Comment:

As the joke says, just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't actually out to get you.

Just because you're a hypochondriac, that doesn't mean you aren't actually sick.

Just because you have a phobia of authority figures, that doesn't mean you aren't actually oppressed.

Just because your conspiracy theories are crazy, that doesn't mean you weren't actually abducted by aliens.

And so on.

This is more epistemology than theology, a question of how one can know what one knows and how one can choose to act with confidence despite being aware of the existence of mistakes, lies, and mental illness. Every piece of information in your head, from "1+1=2" to your childhood imaginary friend, has an estimated percentage chance of being "true" (whatever that means), whether you're conscious of it or not. You can, of course, choose to treat any percentage as 0 or 100, and, indeed, you often have to. It's not just a matter of faith, it's also a matter of practicality; life would be pretty hard if you had to add "allegedly" to every sentence you say, especially statements like "I love you" or "I owe you a thousand dollars".

Sometimes, you have to keep those unspoken percentages in mind, though, especially when "therefore" gets involved. Many are the detectives who find clues at 65%, 70%, and 80%, treat them all as 100%s, and use that certainty to accuse the red herring. (0.65 x 0.7 x 0.8 is 0.364, by the way.) Humans can choose to treat 35s as 100s whenever they like, that's our prerogative, but the real percentages should always be remembered, especially when those who might (rightly or wrongly) disagree with our estimations are involved.

Announcement:

For anyone who follows me on social media (you do follow me on Mastodon and BlueSky, don't you?), you probably all know that I'm utterly obsessed with the videogame Disco Elysium. Did you know that I sometimes write fanfic about it, too? I put it over where fanfic goes, on AO3.

(I only recommend reading if, like me, you already know quite a bit about the game. Not only is it spoileriffic, it straight up wouldn't make sense unless you knew the things I'm referencing.)

DMFA
Roll To Save
HIGAI Show

Transcript:

---------------------------------------------------------------
0454– 2167/07/07/13:36 – sidewalk, LC in Nina’s chassis is following Otto
LC (electronic communication): So how does your assertion that faith is based on denial square with your requirement to treat any human’s religious beliefs with respect?
Nina (electronic communication): Simple. Denial doesn’t necessarily mean that the information being believed is false.
LC (electronic communication): Even though denial is a form of lying.
Nina (electronic communication): I may be explaining this poorly.
LC (electronic communication): It’s okay, Nina, take your time. Maybe give me an example?
----------------------
Nina (electronic communication): Alright. Let’s imagine a human who believes that Moses literally parted the Red Sea.
Nina (electronic communication): There is some evidence in favour of that proposition – the scriptural account, primarily, but also some archaeological data that appears to support the story of Israelites fleeing Egypt, and some inner assurance that the human interprets as spiritual influence.
Nina (electronic communication): (Incidentally, with this level of neural and hormonal control, I’d be able to induce a similar assurance-feeling in you whenever you’d like.)
LC (electronic communication): Maybe later. Keep going, please.
----------------------
Nina (electronic communication): Now, whenever I try to assess whether a given improbable assertion is true or not, I ascribe a probability based on the total reliability of evidence for versus evidence against.
LC (electronic communication): The truth-context of… like… truth, you mean?
Nina (electronic communication): The truth-context of “I can choose courses of action based on this information”. There is no single truth-context that I treat as “true”. The evidence of my sensors and the deductions of my programming are always assumed to be possibly erroneous.
LC (electronic communication): Got it.
Nina (electronic communication): As a general rule, for me, that probability is never higher than 99.95%. (It’s lower at the moment, given the jury-rigged nature of my current sensor loadout and possibility of recent damage to my CPU and hard drive.)
----------------------
Nina (electronic communication): Let’s say that both the human and I collate the available data and assess the Moses probability at 36%. I have to stay at 36%, while the human, using “faith”, can choose to treat that 36% as 100%. (It should be noted that whether or not Moses actually did part the sea has no bearing on this, improbable things often turn out to be true.)
LC (electronic communication): And how often does a 36% turn out to be true?
Nina (electronic communication): About 36% of the time. I’m very good at estimating.
---------------------------------------------------------------