, and only immoral people are sent to hell, then apostates most certainly would be “immoral”.
 
Divine Command Theory really is abjectly immoral.
 
More contrary to Craig. Doubt, I think, is a good thing. But again, this depends on the type of doubt. As far as I can tell, there are two kinds of doubt. One is emotional, and the other is intellectual. Emotional doubt is nothing more than fear, and from what it looks like Craig is writing, he advocates fear. Fear in any sort of knowledge that might make one lose faith. Fear of the intellect; fear of knowledge; fear of curiosity; fear of even life itself. This sort of fear that Craig advocates will surely lead any Christian under his tutelage to fear the world at large (that seems to be his goal, with all that talk about Satan at the beginning of that quote). I do not condone that type of doubt, since it is overall a negative emotion; it's the sort of doubt you have when you think your wife may be unfaithful to you.
 
However, the other kind of doubt I recommend highly. This second type of doubt is analogous to curiosity. If a Christian is curious about their faith sometimes (my substitue to explain that they're using the first kind of doubt when they say that they 'doubt their faith sometimes'), then this means that they are an unthinking Christian. Why would you only be curious about Christianity “sometimes”? Maybe that's the type of Christianity that Craig is promulgating, especially in the quoted section above? Who knows; I haven't read that much of Craig's writings to offer a definitive conclusion on that part.
 
A secondary point is an ironic charge that Craig gives to the person that he's writing to: “Sure, somebody has to read them and refute them; but why does it have to be you? Let somebody else, who can handle it, do it“. Why is this ironic? Because Craig is a Protestant. One of the main gripes that the original Protestants had about their Catholic leadership was exactly this reasoning. Why do the lay people have to rely on Catholic leadership to interperet the Bible? The entire point of Protestantism was to remove this power from the Catholic church and give it to the common person (mainly done by translating the now unintelligible Latin into common languages). Craig is implying the same appeal to consequences that Catholics gave to Protestants: you can't handle doing things by yourself so let someone else — who can actually handle it — do it for you. Your very salvation is at stake! Let your spiritual adults handle this for you. 
 
History tells me that Craig's approach won't work. If it did, then Craig himself would still be a Catholic.
 
(H/t Bruce of Fallen From Grace)
 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 1, 2011 in William Lane Craig

 
 
NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Slate Star Codex

The Schelling Point for being on the #slatestarcodex IRC channel (see sidebar) is Wednesdays at 10 PM EST

Κέλσος

Matthew Ferguson Blogs

The Wandering Scientist

Just another WordPress.com site

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Euangelion Kata Markon

A blog dedicated to the academic study of the "Gospel According to Mark"

PsyPost

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

PsyBlog

Understand your mind with the science of psychology -

Vridar

Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

atheist, polyamorous skeptics

Criticism is not uncivil

Say..

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus