The Multiverse, Fine-Tuning, and Logical Fallacies...

© Figalip | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

"The multiverse is an example of a theory that says something definite (there are other regions of space far away where conditions are very different), but in such a way that this prediction cannot be directly tested, now or at any time in the future"

--Sean Carroll, Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse

Sean Carroll's paper, quoted above, tries to justify the multiverse theory as scientific although it is un-testable... In my mind, it is a multiverse of the gaps;  a classic example of the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy.

Fair warning, I'm not using any standard style for my citations, but this is a blog...  I'm still citing everything and giving the information needed to find them.

What is the Multiverse?

When many of you hear multiverse, you may think of parallel universes nearly identical to ours like we see in comic books.  That's not exactly what the multiverse is.  Strictly speaking, the multiverse does not have to be about "Parallel Universes" at all.  It refers to many distinct universes with different starting conditions.  Descriptions range from universes that lie parallel to ours to separate bubble universes. 

Different starting conditions is key to the whole thing.  The theory did not arise from empirical evidence or even just fanciful thinking... It was a response to the cosmological issue of appearance of fine tuning in our universe... 

Why a Multiverse?

The issue of fine tuning goes beyond the issue of apparent design.  People often point to something like the eye and compare it to a camera when discussing Intelligent Design (My personal preference is comparing DNA to a complex computer program, but even that doesn't carry as much weight as fine tuning.)  

The issue of fine tuning is that there are many constants in our universe that, if altered only slightly would make the universe prohibit life or even cause the universe to collapse back in on itself.  In the words of Stephen Hawking:

"Today we can create computer models that tell us how the rate of the triple alpha reaction depends on the strength of the fundamental forces of nature.  Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5 percent in strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Change those rules of our universe just a bit, and the conditions of our existence disappear!

By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner.  It turns out that it is not only the strengths of the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force that are made to order for our existence.  Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life."

--Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, Page 159

I could bore you all day with examples of apparent fine tuning in the universe (Some day I may write a blog just dedicated to the many examples of this just because I'm a math geek this is the kind of thing I find interesting), but for the purpose of this entry let's just suffice to say that the numbers present a problem that science has sought to answer.  Basically, it's so improbable that the universe would end up with constants that would support the the universe itself much less life in the universe that those dedicated to a naturalistic viewpoint that science can solve all of life's mysteries have been forced to explain how we won the physics lottery that we did.

I have heard 2 basic answers to this problem.  The first answer is that the universe, by law, will simply always be produced with these constants still leaving the question of the design behind this law.  The second answer assumes that there are many universes and we just happen to be in one that had the correct starting conditions to support life...

Problems with the Multiverse

Aside from the fact that it is absolutely not testable or empirical in any way, there are two major problems with the multiverse.  Firstly, it only complicates the question of origin and secondly, it is a logical fallacy.

Scientists have spent a good deal of time trying to determine the origins of the universe.  Billions have been spent building particle accelerators to study the initial conditions of the universe.  We have trouble even understanding the beginning of just one universe where we can actually test and observe, but now we are complicating it by saying there are potentially infinite numbers of universes being generated by a cause that is outside space and time as we know it.  (Funny enough, this multiverse generator sounds a lot like a God to me. Potentially, an impersonal one, but a powerful force outside of space and time nonetheless.)  This isn't a naturalistic solution to the problem, this just multiplies the problem infinitely and forces us to admit a powerful creative force outside of space and time.

The reason this is fallacious is because it falls into the category of Inverse Gambler's Fallacy.  Let me explain:

The Gambler's Fallacy comes from assuming that independent trials affect one another. For example, if you are flipping a fair coin waiting for heads, but it keeps coming up tails, it is a gambler's fallacy to assume that the next flip is more likely to come up heads because of the streak.  The fact is that while the streak itself is becoming less probable, each individual coin flip has a 50% chance of coming up heads regardless of what came before it.

The Inverse Gambler's fallacy is from the other end. Believing that an observed independent outcome is evidence of prior trials. Imagine that a gambler walks into a room and sees someone roll a pair of dice and they come up as snake eyes (Both 1s for those of you not familiar with the term).  Seeing as this is a relatively rare occurrence (1 in 36), the gambler might assume this person rolled multiple times before getting this result.  Likewise, one might see a person on the news who won the lottery and assume that person must play every week.  Either way it's a fallacy.  The empirical evidence of one outcome, however unlikely it is, is not evidence of prior trials.

The multiverse is the application of this latter fallacy to the physics lottery I mentioned earlier.  So if someone wants to be logically sound, the multiverse hypothesis needs to be ignored until such a time as there is any empirical or testable evidence for it within this universe (Which Carroll admitted in the opening quote will never happen).  Even calling it a "theory" undermines the meaning of the word.

 Why Does it Matter?

If you know me or have read any of my other posts, you probably understand that I am a Christian and as such a theist.  I'm not necessarily saying that the appearance of fine-tuning is proof of God.  Honestly, I don't think any single argument for the existence of God is proof in and of itself.  Anything short of a prophetic vision or personal interaction with the risen Christ is merely indirect evidence of God. To quote J. Warner Wallace:

"The strength of the case isn't dependent on any single item of evidence but instead is assembled from the cumulative set of facts,"

--J. Warner Wallace, God's Crime Scene Page 197

Wallace is making the point, which he makes repeatedly, that cases are rarely won based on a smoking gun; especially the cold-cases that he worked for many years.  He points out that cases are won based on cumulative circumstantial evidence.  Throughout the book, God's Crime Scene, he presents a series of circumstantial evidences for God's existence.

If we wish to be logically sound, we cannot invent a multiverse just to handle the appearance of fine-tuning in our Universe.  The only logically honest thing we can say about the improbability of our universe is that we have one universe that meets the conditions necessary to produce life and that it is improbable that this universe existsd.  Based on just that fact, it would be a god of the gaps argument for me to assume this was proof of God in and of itself; however, a larger case can be made for God's existence.  From this example we can make one possible inference of fine tuning, but beyond that, we can look at irreducible complexity in certain aspects of living organisms, the improbability of bio-genesis itself, the appearance of at least some level of objective morality, the appearance of free will (which cannot exist in a purely naturalistic universe), etc.  There are plenty of positive scientific and philosophical evidences pointing toward God.  None of them a smoking gun, but I'm not sure we need one.  I firmly believe, like Wallace, that a strong circumstantial case for theism can be made without resorting to a "god of the gaps." 

Many atheists will point out that science has filled a lot of the "gaps" that were formerly explained only by God.  That assumes all theists see God in this way or at least see God and Science as opponents, but I think they fundamentally misunderstand the role of science.  It is empirical.  It can tell us what is.  With some interpretation, we may use it to tell us what was, or project what will be, but it deals simply with the question of mechanism and does not and cannot rule out an intelligent creator.  Dr. John Lennox uses the example of a Model T when he discusses this in some of his lectures.  He makes the point that a mechanic can understand all there is do know about how a Model T works, but knowing every bit of its mechanism does not undermine the existence of Henry Ford.

Final Thoughts

I, for one, have never seen science and religion as being at odds.  Many of the pioneers of science believed in a creator and saw their effort as a way to understand God through the discovery of the natural world. When "Science" becomes politicized or driven by philosophical naturalism, I begin to question the inferences of scientists, but science itself cannot lie to us.  It is merely a method of discovery whether we draw the correct inferences or not.  That said, the Multiverse is not science.  It is purely rooted in the philosophy of naturalism and cannot be tested through scientific means.

Context Matters

I have a pet peeve to discuss here...  I can't stand when I see a Bible verse which has been taken out of context.  Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with you quoting a single verse if you understand the context and that verse actually speaks for itself outside of context.  Some verses can be taken alone, while others are greatly distorted by this.  Here is a particularly egregious example that is used all of the time:

Philippians 4:13

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

It is a valid verse in the Bible but if you are taking that verse by itself, it means something very different than it does in context.
Without the context, this would seem to be saying "Christ will help me achieve MY goals." We use it to encourage our kids to keep trying and practice harder. Not bad things to teach necessarily, but not if it undermines the original meaning of the scripture.
This verse actually has nothing to do with personal achievement or success.
Let's put it in context for a moment:

Philippians 4:11-13
Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content:  I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.  I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

It's not about prosperity or success.  It's about being content, even when we are not prospering.  In fact, the man who wrote those words -- along with all but one of the other apostles -- were imprisoned and eventually executed for their beliefs.  The one apostle who wasn't killed, died in exile.  Is this our picture of success?

Here's another verse that is often taken out of context for the same end:

Jeremiah 29:11
"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Here's what this is really about.  The Israelites were in captivity in Babylon at the time.  Jeremiah was writing to them as a nation. Let's just take the verse before it to give it some context.

Jeremiah 29:10-11
This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

In seventy years!  Most of those receiving this promise would not live to see this plan or prosperity.  Most would die in captivity.  This was a promise that God was going to prosper His people as a whole. It wasn't intended to promise individual prosperity.

So does this promise even apply to us today as Christians at all?  I think it does insofar as we are now God's chosen people.  There are similar promises in the New Testament:

Romans 8:28:
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

This is true, but just as in the verse from Jeremiah, maybe not in the way we are tempted to believe.  Everything is working together for God's purpose.  And if we are truly called toward that purpose, this is working toward our good as well.  Not necessarily our earthly success though. The apostles died horrible deaths, but their strength and resolve in death helped spread the Gospel.  Their deaths worked toward the benefit of God's people.  Not their individual benefit, but their purpose was God's purpose.  If you were to meet any of them in heaven, I don't think they'd have a single regret.  Their treasure was not here on Earth.

The problem is that these promises, while still valid, are not the self-help, feel-good promises we are often trying to make them.  To me, this is actually encouraging.  If the Christian life is supposed to be easy and filled with material success, then I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong.  Knowing that even though life isn't going my way, God is still ultimately in control and causing all things to work toward His purpose is actually reassuring.

While the gospel of personal prosperity may sound great in the short run, it will soon become discouraging as you go on to face reality and find that it is ultimately untrue.  Perhaps this is why Paul warns us about these kinds of false teachers:

2 Timothy 4:3-5
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

This doesn't just apply to prosperity teachings like I discussed in this post.  It applies to any of those times we try to second guess and alter the Bible to suit our presuppositions or desires.

Let me wrap this up by pointing out that I'm not innocent of this by any means.  I like to reason with God, or make my own judgment calls about what the will of God should be.  Like most people I find myself trying to shape God into my worldview.  I often think, "He couldn't actually mean that," but we have to remember that He sees a bigger picture than we ever can.  He knows more than we could ever hope to know.  Maybe we should stop trying to second guess Him.

Isaiah 55:8-9
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
  Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.

 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
   So are My ways higher than your ways
   And My thoughts than your thoughts."

As a side note, I like to use pieces of scripture in my blog to make my points, but -- as stated above -- I occasionally catch myself misreading things to fit my personal worldview.  I would like to think I've contextualized all of the scripture I quote in posts correctly, but PLEASE second guess my interpretations of scripture.  If you think I'm taking something out of context, let me know.

Politics and Idolatry

Us vs. Them...

It pretty much sums up the attitudes on both sides of the aisle when it comes to politics.  We get in this mindset where "They" are the enemy and we should do anything in our power to stop the evil agenda of "THEM."   

This becomes a major issue when we start to compromise our morals in order to battle THEM...  We saw this in 2016 and we saw this again in Alabama...

Let's be clear: I am a conservative.  I hold conservative values and I want to see conservative policies in place.  So far, almost every fiscal policy Trump has enacted has been something that I applaud...  That doesn't mean he was the right person for the job...

I think of the Israelites in the book of 1 Samuel when they demanded a king to lead them.

1 Samuel 8:7

The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them."

God was clear that demanding a king to fight their battles was a rejection of Him.

In 2016, when I watched many Christians flocking to Donald Trump during the primary, I was reminded of this.  They said things like "He's the strongest candidate!  We need to stop Hillary at all costs!"  He was never the strongest candidate, and Hillary had actually colluded with the media to promote that notion because she thought he was the weakest candidate...  We learned this from her leaked emails... That said, many conservatives, including a TON of professed Christians bought this reasoning.

The problem was that there were other candidates at this point who were not so morally abhorrent, but people were so convinced that they needed a king to take down Hillary, that they sold out to a creep in order to do it. 

Once he was nominated, I have more sympathy for Trump voters.  Neither Trump nor Hillary had a moral bone in their bodies.  I personally couldn't bring myself to vote for either, so I ended up voting 3rd party.

Similarly, in this special election for Senate, Roy Moore was the conservative candidate.  When stories from his past came up -- allegations that included pedophilia--, I saw churches and pastors lining up to support him rather than call for him to step out of the race...  Why?  Probably because they felt their political party would be in a weak position if they brought in a new candidate...  Once again, churches and pastors were supporting a political figure for purely political reasons over their moral convictions...  Once again, I'm reminded of the people of Israel demanding a king...  

I'm not going to pretend to know the right answers here.  It's tough when you have a moral dilemma on both sides.  I can't say it was wrong to vote for Trump over Hillary or Roy Moore over Doug Jones...  You may have had legitimate moral reasoning for that such as Pro-Life beliefs.  I will say that if you value your political agenda over morality, you have become an idolater.  Christians who stood next to Trump during the primaries praising him and cheering that he was going to be their king who would take down Hillary, you were just like the Israelites demanding a king that could take on the other nations.  You suppressed your morality and nominated a man who is completely amoral.

Again, I'm not going to say voting X way is good or bad.  Honestly, there isn't a single politician I believe is godly at this point, but I think we should really take a good look at ourselves when we're supporting candidates or voting...  Are we making an idol of our political beliefs?  Are ideas like capitalism and democracy now on the same level as God's law in our minds?  I'm not saying anything negative about these concepts.  I personally see capitalism as a fantastic economic system, but it isn't the hope for mankind.  I think our Democratic Republic is a fantastic form of government, but we weren't called to spread the Gospel of Democracy...  If your reasoning for suppressing your morals for an election is because you are afraid that our democracy or our capitalism is at stake, you might be right, but those social structures do NOT supersede morality... 

 

Forensic Faith

A little over 2 years ago, when my wife was pregnant with our first daughter, I remember waking up one day and realizing I wasn't prepared.  This wasn't about finances and baby products (although there were plenty of concerns about those as well), this was about being the spiritual leader of a household.  This was about knowing that I needed to be able to answer my daughter's questions about our beliefs when the world around us, her friends, and even her teachers start telling her that Christianity is outdated, illogical, or obsolete.

First things first, I had read a good deal of the Bible, but honestly couldn't say I had read every bit of it.  If I was going to defend the Bible, I sure as heck needed to know what was in it.  I started a full bible read-through at this point.  Not long after my daughter was born  the Life Group that we attend through church watched a presentation on apologetics by Sean McDowell.  I recognized his name.  My father owns a copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict by his father Josh McDowell.  I had read a bit of it growing up, but took the time now to borrow it and read it fully.  Lots of good information is in it, but I definitely wanted more.

Sean had mentioned J. Warner Wallace in his presentation.  I was intrigued by his description of Wallace as a Cold Case Detective who had examined the Bible in hopes of finding flaws in the Gospel accounts only to be convinced that it was true.  I picked up his book Cold-Case Christianity and couldn't put it down.  It was only a couple of days before I had read the whole thing.

Since then, I have read several other books on apologetics and watched many debates and presentations.  Whether it's the philosophical perspective of Ravi Zacharias, the historical perspective of Michael Licona, or the scientific perspective of John Lennox, I love digging into apologetics of all kinds.  One might say I'm a bit obsessive.  In fact, in the past 2 years, I don't think I have read a book in my leisure time that wasn't related to apologetics or Christian history.  I also have a wishlist on Amazon specifically related to this field.  (It's really only for me to keep track of the books I want, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case I have a generous reader.)  I've made one friend in this time who is as enthusiastic about apologetics as I am (More-so actually.  He has his own apologetics ministry and podcast called Deeper Waters.  On a side note, he has interviewed J. Warner Wallace several times in his podcast.).  Nick Peters is a vocational apologist, and his father-in-law is Michael Licona who I mentioned earlier.  The problem for me is that I spend a lot of time thinking about these topics, but I don't actually know many people who will discuss this stuff with me.

This is where Wallace's newest book Forensic Faith comes in. Whereas his previous books were focused on making the case for Christianity, this one is focused on making a case for apologetics.  Aimed at Christians who already believe, this book encourages and equips believers to investigate their faith.  To view the evidence for Christianity and be prepared to answer the tough questions rather than just playing into the secular notion that Faith and Reason are incompatible.

The book is broken into 4 chapters:

• Duty
• Training
• Investigation
• Communication

Let's go over some of the highlights of these sections.


Duty:

This chapter basically asks the question "Are we called to present evidence for our faith?"

The short answer is yes.  Wallace cites several times Christ himself appeals to evidence when speaking with his disciples.  Jesus also commanded us to love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, and mind.  He doesn't suggest we turn our mind off in reference to our faith.
Wallace cites several times in Acts when the early apostles presented evidence for their claims.  And he lists a large number of  early church fathers who had an evidential approach in their writings as well.

One of my favorite parts, though, was a comparison between two different passages when it comes to our duties as Christians.

First we have a piece from Paul's letter to the Philippians

Philippians 4:11-13
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ

As you can see, he clearly qualifies that not everyone has each of these duties; only some are called to each.  This is contrasted with a passage from Peter's first letter.

1 Peter 3:15-16
But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

Peter doesn't qualify this duty.  He is telling everyone in Christ to defend their faith.  The word "defense" used above is "apologia" in the Greek text.  This word describes a formal defense like one would give in a court case.  This is the word from which we get Apologetics (That's right, it doesn't mean we are apologizing).  We are to be prepared to present a case for our beliefs.

Wallace also makes the point that EVERY religion will cite life changing personal experiences when asked why they believe, but Christianity is the only religion that actually invites us to investigate the evidence.  If we truly believe the Gospel account is a real, historical account, then we shouldn't have any fear of investigating it.

Training:

The second section talks about training.  It discusses the distinction between Teaching and Training.  We tend to just teach.  Wallace offers a 5 point acrostic for TRAIN that gives some crucial aspects to training.

T - Test

We should be challenging one another to figure out what aspects of our defense are the weakest so we know where to focus.


R - Require

Set high expectations of one another.  Don't dumb everything down because you think your trainees cannot handle it.

A - Arm

Arm yourself with facts.  If someone comes to you making false claims about Christianity, you need to know the truth in order to respond.

I - Involve

Get out there in some way.  View the opposition and attempt to answer them.

N - Nurture

Sometimes we'll be blindsided.  We need to support one another in these moments.


Investigation:

This chapter is the one I struggle the least with.  The first point in it is basically that we need to read the Bible in its entirety before we can be prepared to defend it.  As I mentioned earlier, this notion was already on my heart 2 years ago.
The second point is to understand the nature of evidence and what does and doesn't qualify as evidence.  This was covered in depth in Cold-Case Christianity, but it was a nice reminder.  People often buy into the belief that you need a smoking gun to have a case, but most cases are built on cumulative circumstantial evidence.
In this chapter, Wallace encourages us to be diligent and possibly even obsessive about our research.  We spend time studying in other areas of our life or filling our minds with pop culture, why don't we put that kind of time and energy into studying our faith.
C.S. Lewis puts it best:

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."


Communication:

This, to me, is probably the most valuable chapter.  I understand my duty, I already desire to start training, I am obsessive about investigating, but I really haven't done much communicating.  One of the reasons I decided to create this blog was just to get thoughts out of my head into a communicable format.  As I mentioned, I don't have many people in my life who actually already want to talk about apologetics, and when I do talk to these few, I usually can't even recall any of the questions or thoughts that I was so excited about yesterday (I'm a bit disorganized inside and out.)  I struggle to find every day opportunities to discuss my faith because I telecommute, so I don't participate in much water-cooler talk at work.  And I don't have the personality to just approach strangers.

This chapter makes the strongest comparison between Christian case making and an actual courtroom.  Wallace describes how the strategies of Jury Selection can be applied when deciding who to present your apologetic case to.
He then discusses how to make an opening statement, present evidence, and make a closing statement.
All strategies which I hope to find good use for.

Final Thoughts

This book would make for the perfect small group study.  I've thought about the idea of an apologetics study for some time, and as much as I would love to do a deep dive into a specific field of apologetics, I'm not sure there would be enough interest in a study of that nature.  That's why we need to make a case for making a case.  This book wasn't what I expected, but I think it's much needed in the church.
We live in a time when more and more young people are leaving the church in their college years.   There is just so much opposition to Christianity in our universities, and our standard church answers can't compete for our children's minds. Young people want answers not platitudes, and they don't want to hear them from some famous apologist, they want them from their parents and church leaders.

The Monty Hall Problem

I have several blog post ideas drafted at this point.  Some dealing with culture and Christianity, but tackling topics such as those with the correct amount of tact requires a level of polish that takes me some time to achieve.  In the mean time, I basically just resurrected an old Facebook Note I wrote about the Monty Hall problem and updated it a bit.  Here goes:

The Monty Hall Problem is always a fun one.  I've met several people who refuse to believe the answer no matter how I explain it.  

The Problem:

The Monty Hall Problem originates from the game show Let's Make A Deal.  The Contestant is presented with 3 doors and told that behind one of them is a car, but the other 2 are junk.

Here's how the game plays:

1. The Contestant chooses a door.
2. The Host opens up one of the remaining doors (they will ALWAYS open a door that has junk behind it.  This is important.)
3. With the choices now narrowed to 2, the Contestant is then asked if they want to stay with their original choice or switch to the remaining door.

The question is, is it better to switch or stay?

The Answer:

Most people believe that the odds are 50/50 at this point.  In practice, most contestants will choose to stay.  The oddity of this problem is that, in all actuality, the contestant has a better chance of winning the car if they SWITCH.

Why:

The reason for this probability oddity is in step 2 of the game.  If the choice of doors in the second step was actually random, then there would be equal probabilities of 3 different outcomes:

1. The Contestant's first choice is right and the Host opens a Junk Door
2. The Contestant's first choice is wrong and the Host opens a Junk Door
3. The Contestant's first choice is wrong an the Host opens the Car Door effectively cutting the game short at step 2 and making the final dilemma pointless

The point is, you'd still only have a 1/3 chance of winning if you STAY with your original door.
Because the Host only opens a Junk Door at step 2, the probabilities for choosing to SWITCH are altered.  Now you have 2 choices, bet that you were right with your first guess, or bet that your first guess was wrong.  Since there was a 2/3 chance you were wrong to begin with, choosing to SWITCH will result in winning 2/3 of the time.

One mental exercise that can make this clearer is if you decide on switching or staying before you even pick a door.  

If you decide that you are going to STAY in advance then you have to pick the Car Door in order to win.  A 1 in 3 probability.  

If you decide to SWITCH in advance then you just have to pick a junk door in order to win.  That's a 2 in 3 probability.

If neither of these convince you, then I created a probability tree of the possible steps and outcomes:

First Post

I spend a lot of time thinking.  I sometimes worry that my thoughts are going nowhere.  It's very common that I have a thought while I'm reading (or watching something, or just browsing the internet.) and I think it's really interesting and worth discussing.  Unfortunately, by the time I have a chance, I've usually forgotten what it was or at least why I found it significant...  Of course, I could just take notes while reading like a normal person, but that's just not me.  I've never been much of a note taker.  In a sense, this might be my version of note taking.  I'm going to jot things down, expand on them, and eventually publish the thoughts that actually go somewhere.

Here are some of the general things I spend time thinking about (But definitely not all of them):

Math  -  My degree was in math.  I might not use higher math on a regular basis in my current occupation, but I occasionally find myself thinking about mathematical mysteries whether it is the not-quite randomness of the distribution of prime numbers or the order and complexity of fractals.

Philosophy - Primarily the belief in absolute truth.  I see so much relativism in culture today, whether among my friends or in the media.  The general disbelief in absolute truth makes no sense to me.  I understand that many aspects of truth may be relative.   For example, our perception or our understanding of truth might be relative, but not the underlying truth we are observing.  If truth was truly relative, then math and science would cease to be.

Religion -  I am a Christian.  As to my particular denomination, I tend to avoid pigeon-holing myself here.  My background is primarily Baptist, but I feel that the church needs to be united on core beliefs.  (Mere Christianity as C.S. Lewis calls it.)

Apologetics - This ties directly into religion.  I'll start by clarifying that apologetics has nothing to do with apologizing.  An "Apologetic" is a defense for one's belief.  Despite what many believe, faith and reason are not enemies.  Not all faith is blind faith.  Asking the tough questions and seeking evidence can actually lead people toward Christianity rather than away from it.  Some great examples are C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace.  Each started as an atheist, and through reason and evidence they came to the conclusion that the claims of the Bible are true.  Strobel and Wallace were even attempting to prove the exact opposite when they began.

Politics - I try to stay away from politics, but it does show up in my thoughts often.  I am not really tied to a party, though I have generally libertarian views.

Family - I am married and have a daughter (soon to be 2 daughters as I write this).  I'm kinda new to the whole thing, so I'm still learning.  I'm sure I will have some thoughts and insights that will come up and that seem noteworthy.

In general, I'm not sure that this blog will have a specific focus.  It is more a way for me to trace my thoughts.  If a pattern emerges and I decide to focus it a little bit, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.