Listen to this articleThis post is part of a series
In Part 1 of this series, I examined Pascal’s wager as a risk calculation exercise. In Part 2, I proposed some criteria by which one could evaluate various faith claims, even though those criteria were outside of direct empirical observation. In this part, I perform a heuristic, self-reinforcing example of how said evaluation might look when comparing the claims of Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, Zeus, Superman, and the FSM.
Admittedly, I have not backed up my Yes/No assertions with argumentation and data, but for the sake of this exercise, that is unimportant – an actual evaluation may come up with different answers. The point is, when evaluated by important, empirical and non-empirical criteria, faith claims can be differentiated, and some may be eliminated as serious candidates for faith, while others remain under consideration.
No faith can be ‘proven,’ that is the point of having faith. But some may be eliminated as pretenders, as not worthy of faith. Click on the chart in the image to see a full sized version.
In Part 4, I address the host of minor objections.
