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
Hi again jdk - I hope you are enjoying this. I know I am. BTW - Thank you Stephen B for your wonderful contributions. First of all - I was not contrasting the statements 1) "Christianity is untrue." 2) "Christianity is extremely unlikely to be true." You are correct 2 is a weaker statement than 1. I was contrasting the statements --- A) "I believe Christianity is untrue" B) "I believe Christianity is extremely likely not to be true." Do you really not see the difference between the two statements? It seems really obvious to me. Statement A puts itself forward as the current position on a binary decision tree. There are two possible states. One is that I believe Christianity to be true - which this person does not. And the other is that Christianity is false - which this person currently believes. There is no instruction for the other person contained in the statement. There is no quantitative position taken on how close the speaker is to deciding for Christianity. It is most clearly understood as only informing the listener as to the current state of the belief of the speaker between two positions. Statement B carries with it not only meaning for the speaker, but also for the listener. 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 think you are wrong on two counts - First of all I think you are objectively wrong. I see that there is tons of evidence for Christianity. I don't see what observables lead you to believe that it is extremely unlikely to be true. 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.JDH
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
jdk
Sentence [5] was about the Western monotheism, which, however, includes more than Christianity. The things I said about Western monotheism are correct, I think, as is my restatement later that
You cannot logically refer to Western monotheism as a single unit when discussing the subject of God’s attributes and the human gifts of intellect and will. In the Christian view, the intellect leads and the will is expected to follow. Or to put it in moral terms, the intellect provides the target and the will shoots the arrow. Thus, the Christian God and the Christian religion are both rational. They are based on God's rational nature. Christians are expected to become more and more like Christ until they finally begin to practice redemptive suffering for the salvation of souls, just as Christ did. Christianity teaches, rightly, that evil always persecutes good. With the help of God’s grace, Christians can achieve a heroic level of virtue precisely because they are made in God’s image, meaning that they can use their minds and wills to achieve the destiny for which they were made. Unfortunately, not all persons (or Christians) train their wills to follow the lead provided by their intelligence (rightly formed and applied). The God of Islam, on the other hand, is not viewed in that same way. The Koran, for example, teaches the doctrine of abrogation, which means that God can suddenly change his mind about what is right and wrong if he wills it. Thus, there can be no consistent ethic on which one can build virtue or conquer vice -- no rational way to live a moral life. How can one build virtue and eliminate vice in a moral environment where God keeps changing the rules. In that context, human intelligence is significantly downgraded and the will is unduly elevated. When the will of a religious fanatic overrules the wisdom provided by the intellect, he will say things like, "Convert to my religion, or I will kill you." He feels no need to be reasonable or worship a reasonable God. After all, he follows a book that begins with talk of peace (while its author is militarily weak) and ends with exhortations to "kill the infidel wherever you find him" (when its author becomes militarily strong). So you can’t even begin to compare the attributes of God and his creatures in the context of “Western monotheism.”StephenB
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
jdk
[2]My short answer is that my strong agnosticism leads me to believe that we can’t really know anything about the root level of reality. [3]However, I think that it is extremely unlikely that that root level has qualities that are analogous to qualities that we see in ourselves.
There are two problems with that formulation. First, you didn't define "root level" of reality, which could mean "God" or "things as they are" or something else. So you haven't really said anything except that you are trying to pass off a meaningless statement as a thought. Second, even at the level of obfuscation on which you are writing, you have contradicted yourself. How could you know or even guess about the likelihood of root level qualities if you can't know anything about the root level itself.StephenB
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
JHD, you write,
I never said you have contempt for “Christians”. Saying you have contempt for a worldview – does not mean you have contempt for the people that hold that worldview.
You're right, and I apologize.
OTOH – I certainly do have contempt for the materialistic worldview because I think it is inherently self contradictory and therefore CAN NOT be true,
Just for the record, I'm not a materialist, so this isn't a remark that I'll comment on. You write,
you seem to want to at both times play the part of conciliatory fellow faith explorer (*”I don’t thing [sic] we can really know whether metaphysical speculations are true”) and the arrogant scholar who somehow puts himself above others ( ” I have a background in comparative religion, and a lot of understanding, I think, about why religion exists and the role it plays in the lives of human individuals and societies.”
I think there are two things going on here. I don't think we can know anything about metaphysics–that's a position of strong agnosticism–so I don't claim that I know that the metaphysical speculations that I am most attracted to are true. I find my interest in Taoism and existentialism are more helpful to me in structuring my understanding of the world than other worldviews, but I don't claim that they are true On the other hand, I don't think it is arrogant to point out that I've studied religion a lot. I'm not saying that gives me any extra authority, but it does explain, to me at least, why I think all religions are human inventions, products of culture that play an important role for both individuals and societies. I've studied the world's great religions, religions of primitive societies, and the psychology of religious experience. Seeing the vast range of forms, and the reasons for doing so, that all these take has convince me of my beliefs that all religious are essentially literary cultural inventions. You write,
But I don’t see you as a faith explorer who respects other faith explorers. I see you as someone pretty confident that your faith statement rests on solid empirical evidence, but others are seriously deluded in their belief.
Again, there are two issues here. To the extent that I am attached to my metaphysical interest in Taoism and existentialism, that is a matter of faith, as are all metaphysical speculations. I don't claim that those metaphysical speculations rest on empirical evidence. On the other hand, again, my belief that all religions are human inventions is supported by empirical evidence from a large literature in anthropology, sociology, and psychology. And I don't think I claimed anyone was deluded, and I have been around mentally ill people who have been truly deluded. Delusion, I think, applies to situations where someone believes things that the bulk of the people around that person know not to be true. Religious belief may rightly, from my perspective, be considered false, but I don't consider people who hold such beliefs delusional. And last, you write,
For example – you did not state that you believe Christianity (and also all other Western theistic religions) to be untrue. You said that it was “extremely likely to not be true.” IF you do not have contempt for the worldview, what is the need for the superlative?
First, you bring up contempt again, and I don't know why. I just don't see how anything I have said implies contempt. I also am puzzled, as you seem to be saying that the statement "Christianity is untrue" is a weaker statement than "Christianity is extremely likely to not be true," when in fact the former is a stronger statement than I would make, because it claims a definitiveness about metaphysics that I don't think we can have, but the latter is the weaker statement that for me, given everything I know and believe, it is very unlikely that Christianity is true. But there is no contempt in that statement.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
jdk @71
My short answer is that my strong agnosticism leads me to believe that we can’t really know anything about the root level of reality.
Why should your “strong belief” in agnosticism carry any argumentative weight?
[3]However, I think that it is extremely unlikely that that root level has qualities that are analogous to qualities that we see in ourselves.
But you have already acknowledged that your beliefs are faith based. Your presupposition of agnosticism drives the whole train.
The Western world is steeped in the view that man is made in the image of God, and thus that God has attributes analogous to ours such as will, consciousness, and intelligence.
That is because the Western view is grounded in reason. Only intelligence and will can produce a scaled down version of intelligence and will. All effects require a proportionate cause. Further, only an intelligent, willful agent can produce something out of nothing. The reason for that is that no physically related phenomenon, such as a law, can stop not creating and decide to start creating. A law (or law-like regularity) can only repeat its actions--it can't make decisions or change its behavior. .”
Sentence [5] was about the Western monotheism, which, however, includes more than Christianity. The things I said about Western monotheism are correct, I think, as is my restatement later that
Only the Judeo/Christian world view is based on reason.StephenB
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
jdk - I never said you have contempt for "Christians". Saying you have contempt for a worldview - does not mean you have contempt for the people that hold that worldview. I don't have contempt for Hindus because some Hindu's believe things which I think are not true. OTOH - I certainly do have contempt for the materialistic worldview because I think it is inherently self contradictory and therefore CAN NOT be true. I don't think it is irrational to believe something that is hard to believe. I just don't think it is good to claim objectivity and then believe something like materialism which IMHO makes objectivity not possible. That being said, some of the nicest people I meet are committed atheists. I can have contempt for their viewpoint, but not contempt for them personally. Sorry if I implied ever that you have contempt for people. Not withstanding the comment by Truth Will Set You Free - what I object to is the perceived over confidence and emotional connotation of your language. Maybe I am being defensive and "reading between the lines". If I am, I am sorry, but I think your language betrays a sort of arrogant attitude of superiority that you are loathe to admit. Its kind of hard to know what you are truly thinking when you chat in these things because you seem to want to at both times play the part of conciliatory fellow faith explorer (*"I don’t thing [sic] we can really know whether metaphysical speculations are true") and the arrogant scholar who somehow puts himself above others ( " I have a background in comparative religion, and a lot of understanding, I think, about why religion exists and the role it plays in the lives of human individuals and societies." ) Again, maybe I have heard arrogant intellectuals dismiss the gospel too many times. But I don't see you as a faith explorer who respects other faith explorers. I see you as someone pretty confident that your faith statement rests on solid empirical evidence, but others are seriously deluded in their belief. For example - you did not state that you believe Christianity (and also all other Western theistic religions) to be untrue. You said that it was "extremely likely to not be true." IF you do not have contempt for the worldview, what is the need for the superlative?JDH
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
As I noted, it must be a comforting position. Sun Tzu saw it as maintaining formlessness -- the guerilla, i.e. the way of the weak. It would be a shame if you didn't realize the position and thought it genuine.Upright BiPed
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
ub writes,
It’s unfortunate that you feel comfortable being an active opponent of ID while having, as you say, no interest in understanding ID arguments. I suppose, in some way, this must be a very liberating position for you.
Hmmm. I don't recall being involved in ID arguments here. I've gotten involved in discussions about philosophy, including about morals and the root level of reality; about math, including infinity and probability; about religion; and about social issues, such as women's reproductive issues. But I don't think I've been an "active opponent of ID" at this forum: that is, I haven't participated, I don't think, in discussions about proteins, genetic structure, evolution, fine-tuning, or the design inference in general. (Perhaps I've made an occasional comment that bears on these topics, but that is all I can remember.) And, FWIW, the position that I've come to articulate for myself does acknowledge the possibility of an underlying creativity that goes beyond the natural processes and proximate causes we experience, albeit from an Eastern and not a Western point of view. So I don't think characterizing me as "an active ID opponent" here is very accurate. I'm just not very interested in the ID arguments, but rather in other topics such as I listed above,jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
jdk #73 It's unfortunate that you feel comfortable being an active opponent of ID while having, as you say, no interest in understanding ID arguments. I suppose, in some way, this must be a very liberating position for you. Or is it that you just don't have any interest in the argument before you here and now. I suppose viewing things from your perspective, that's an understandable position to take as well. The argument has roots that go back to Charles Sanders Peirce's salient observations in the 1800's, winds it way through the major work of Alan Turing and John Von Neumann, has it's fundamentals demonstrated by Crick, Nirenberg, Zamecnik, Hoagland, and others, and finishes with arguably the world's leading authority on the subject matter carefully documenting the key issues over the course of five decades. As it turns out, the key observable ingredients in the argument are basically considered settled science, and are not even controversial. Being mere human, it would be easy to understand not wanting to engage that enterprise. You may want to consider studying up a bit though, at least to the point of having some tasty one-liners. Merely saying that you know nothing of the subject just doesn't seem fitting for an intelligent atheist who appreciates empirical investigation. After all, its hardly a secret that Crick demonstrated a reading frame code in DNA and predicted that adapters would be required to decode it. And surely its now common knowledge among literate participants in these debates that Turing invented a programmable universal machine, and that John Von Neumann described the necessary conditions of self-replication years before they were confirmed inside the cell. Of course, Howard Pattee's work documenting the physics of symbol systems in less well known, but certainly the quality of his work is impeccable. Frankly, to my mind, he is everything a research scientist could be. As an (apparent) atheist himself, he simply refused to write his metaphysics into his research. How damn refreshing is that? He merely used the language of physics to document the system, and left himself out of it. When someone of his acumen and integrity tells you that, from a physics standpoint, written human language and genetic translation are the only two general purpose languages found in the cosmos, one might think it would peak the interest of anyone with a drop of curiosity. But, as you demonstrate for us, that is not always the case. regards...Upright BiPed
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Thank you to Truth at 77. I am not an "a/mat", and being strongly agnostic am not devoutly anything, but just because I don't think Christianity is at all likely to be true doesn't mean I have contempt for it, any more than I have contempt for any other religion (all of which I don't believe in.) And to JDH: there are millions of people who are devout believers in other religions. Does the fact that you don't believe in Hinduism mean that you have contempt for Hindus? If you don't, then why would you think I have contempt for Christians? If you have contempt for all other religions, then I think you should recognize that as your perspective and understand that others don't think as you do.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
JDH @ 76: It is not an indication of contempt to say that a particular worldview is extremely unlikely to be true. That is simply an opinion. We are dealing with faith-based beliefs on both sides of the argument, with each side thinking it has the more-likely-to-be-true position. A/mats have faith in nature's ability to do many things unproven by empirical evidence, e.g. string theory, multiverse theory, abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc. Theists have faith in the existence of something unproven by empirical evidence, namely God, or gods, depending on the form of theism. Both sides think their side to be more likely truthful. No one knows for sure. It all comes down to faith.Truth Will Set You Free
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Barry, let me apologize beforehand if this gets too much about one religion for UD. I understand if the comment is banned. Thanks. jdk - You said, "Thinking that Western monotheism, in any of its guises, is extremely unlikely to be true is not contempt." I don't understand. Millions of people like myself base our whole lives on the truth of "Western monotheism" and particularly the Christian variety. I can't tell you how much of my life is centered upon the wholly believable assertion that the story of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to completely pay for my sinfulness is rooted in what I believe to be trustworthy historical accounts. I don't know of any stories from the ancient world that have more contemporaneous testimony to their veracity. If, your casual suggestion that the history which I choose as a basis of my life is, not just doubtful, but "...extremely unlikely to be true" is not contempt, I don't know what is. I am curious. What is the basis of your belief that the story of Jesus Christ is "extremely unlikely" to be true? I realize that your statement is a belief, but I don't understand what real facts it is based on.JDH
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
As the corollary to my reference to the positive 'wishful thinking' of Christians, why should the truth be, by its nature, undesirable, cold and hard, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, ugly ?Axel
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
@ your #19, harry, Interesting post. Thanks. You wrote : 'I think one of the main differences between intelligence and wisdom is that wisdom is capable of objectivity. What appear to be conflicts between their faith and their reasoning about nature don’t upset the wise. They are confident such conflicts will eventually be resolved because they know that their Christian faith and nature have the same Author, so they can remain objective and do a calm analysis of the evidence.' Yes, I think the Holy Spirit, among all its other gifts, coordinates the strands of our intelligence, so he's definitely 'the Gaffer', when it comes to objective analysis, and wisdom, generally. I think Augustine must have been given an extraordinary gift of prophecy to possess such wisdom and understanding, yet I've not heard mention of it. No wonder the great paradigm-changers, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Planck, Lemaitre, Godel were not merely either Christian or Jewish, but were what would today be called 'religious nuts'. Atheists are adamant that Einstein was not a theist. So what? You could not find a more fervent deist, always holding forth very lyrically, as he did, about the marvelous Spirit behind the design and creation of the universe. But here is an interesting quote concerning his belief in Jesus, and his awe with regard to him : —————————————– “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”5 “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”6 ******Albert Einstein received instruction in both Christianity (at a Roman Catholic school) and Judaism (his family of origin). When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.***** “To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?” “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” “Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?” “Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!” “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?” “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” The quotes are from this blog : https://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/once-and-for-all-einstein-believed-in-god-he-believed-in-jesus-too/Axel
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
UB, this is not a subject that I very much knowledge about: neither the biology at the biochemical level nor the philosophy of what constitutes a language, so I'll pass. ID arguments such as those really have little interest for me.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
jdk, will you be offering an answer to the question at #50?Upright BiPed
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Barry, let me recap. Phinehas asked me if I thought the Tao was "teleological and intelligent." I answered,
[1]Your question would involve a lengthy answer. [2]My short answer is that my strong agnosticism leads me to believe that we can’t really know anything about the root level of reality. [3]However, I think that it is extremely unlikely that that root level has qualities that are analogous to qualities that we see in ourselves. [4]However the root level manifests in the world, it is not likely to me that it is a larger version of a person as we know ourselves. [5]The Western world is steeped in the view that man is made in the image of God, and thus that God has attributes analogous to ours such as will, consciousness, and intelligence.
You now write,
You committed yourself to the view that Christianity teaches that God is just a larger version of a person we know ourselves. Now, the smart thing for you to do now is to retract that instead of pretending the next sentence altered it (unless that is what you really believe). I doubt you will do the smart thing.
I'l note that the first paragraph doesn't mention Christianity. It just says that "I think that it is extremely unlikely that that root level has qualities that are analogous to qualities that we see in ourselves." The sentence about "larger version" was too colloquial, and I'm glad to retract it. But nowhere in that paragraph did I "commit [my]self to the view that Christianity teaches that God is just a larger version of a person." Sentence [5] was about the Western monotheism, which, however, includes more than Christianity. The things I said about Western monotheism are correct, I think, as is my restatement later that
[6[The Christian God is thought to willfully act, to have knowledge that informs those actions, and have purposes and goals towards which those actions are aimed. Those are some human characteristics that I am referring to.
Do you agree that sentences [5] and [6] are accurate.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
jdk: "Barry, you failed to quote the sentence right after the one about “larger version” Yes, because it did not interest me and it did not change the meaning of this statement: “it is not likely to me that it is a larger version of a person as we know ourselves” You committed yourself to the view that Christianity teaches that God is just a larger version of a person we know ourselves. Now, the smart thing for you to do is retract that instead of pretending the next sentence altered it (unless that is what you really believe). I doubt you will do the smart thing.Barry Arrington
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Barry, you failed to quote the sentence right after the one about "larger version":
The Western world is steeped in the view that man is made in the image of God, and thus that God has attributes analogous to ours such as will, consciousness, and intelligence.
I think I immediately added some details about what I meant, similar to what I wrote in 2. above.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Your reading a lot between the lines, jdh. "Steeped in" connotes a thorough, pervasive presence, which I think is more accurate than emphasizes or even centered-in. You may think one of those words is more accurate, but I think I had a reasonable word choice. Also, I don't have "contempt" for general Western thought at all, and not for Western monotheism either. Thinking that Western monotheism, in any of its guises, is extremely unlikely to be true is not contempt. I'll also say that I think you're somewhat negative reaction to my wording betrays your biases as much as you think I betrayed mine. We all live in various "belief communities" that support our own beliefs, and thus inevitably reflect our positive and negative feelings about things.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
jdk: 1. "it is not likely to me that it is a larger version of a person as we know ourselves" 2. "The Christian God is thought to willfully act, to have knowledge that informs those actions, and have purposes and goals towards which those actions are aimed." The second statement is categorically different from the first. Do you understand that?Barry Arrington
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
jdk - I would also critique your writing when you said the, "...Western world is steeped in the view that man is made in the image of God." (emphasis added). The word "steeped" is an emotionally charged word which betrays some of the contempt I think you have for Western thought. There were many more words that you could have used - "centered in", "emphasizes"... that don't carry emotional baggage. Sometimes our word choices reveal our inner biases - which is what the original Op is about.JDH
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
jdk - I think I have caught you in an intellectually dishonest statement. You said, "I don’t think the Eastern views are inferior to Western ones..." This sounds very scholarly and reasonable. You seem to be arguing here that the views of God (Western and Eastern) are on par in quality. But this is not what you seem to actually believe. Your earlier statements which seem to deride Western religions betray your lack of respect for Western thought. If you were intellectually honest in your argumentation - you WOULD NOT say, "I don't think the Eastern views are inferior" a negative statement, but you WOULD say, "I do think the Eastern views are superior" - a positive affirmation. I am curious why you felt compelled to frame your argument in what is clearly a line of reasoning which obfuscates your true view.JDH
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
The Christian God is thought to willfully act, to have knowledge that informs those actions, and have purposes and goals towards which those actions are aimed. Those are some human characteristics that I am referring to.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
jdk
it is not likely to me that it is a larger version of a person as we know ourselves
Why would you suggest that any moderately sophisticated view of the Christian God would be a "larger version of a person as we know ourselves?" That you would say such a thing suggests (unsurprisingly) that you have not studied the issue as deeply as you say you have.Barry Arrington
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
I don't believe what you believe EugeneS, at all, so I'll stand by my statement.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
jdk "that we can’t really know anything about the root level of reality" Unless this Reality comes down to us and becomes like ourselves in every aspect except sin.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 1 John 1:1
Since then the world has not been the same. These things were so important to humanity that we cannot live anymore as if nothing happened. If we do, we will miss the boat.EugeneS
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
jdk: As you wish. I am still curious about whether your strong agnosticism also applies to ID (i.e. you are not anti-ID so much as agnosti-ID), so should you get bored or ambivalent about other distractions, feel free to take this up. :)Phinehas
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Hi Phinehas, Your question would involve a lengthy answer. My short answer is that my strong agnosticism leads me to believe that we can't really know anything about the root level of reality. However, I think that it is extremely unlikely that that root level has qualities that are analogous to qualities that we see in ourselves. However the root level manifests in the world, it is not likely to me that it is a larger version of a person as we know ourselves. The Western world is steeped in the view that man is made in the image of God, and thus that God has attributes analogous to ours such as will, consciousness, and intelligence. The Eastern world has different views, and I don't think the Eastern views are inferior to Western ones. That doesn't mean that the Eastern view denies will, consciousness, and intelligence to the root level of reality, but rather that those qualities are derivative that manifest themselves in people, but are not necessarily attributes of the root level of reality. At this point I am quite wrapped up in watching the Comey hearing, and preparing for a vacation, so I think I'll not get drawn in further to this topicjdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
RodW :) John_a_designer I believe that there are no atheists per se. Science plays the role of Ersatz religion in a scientist world view. In such a world view, it is shoe-horned to obfuscate simple truths that innocent children can understand. If used as intended though, science is an unambiguous and extremely strong pointer to design. And since the universe had a beginning, the cause of the world must have been supernatural. There simply is no other option logically. There is not a thing in this world without a cause extraneous to the thing, why should the world itself be an exception? All this is so simple and clear. Why do people, when they grow old, become unresponsive to such simple truths? The only way out of this is to become like children again.EugeneS
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply