Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The “Bias Blind Spot” Makes Smart People Say Really Stupid Things

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at ENV, David Klinghoffer reports on an article in Live Science about research into why atheists disproportionately score higher on standard tests of intelligence.  The article states:

[Researcher Edward] Dutton set out to find [the] answer, thinking that perhaps it was because nonreligious people were more rational than their religious brethren, and thus better able to reason that there was no God, he wrote.

But “more recently, I started to wonder if I’d got it wrong, actually,” Dutton told Live Science. “I found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias.”

For instance, a 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that college students often get logical answers wrong but don’t realize it. This so-called “bias blind spot” happens when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, within their own thinking. “If anything, a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability,” the researchers of the 2012 study wrote in the abstract. . . .

If intelligent people are less likely to perceive their own bias, that means they’re less rational in some respects, Dutton said.

Klinghoffer writes about his own experience trying to push smart people off their prejudices:

These are intelligent men and women. Yet the bias instilled by their social peers is so powerful in many cases that it cannot be overcome. Perhaps it’s something about high intelligence that itself results in the inability to see or hear what’s right in front of your face, if it conflicts with what your biases are telling you, what you think should be true if your picture of the world is to be maintained.

This is exactly right.  And it accounts for why smart people often say really stupid things.  When I read the story it put me in mind of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s now infamous tweet from last summer:  “Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence.”

Let’s concede that deGrasse is a smart guy.  From his Wiki entry:  “he completed a bachelor’s degree in physics at Harvard University in 1980. After receiving a master’s degree in astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin in 1983, he earned his master’s (1989) and doctorate (1991) in astrophysics at Columbia University.”  Those are the educational accomplishments of a highly intelligent person.

But if deGrasse is such a smart guy, why would he send out such a gobsmackingtly stupid tweet?  The answer lies in his Bias Blind Spot.  Neil deGrasse is an atheist materialist who believes that science can answer all important questions.  His tweet demonstrates that he is literally unable to comprehend the limits of the types of questions science can answer, as Kevin Williamson points out here in a withering assessment of deGrasse’s tweet.

Why are smart people more blind to their biases than the rest of us?  The answer is easy:  Because they are smart.  That does not mean that intelligence makes one more blind to bias.  It means that the pride that often accompanies intelligence makes one more blind to bias.  Hubris limits one’s perception of his own flaws and limits.  Which is why we would all do well to remember a variant on an ancient Greek aphorism:  “Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make proud.”

Comments
EugeneS,
The broadcast is a beautiful symphony. It is your decision to hear it and enjoy. If you don’t want to do it, fine, but don’t complain music does not exist.
More like, people are claiming to hear thousands of different tunes, with each person claiming to hear the one true tune, and the response those get that don't hear a tune is "you must not want to hear the tune" (with a similar response given to all of those that claim to hear different tunes).goodusername
June 14, 2017
June
06
Jun
14
14
2017
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Seversky, "Worse than that, not only do we not know which is the one true faith, we don’t even know if there is one true faith." Right after the death of Napoleon, somebody published a book disputing the historical reality of Napoleon... If your wireless does not receive the signal, it does not mean that the signal or the station does not exist. It just means that your wireless is switched off or broken. The broadcast is a beautiful symphony. It is your decision to hear it and enjoy. If you don't want to do it, fine, but don't complain music does not exist.EugeneS
June 14, 2017
June
06
Jun
14
14
2017
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
WJM @112 - Isn't it a prerequisite that to be a member of the atheist/mat religion one must exclude his worldview from the conclusions he makes about worldviews? After all, when one chooses to believe in a religion which wipes out the possibility of there being will, identity, and purpose - one must do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to never self defeat one's own beliefs. (I don't know why atheist/mats can't figure out that their worldview is self-defeating)JDH
June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
goodusername - Thank you for your educating answer. It showed me a side of the issue that I was not considering. I still find my argument correct. You can't consider as evidence for B not being true, something that would be true if B was true. The problem with jdk's argument is not that it tilts the scale either way, it is that the point is irrelevant. Let me give my opinion of the problems with the arguments. IF you think I misstate something, please respond. jdk's argument: A believer that A)Christianity is the only God given religion, must propose B) that all religions other than Christianity are human made. The problem is without analyzing the arguments, the fact of proposition B BY ITSELF has no bearing on the veracity of A. The problem of this argument is that it is specifically NOT talking about the QUALITY of the individual arguments - it is just talking about the QUANTITY of the arguments. Your argument: There are many religions which are false - therefore there is confusion in this area. This makes Christianity unlikely. Here you are specifically talking about the QUALITY of the arguments. I know the difference between the two arguments is subtle. But yours is clear as to what the objection is. The argument of jdk obscures the real logic. That is why I countered with such a mundane predictable example. When arguments get obfuscated, and are not logically clear, and have to be explained "what it really means..." the greater chance that people will be blinded by untrue arguments. See in jdk's case he is just simply hiding behind the fact that there are so many religions with their corresponding arguments for and against, rather than investigating whether some religions have better quality arguments for their veracity. What I would say though is that the fact that there are many different religions indicates, not that there are not good ways of investigating religious claims. I have investigated the arguments pro/against Christianity many times. There real problem, as pointed out by the famous Pastafarian example, is there are not many good ways of falsifying religious claims. This is to be expected. Religious claims are mostly about a one time or completely unique not repeatable historic or spiritual event or entity. Most of these events are not repeatable, or falsifiable. This is why you will regularly hear the correct objection from ID people that the field of abiogenesis is a mess. There is a claim that this is a SCIENTIFIC field. Although I would not take it as a definition of science, most scientific theories should be falsifiable. So we would expect that there would me many religious claims, because once a non-falsifiable claim is made, a charismatic leader can propagate it rather quickly. We would not expect that the same thing to happen in a mature scientific field that was closing in on the real answer to an inquiry.JDH
June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
JDH,
This has problems on so many levels and I don’t want to berate you for it, I want you to understand why it is not good logic I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to point out objective problems with your statement..
Obviously if Christianity is true than other religions must be false, but I believe jdk’s argument was that the fact that there are so many religions is an indication that humans apparently have little or no idea what’s true in such matters, and no real way to investigate it, which would, indeed, make it unlikely that any of the religions are true. In your example, we know one of the cities is going to host the Olympics, and each time a city is rejected, the likelihood of one of the remaining cities winning increases. Conversely if (somehow) Christianity and Islam were fully disproven tomorrow I would hardly see Hinduism as somehow now more likely to be true. Perhaps a somewhat more apt example (and one I’ve seen countless times here at UD) are the many various hypothesis of abiogenesis. It’s often argued that the fact that there are so many different ideas of how abiogenesis occurred is an indication that the field is a mess and no one really knows what they’re talking about. Even as a believer in abiogenesis, I have to admit that it is an extremely difficult area to research, as indicated by, well - all the different hypothesis. I’d hardly bet the ranch that any of the hypothesis are wholly correct, and probably not even mostly correct.goodusername
June 11, 2017
June
06
Jun
11
11
2017
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Seversky said:
In the case of the world’s religions let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there are – or have been – 1000 distinct faiths over the course of recorded human history. I have no idea what the real total is but it doesn’t matter for the purposes of this argument. The probability of any one of them being the one true faith is 1000/1 against and that includes Christianity.
The real error Seversky (and other such thinkers) commit here (in addition to those pointed out by others) is that he has created a category that conveniently excludes his own belief from the statistical evaluation. We can easily overturn his defense. Instead of the category of "theistic worldviews", we can just go with "worldviews". Thus, Seversky's worldview is, from his logic, most likely false. If Seversky really values such statistical analysis, he might run a statistical analysis on how many people in the world share his particular worldview. The number is probably vanishingly small. Will he now abandon his worldview and adopt the one that has the most believers? Or the one that has produced the most positive results? Probably not. How many different atheistic worldview beliefs are there? Seversky makes his case against theistic worldviews as if the same case cannot be made against him. Are most atheists in the world of the same atheistic worldview as Seversky? I doubt it. Does this make Seversky doubt his own worldview, and seek to join some far Eastern mystical worldview that doesn't believe in a god? Probably not. Seversky also relies upon a bad unspoken premise to make his case in the first place; that a religion or worldview is either 100% right, or it is 100% wrong. Does Seversky think anyone's worldview is 100% right or 100% wrong? I doubt that, too. It may be that, like most things in human nature, no one has a 100% correct worldview. So, what is it that Seversky is actually mapping in his informal statistical analysis? Is he saying that since it is unlikely that anyone has a 100% correct worldview (which I agree with), it is then good judgement to categorically dismiss entire kinds of worldviews just because there are so many of them? What an absurd and irresponsible position - to dismiss whole categories of worldviews simply because there are so many in that category. This demonstrates pure bias against an entire category. What does it even mean to say that a worldview is "not true", when it is likely that nobody has a 100% true worldview down to every detail? It's an absurd statement. It would be far wiser to examine specific claims of specific worldviews to see if they stand up to experience, evidence and logical analysis than to dismiss a whole category "because there's 1000 variations".William J Murray
June 11, 2017
June
06
Jun
11
11
2017
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Sev:
The probability of any one of them being the one true faith is 1000/1 against
Faulty logic. Probability calculations like this work only if each religion has an equal probability of being true. This is easy to demonstrate by narrowing the choices. Let's say that Christianity and Pastafarianism (the worship of the flying spaghetti monster) are the two possible choices of which religion is true. Based on the empirical evidence that Pastafarianism was established as an intentionally mock religion, it has a zero probability of being a true religion. Based on the empirical evidence supporting the veracity of accounts of the resurrection, Christianity has an overwhelming probability of being true. Therefore, it would be absurd to say that as between Christianity and Pastafarianism, each has a 50% chance of being true, which is what your logic would suggest.Barry Arrington
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
To me, it is a simple matter of lining up those who claim to speak for God and evaluating their truth claims. The critic asks: Why should I believe you? What proof do you have? Were you pre-announced? Did you do anything to prove that you are different from other men? Does your doctrine pass the test of reason and speak to the ultimate meaning of the universe? Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Zoraster, Mozi. Socrates, etc. remain silent. Christ steps forward and says, [a] Prophets pre-announced my arrival thousands of years before the event, including the time and place of my birth, the reason I would come, the circumstances of my life, and the way I would die. [b] I performed thousands of miracles in the name of my Divinity in front of the multitudes and even those of my worst enemies who would have denied them if it were possible. [c] I never contradicted myself or said anything contrary to right reason. Indeed, my moral doctrine is the only one that has been shown to be consistent with –and to surpass-- the natural moral law. [d] I explained to all men where they come from, why they are here, and where they are going. Everyone deserves to know the ultimate purpose of his existence and how it can be attained.StephenB
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
JDH @ 104
You can’t logically say, I find it improbable that Los Angeles won the right to host the 1984 Olympics because some really worthy cities had their proposal rejected. The problem with that statement is that in order FOR Los Angeles to have been the host of the 1984 Olympics – ALL those other cities WOULD HAVE to have their proposal rejected. Do you see that the fact that some cities had their proposal rejected does not give any evidence that Los Angeles could not be the site. The fact that “A:some cities had their proposal to host the Olympics rejected” is not evidence against the proposition “B:Los Angeles won the right to host the 1984 Olympics” because if B is true A must also be true. In other words, the fact of A being true, does not give you any information about the veracity of B.
Note that jdk referred to "improbability". In the case of the 1984 Olympics, we could only estimate the probability of any of the candidate cities being selected before the choice was made. If there were five candidate cities the odds against any one of them being chosen was 5/1. Only after the choice was made, was there knowledge, was there certainty. At that point, we could say we knew it was Los Angeles. In the case of the world's religions let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are - or have been - 1000 distinct faiths over the course of recorded human history. I have no idea what the real total is but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument. The probability of any one of them being the one true faith is 1000/1 against and that includes Christianity. Worse than that, not only do we not know which is the one true faith, we don't even know if there is one true faith. It might be that none of them are. It might even be that there is no such thing. On that basis, I would tend to agree with jdk in that I believe it's more likely that these faiths, including Christianity, are human inventions. I can't prove it, of course. I could be wrong. We all could be. Perhaps there's some much more fundamental understanding of reality that we haven't yet reached. There's still an awful lot we don't know.Seversky
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
jdk
Stephen, you have misinterpreted what I wrote, and I know you can read better than that. I was talking about metaphysical speculations, not cats, and that is clear.
To say that a cat is a cat is a metaphysical statement. It is a statement about *what is.* That "what" refers to essence and the "is" refers to existence. Your claim is that we cannot know anything about metaphysical reality and must speculate about it. If follows, then, that you don't know that a cat is a cat. Your philosophy, which you stated very clearly, is that we simply build up these ideas in our own mind (such as what a cat is or if it exists as a cat) and project them onto an unknown reality in order to get meaning from the universe. So, for you, reality, which includes cats, is unknowable. If you knew that a cat was a cat, then you would also know that it is not a dog, which means that you would also know that a dog is not a cat. From there, you could conclude that nothing can be what it is and also be something else at the same time. In other words, you would know that the law of identity is true, which happens to be a law about metaphysics. It is on the basis of that metaphysical law that the principles of logic are established. Yet you claim that we cannot know any of these things, which would mean that we can't even reason in the abstract or about things in the real world. I just dragged the cat in to show you why metaphysical skepticism is irrational. SB: Christianity is a historically based, evidence based, fact based religion. All other religions are man made.
I know you believe that. I don’t. I have no interest in discussing apologetics
It isn't a question about what I "believe" it is a question about what I know and can prove. I understand why you would choose not to discuss it with me, but facts are facts regardless of your emotional reaction to them.StephenB
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Hi KF - I was merely trying to point out to jdk that his argument was not logically sound. It suffers from many other flaws ( like the fact that most Christians I know accept Judaism as - for the time and place of OT Israel - a God given religion ), but I wanted to first point out its logic errors. Thank you for arguing the bigger picture of its wrong assumptions.JDH
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
JDK (and JDH): I suggest, the question is not, oh religion X is from God and others can be dismissed. The subtext of that strawman caricature is an insinuation that adherents of X could not have any good warrant and so they are just being bigoted or emotional. A A big question has been begged (a strawman argument always begs the questions it suppresses in erecting a handy caricature to rhetorically knock over). A question of warrant backed up by evidence and logic -- and if you assume on whatever comparative religion etc courses one has done that no serious warrant can be there, with all due respect, you are sadly mistaken. I outlined and linked in 88 above, and suggest that you, JDK, need to substantially address worldview alternatives relevant to why ethical theism is a serious worldview. You would be well advised to look at the point by point response to your claims that you demanded then studiously ignored once it was given. Then, you would be well advised to re-assess your evaluation of the basic history of the Christian founding. In that context, the testimony and impact of the core 500 witnesses and of eyewitness lifetime record that led to the transformational experience of millions and a huge positive impact on our world, should also be examined. I find a further subtext of dismissiveness that the millions of us transformed by encounter with God in the face of Christ are in effect delusional, may imply a lot more than you realise: undermining of the ability of the human mind to accurately contact reality. In that context, I suggest to you you would be well advised to heed StephenB's corrective at 95, above:
"To claim that you can’t know anything about the metaphysical nature of the world is to claim that you *do* know something about it, namely its unknowability. This is the self-refuting philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It is total nonsense."
That paraphrase from F H Bradley is spot on. KF PS: F H Bradley:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is the critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispe [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
kairosfocus
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
Folks: This clip from 88 above seems doubly relevant:
I suggest it would first be advisable to address worldviews and their warrant i/l/o comparative difficulties. Including, the challenge that as infinite stepwise past is not credibly feasible and an ultimate chicken-egg loop is not reasonable, with a world from non-being a non-starter, then we are looking at a necessary being at world-root, and this in a context where we are responsibly and rationally governed, thus morally governed. And as this requires that OUGHT is not delusional (on pain of setting grand delusion loose, utterly undermining reasonable discussion . . . ) we then face the one level where IS and OUGHT can be soundly bridged: the world-root. This is the context in which I have pointed out that, after centuries of debates, there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of our loyalty expressed via the responsible and reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. In short, ethical theism is a serious-minded, credible worldview . . . . As for the Christian faith specifically, I would suggest that any dismissal of the NT as essentially dubious as to its historical backbone and C1 provenance in Israel and the wider Mediterranean basin is ill-founded selective hyperskepticism . . . . Start with the Rylands fragment of John, c. 125 AD and with the citations and allusions in the first three writing Church Fathers we have in hand, c. 95 – 115, which back up the view that the NT comes from c 40 – 50 AD – 90 – 95 AD, with the official testimony in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11 easily dating to c 35 – 38 AD in Jerusalem. This is pivotal, as this speaks to fulfillment of prophecies [most notably Is 52 – 53, c 700+ BC] and to 500+ core witnesses, about two dozen of whom we may readily identify, based on the leading apostolic witnesses, Jesus’ immediate family (many having been formerly skeptical), the women of the company of the disciples and several other key figures. The historical-geograpical-social background painted in these documents as cross checked archaeologically etc, makes nonsense of selective hyperskepticism. Especially, given the upheavals of AD 66 – 74 which utterly erased the world of Jerusalem-centred Judaism. Remember, just as a note, it is credible that we have the tomb of Paulo apostolo mart, and that St Peter’s Cathedral’s altar stands over the grave of Peter. In addition, we have 2,000 years of positively transformed lives in the millions that point to the opposite of delusion, never mind the inevitably spotty record of communities, states, nations and civilisations. A key, sobering lesson of history is that power tends to corrupt and that power without adequate accountability corrupts like fast-spreading cancer. The point is, millions have been transformed, globally for 2000 years. They testify to encounter with God in the face of the risen Christ, in accord with the prophets and the testimony of the 500. Whether or no you are inclined to accept it, that is evidence.
I think the issue of selective hyperskepticism, crooked yardsticks and the need for independent plumbline truths is also highly relevant. On fair comment, any reasonably connected, reasonably educated person who dismisses the C1 provenance and core history of the Christian faith, has serious problems with how s/he is handling evidence and warrant. I also think there is a serious problem of unexamined or inadequately reflected on worldview commitments that ill-advisedly seem to take the past several centuries of increasingly hyperskeptical dismissiveness towards ethical theism as though such is the last word. I gently suggest that failure to do worldviews diligence regarding ethical theism is ill-advised indeed. Dismissiveness towards the core history of the Christian founding calls into question ability to address history or, frankly, the daily newspaper or TV News. But then, that IS a huge problem -- talk about dumbed down education and media. Maybe, we can start with basics of warrant and worldviews? (Such issues are prior to science [and no, Science cannot hold a monopoly on knowledge], and persistent problems in addressing science seem to be rooted in that soil.) KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Hi jdk - I really do not want to sound condescending, but maybe I can help you get over the wrong assumptions that you have. You said:
The belief that all religions are human inventions except Christianity, which is the one true religion, seems improbable to me, so on overall balance with the possibility that it is just like all other religions, I’m think the latter is far more likely
This has problems on so many levels and I don't want to berate you for it, I want you to understand why it is not good logic I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to point out objective problems with your statement.. 1. You can't include as a reason for not believing A - something that must be true if A were true. Do you understand what I mean? I will try to give an example... You can't logically say, I find it improbable that Los Angeles won the right to host the 1984 Olympics because some really worthy cities had their proposal rejected. The problem with that statement is that in order FOR Los Angeles to have been the host of the 1984 Olympics - ALL those other cities WOULD HAVE to have their proposal rejected. Do you see that the fact that some cities had their proposal rejected does not give any evidence that Los Angeles could not be the site. The fact that "A:some cities had their proposal to host the Olympics rejected" is not evidence against the proposition "B:Los Angeles won the right to host the 1984 Olympics" because if B is true A must also be true. In other words, the fact of A being true, does not give you any information about the veracity of B. So to recap - You propose the statement A:All religions except Christianity are human made religions. as evidence against B: Christianity is the one God Given religion. I can prove to you logically that A is not evidence against B. Suppose that B is true. i.e. Christianity is the one God Given religion. What would we know about all the other religions. Well since Christianity is the one God given religion IT MUST BE TRUE that all religions which are not Christianity are human made. In other words assuming B to be true logically implies that A is true. Since B implies A the truth of A IS NOT EVIDENCE against the veracity of B. Do you understand the fatal flaw in your logic. It may seem logical to you. It might FEEL logical to say - I find it hard to believe that Los Angeles was the one city to host the 1984 olympics because so many cities were rejected. But it is not a logical argument.JDH
June 10, 2017
June
06
Jun
10
10
2017
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
It’s unfortunate that you feel comfortable being an active opponent of ID while having, as you say, no interest in understanding ID arguments.
There's a site designed specifically for people just like that: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/Mung
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
to localminimum: I understand that many make your point. My belief is that the need for people to invent stories to structure their metaphysical understandings (as well as other aspects of cultural) is universally part of human nature, but that doesn't mean that there is somehow some metaphysical "storiness" to which these all relate, much less that there might be some story which is metaphysically the correct one.jdk
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
to jdh: I understand that theists believe they can know something about the metaphysical nature of the world through revelation, which they believe by faith is true. Believing in God and then claiming knowledge based on that belief is just as unsupported a logical argument as the one you claim I'm making. As I said I'm not interested in discussing apologetics. I am interested in articulating my beliefs. The belief that all religions are human inventions except Christianity, which is the one true religion, seems improbable to me, so on overall balance with the possibility that it is just like all other religions, I'm think the latter is far more likely. I know you guys disagree. I'm not trying to argue with you about your beliefs, but I'm am trying to stand as one who has reasonable reasons to think you're wrong. There are billions of people who think you are wrong (although most just believe in other religions rather than with me.) Living with people who have different perspectives is something we all have to do.jdk
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Stephen, you have misinterpreted what I wrote, and I know you can read better than that. I was talking about metaphysical speculations, not cats, and that is clear. You write,
Fact: Christianity is a historically based, evidence based, fact based religion. All other religions are man made.
I know you believe that. I don't. I have no interest in discussing apologeticsjdk
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Obviously, @95 should read, "We don’t *construct* the universal category of catness in our mind, we *abstract* it from our *sensory* (not sensual) experience.StephenB
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
jdk:
and since there is such a vast variety of such systems, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that no religious systems is true: I am not singling out Christianity in this regard.
Doesn't the truth necessarily contradict any other statement it shares a category with? Don't the wrong answers to a given question vastly outnumber the correct ones? Does the popularity of a category of proposal reduce the probability of all of its members? If the volume of "religious" metaphysical systems is actually larger than the volume of "non-religious" metaphysical systems, does that not suggest that it's more probable the actual answer is "religious", given that as the sole basis of judgement?LocalMinimum
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Hi again jdk - One of the things that confirmation bias most hides from us is where we have made bad leaps of logic. I know this from friends who have taken my own arguments and shown me where I just can't see where I am making a bad leap in logic. Where I say B follows from A and they show me that B does not necessarily follow from A. In that spirit of friendship, I wish to show you where your logic is slightly circular and misses the point.
My strong agnosticism says we can’t really know anything about the metaphysical nature of the world.
You are almost correct. The truth is that there are things which we can not DETERMINE about the world. We can be TAUGHT them by an AUTHORITY though. For example, having an undergraduate degree in mathematics, I know a lot of math. Yet, I am unable to comprehend all to the stuff that goes into Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. BUT I can "know" that Wiles' proof is correct by placing my trust in authorities that do understand the necessary math. I therefore, "know" that Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem.
However, we do speculate (it’s part of human nature to do so), we share those speculations, and we build communities of people who believe the same things: among other things, this is where religions come from.
This is the "B" that does not follow from "A". Your statement B certainly is logically consistent with statement "A", but it does not follow from statement "A". That is because you are blind to the circular assumption you have made. Essentially the circular reasoning you have made is - All Religions do not come from God --- therefore All Religions do not come from God. See, a just as reasonable statement is the one or some of the religions come from God. Nothing you stated in your arguments makes the B follow from A. There is nothing, beside your own bias that makes man made religion more likely than God given religion. Your statement B (religion is man made) is only more likely than the other possibility (one or more religions are God given ) IF you assume there is no personal GOD. But that assumption is what you are trying to prove. Do you not see that this is clearly circular reasoning. Please understand this. Enough for now.JDH
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
JDH @ 87. Thanks for the kind words.StephenB
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
jdk
My strong agnosticism says we can’t really know anything about the metaphysical nature of the world. I consistently refer to metaphysical speculations, because when we think about metaphysics all we can do is speculate, as we have no access to any definitive evidence.
To claim that you can’t know anything about the metaphysical nature of the world is to claim that you *do* know something about it, namely its unknowability. This is the self-refuting philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It is total nonsense.
We build belief systems which help us structure our understanding so as to have some sense of living in a meaningful universe. We, individually and communally, create stories that we then affirm (as opposed to confirm, which we can not do) so has to have a cognitive framework of answers to questions that can’t really be answered.
We do not use our minds to structure reality; we use our minds to apprehend reality. That is why we can know that a cat is a cat. We don’t *construct* the universal category of catness in our mind, we *abstract* it from our sensual experience of a particular cat. In other words, we do know a great many things about the real world. That is why we also know that a cat cannot also be a dog (law of identity, non-contradiction). According to your philosophy, that cat you just observed might really be a green ball of slime – or for that matter, a dog. Goodbye law of identity and non-contradiction. Goodbye logic. Goodbye rational discourse.
I think the empirical evidence supports this understanding of belief systems,
??????Empirical evidence from where? -- From the real world which you just claimed is unknowable? Or is it personal evidence which is unique to your personal belief system.
and since there is such a vast variety of such systems, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that no religious systems is true: I am not singling out Christianity in this regard.
Bad logic. Just because some religions are man-made doesn’t mean that all religions are man-made. Fact: Christianity is a historically based, evidence based, fact based religion. All other religions are man made.StephenB
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Andrew @92 Bingo!Phinehas
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
jdk @ 91: I concur with StephenB's assessment of your other two sentences. Am I free of bias? Of course not. Everyone has biases.Barry Arrington
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
What I have found is that if a prog/liberal/atheist/mat claims they have studied religions, it means they have heard other prog/liberal/atheist/mats make claims about religions. Andrewasauber
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Were the other two sentences I wrote about Christianity correct, Barry? And are you free from similar biases concerning your own beliefs?jdk
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
JDK @ 71: "The sentence about “larger version” was too colloquial" Fascinating. The sentence was a profound error and demonstrated an extreme ignorance of the Western theological tradition, despite the fact that you assert you have studied religions. Yet, you cannot manage to admit your error. All you can do is suggest the phrasing was "too colloquial." Thank you for your contributions to this thread JDK. You are obviously an intelligent atheist, and you have done us all a favor by demonstrating beautifully the premise of the OP.Barry Arrington
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Hi JDH,
Second – your conveyance through this language that you are some objective authority which is able to claim that your analysis shows that Christianity is just not a very believable position does contradict your so-called strong-agnosticism. You state that you believe you can not really know anything about root metaphysics, but you sure can know that Christianity is far from the truth. This is an inconsistency which to me suggests you have not thought this out carefully, or at least you have not examined your beliefs to see if they are self-consistent.
First, I think I have thought about all this carefully. I also think that it is very difficult for people for people to have perfectly consistent views on lots of things because the world is a more complicated, messy place than our abstract belief systems can encompass. With that said, I have explained, and will try once more: My strong agnosticism says we can't really know anything about the metaphysical nature of the world. I consistently refer to metaphysical speculations, because when we think about metaphysics all we can do is speculate, as we have no access to any definitive evidence. However, we do speculate (it's part of human nature to do so), we share those speculations, and we build communities of people who believe the same things: among other things, this is where religions come from. There are good reasons why we do this, because man does not live on facts alone, so to speak. We build belief systems which help us structure our understanding so as to have some sense of living in a meaningful universe. We, individually and communally, create stories that we then affirm (as opposed to confirm, which we can not do) so has to have a cognitive framework of answers to questions that can't really be answered. I think the empirical evidence supports this understanding of belief systems, and since there is such a vast variety of such systems, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that no religious systems is true: I am not singling out Christianity in this regard. As a strong agnostic interested in metaphysics, then, I have chosen a perspective most meaningful to me to affirm, tentatively and with the full understanding that it is not something I can confirm. As I wrote in my little essay on my interest in Taoism:
I find that Taoism, in the non-scholarly way in which I understand it, resonates with me more than any other metaphysical or religious perspective. A disclaimer: On the other hand, I am a strong agnostic. I don't think that human beings, individually or collectively, can actually know what is behind/beyond the material world. Therefore, when I describe, and even advocate for, a Taoist perspective, I’m not saying that I “believe” Taoism is true, because (and this is a tenet of Taoism), I don’t think we can know whether it is true or not. But as a metaphor of what might be true, it seems to fit the world as I see it. My beliefs about Taoism are a framework for metaphysically understanding our experience of, and in, this world, but they are not provable, logically necessary, or even testable in the empirical sense. However, as a metaphysical belief system it makes the most sense to me of all the religious and philosophical perspectives I have studied, and it has provided me with many meaningful principles about what the universe and human beings are, and how to live effectively in the world. But ultimately, I believe in Feynman's statement (paraphrased) that I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true. Since there is no way to know whether Taoism, or any other metaphysical/religious belief is true, I believe that my "belief in Taoism" is a useful metaphorical story, but not a literal belief about truth. However, "living with uncertainty"–knowing when you can't know–fits in well with Taoist principles anyway, so there is a certain resonance between Feynman's principle and the ineffable nature of Taoism, with its emphasis on right action rather than on dogmatic belief.
So, in summary, I think I am aware of the tension between strong agnosticism and having my own personal beliefs. You won't agree with my conclusions, I know, but I think I've examined this issue pretty closely. One last comment: You write,
It suggests an evaluation by the speaker that not only does he think Christianity is untrue, BUT if you were a rational person, you would also come to the same conclusion. It suggests the speaker actually believes he has done a thorough investigation of Christianity, and come to the conclusion that nobody SHOULD really believe this stuff because it is so extremely unlikely.
I don't think I am implying that. I am sure you are a rational person: rational people come to very different conclusions about these kinds of matters all the time. All I can do is share my understandings with others, and listen to what others have to share, and the accept that all parties will do what they can with the experience. I'm sure you know that many people believe that Christianity is very unlikely to be true, concerning all or some of its central beliefs. I know that most people, probably, think my perspective is very unlikely to be true, because most people believe in some religious perspective or another. This is just something we have to live with.jdk
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Folks, I suggest it would first be advisable to address worldviews and their warrant i/l/o comparative difficulties. Including, the challenge that as infinite stepwise past is not credibly feasible and an ultimate chicken-egg loop is not reasonable, with a world from non-being a non-starter, then we are looking at a necessary being at world-root, and this in a context where we are responsibly and rationally governed, thus morally governed. And as this requires that OUGHT is not delusional (on pain of setting grand delusion loose, utterly undermining reasonable discussion . . . ) we then face the one level where IS and OUGHT can be soundly bridged: the world-root. This is the context in which I have pointed out that, after centuries of debates, there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of our loyalty expressed via the responsible and reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. In short, ethical theism is a serious-minded, credible worldview. I have already taken time to note on Taoism as presented in recent days here at UD, here. As for the Christian faith specifically, I would suggest that any dismissal of the NT as essentially dubious as to its historical backbone and C1 provenance in Israel and the wider Mediterranean basin is ill-founded selective hyperskepticism. Indeed, I would suggest that the bias blind-spot discussed in the OP is in the end about selective hyperskepticism and the linked imposition of ideological yardsticks used to try to force the world to fit a party-line. That's why I have stressed the importance of plumbline, independent truths that test yardsticks and frameworks. Key among these are self-evident first truths and first principles of right reason. If your worldview struggles with the implications of distinct identity [A vs ~ A] being so, it is inherently irrational. If you imagine we are locked in on this side of an ugly gulch that leaves us empty of ability to know some things reliably, confidently and even certainly about the world of reality in itself beyond the gap between our ears and behind our eyes, we are in self-referential incoherence. If you do not see that Josiah Royce's proposition, error exists is undeniably true, providing a case of accurate description of reality, warranted to undeniable certainty and confirming that our empirical observations can be accurate and warranted though we face the humbling point that one of these points is that we err, then your worldview collapses at the outset. Relativists, subjectivists and radical pragmatists, I am looking at you. And, of course, it is self-evidently true -- a knowable MORAL truth -- that it is wrong and evil and wicked to kidnap, torture, sexually abuse and murder a young child for one's sick pleasure, with all that this entails about objectivity of core moral truth and indictment of our generation as one of the worst in all history. Let's turn back to the core Christian faith. Start with the Rylands fragment of John, c. 125 AD and with the citations and allusions in the first three writing Church Fathers we have in hand, c. 95 - 115, which back up the view that the NT comes from c 40 - 50 AD - 90 - 95 AD, with the official testimony in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 easily dating to c 35 - 38 AD in Jerusalem. This is pivotal, as this speaks to fulfillment of prophecies [most notably Is 52 - 53, c 700+ BC] and to 500+ core witnesses, about two dozen of whom we may readily identify, based on the leading apostolic witnesses, Jesus' immediate family (many having been formerly skeptical), the women of the company of the disciples and several other key figures. The historical-geograpical-social background painted in these documents as cross checked archaeologically etc, makes nonsense of selective hyperskepticism. Especially, given the upheavals of AD 66 - 74 which utterly erased the world of Jerusalem-centred Judaism. Remember, just as a note, it is credible that we have the tomb of Paulo apostolo mart, and that St Peter's Cathedral's altar stands over the grave of Peter. In addition, we have 2,000 years of positively transformed lives in the millions that point to the opposite of delusion, never mind the inevitably spotty record of communities, states, nations and civilisations. A key, sobering lesson of history is that power tends to corrupt and that power without adequate accountability corrupts like fast-spreading cancer. The point is, millions have been transformed, globally for 2000 years. They testify to encounter with God in the face of the risen Christ, in accord with the prophets and the testimony of the 500. Whether or no you are inclined to accept it, that is evidence. And indeed, struggling though I be, I are one. Indeed, apart from a miracle of guidance within hours, in answer to my mother's prayer of surrender 47 years past now I should be dead. Many, many more can testify to the like, and I suggest it is absurd that, in the context of the above, we are all . . . -- including many pivotal figures and leading minds over the past twenty centuries -- we are all, grossly delusional in terms of our core witness to the power of the gospel. I suggest, a re-thinking is in order, given what depending on a crooked and warped yardstick to judge truth can do. KFkairosfocus
June 9, 2017
June
06
Jun
9
09
2017
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply