So if we all agree that our beliefs are possibly a result of environmental influences, cognitive biases, or a mental illness/condition, none of us can commit to something and that seem reasonable?

Sure, but within that framework, some things are more certain or knowable than others, wouldn't you agree? You wouldn't argue that my suggesting that the sun will still shine tomorrow is unreasonable but it's just as impossible to prove as proving that your god exists. Does that make them equally likely though?

I think it's significant that have you committed to one very very specific version of god. How is that more reasonable than my doubt, which is caused by my understanding that human beings are subject to many delusions, it's hard wired into us to see meaning where there is none and the fact that there are many many choices that differ from each other fundamentally so most of them have to be wrong, and that means that they could all be wrong. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that religion is a a human fabrication.

Not only that, but you happen to chose the predominant religion in the culture you matured in and you accept that you might be mentally ill etc etc. And yet... you have faith.

Mmm yeah, apologies for that, I think I had a Bill O'Reilly moment.

And if you were a believer, trying to make others believe what you believe about something utterly impossible to prove, mightn't you come up with explanations like 'god moves in mysterious ways' and that he 'requires you to have faith in him' and other neat tools of persuasion that religions use?

It's another thing that makes them different from anything else IMO. Politicians can't use the same tactic simply because they can't claim to represent a universal power. When you do represent a universal power, there isn't much that you can't claim with that kind of authority behind you.

I already have ITT. But, the 'seek and ye shall find' argument seems like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. When humans want to believe something enough, they tend to go right ahead and believe it and then fit the evidence to what they believe afterwards. I try my hardest not to that. It's my view that if one of the gods were real, we'd know for certain, there'd be none of this needing 'faith' and being obscure and impossible to prove etc.

You are the one making this argument, not me

You are stating that the fact that your belief may be a result of cognitive biases, environmental influences or a mental illness, means that you cant reasonably commit to that belief

I am pointing out that you have no problem committing to your beliefs, even though they may be a result of cognitive biases, environmental influences, or a mental illness.

How can you not see this?

You seem to be acting as if these are the only ways in which to reach a belief or that all beliefs held within those narrow parameters are equal in validity. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow so am I a victim of delusion caused by mental illness, cognitive bias or environmental influences in the same way as someone who believes in Cupachabra? I'm assuming that you, not living in Southern America, don't believe in Cupachabra? Why do you think that people do?

You don't really know what problems I do and don't have with regard to what I believe, or not, so you can't say that. Also, my atheism is not an alternate belief system, I simply haven't accepted gods as the explanation for everything.

.

Are you serious?

You are the one that is making this argument. Does this argument not apply to you and your beliefs then?

Ah, i get it, it only applies to religious beliefs. Well theres a surprise.

But of course, you are not putting religious beliefs into a distinct category of its own.

Perhaps, from now on, whenever you make an argument like this, you should explicitly state that it only applies to religious beliefs?

You try your hardest not to do that, but then when you make claims like the very next sentence:

You seem to be saying that you're doing EXACTLY that. You want to believe God doesn't exist badly enough that you're going to go right ahead and believe it and make the evidence fit afterwards. What is evidence? "I believe that if God were real, we'd be certain of it. And since we're not certain of it, God isn't real."

How does this fit with all of your other statements regarding the certainty of your beliefs? The ones that betair tried to pin you down on, but you just kept putting forth nonsense?

Sure, I'll do that when it's what's happening.

You didn't answer my question why do people believe in Chupacabra and why is that belief different from my believing that the sun will still 'rise' tomorrow? Both myself and the people who believe in Chupacabra are subject to environmental influences and cognitive biases, so presumably their belief is just as valid and likely to be true as mine?

Since we all agree that there is some non-zero chance that we're all brains in a vat, can't we--like every other person in the history of mankind who had a desire to actually advance a conversation--just treat the Possibility-Of-Vat as a baseline and move on?

It seems pretty clear that MB has already zeroed his scale at Possible-Brain-In-Vat and is making the case that religious beliefs seem to be influenced by additional biases, influences, illnesses, etc. that are significant--above and beyond the vat-induced biases, influences, illnesses, etc.

His position boils down to him pointing at everyone else and saying "They've all got errors in their conclusions caused by mental illness, cognitive bias or environmental influences. But I don't. How do I know I don't? Because I don't and they do."

Edit: Each time he tries to make his comparison between the sun rising an Cupachabra, he's saying "See? I'm grounded in reality. They are not. Are you REALLY going to say that *I* am the crazy one here?"

Any belief that he doesn't agree with, he categorizes as being "caused by mental illness, cognitive bias or environmental influences." Any belief that he does agree with, he categorizes as being the result of "evidence." It's a classic "I'm right; you're wrong" argument. (See also, "Everything good that religion does would have happened anyway, and everything evil that religion does is the fault of religion.")

It's MB that has contrasted his belief in the sun rising with the South American belief in Cupachabra. You're right it adds nothing to the discussion but neeel's question is still valid. The point was that people are subjected to cognitive bias, this includes MB, but it's not about challenging whether his belief the sun will rise is compromised but it's relevant to whether his evaluation of other peoples beliefs is.

Does my belief in god compromise my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow? Where it seems to have gotten sidetracked is the point being reiterated, that religious beliefs don't comprise an entire and exclusive category, has allowed MB to inadvertently introduce a strawman.

Both these beliefs have environmental influences, cognitive biases, and/or mental illnesses as a factor in whether they are believed or not. Do you deny this?




No one, especially not you, has talked anywhere about the truth of beliefs.

You stated that

"IF your belief has as a factor, environmental influences, cognitive biases, and/or mental illnesses, THEN how can you commit to it and that seem reasonable to you?"

This is your statement. Do you deny this?
( I dont see any qualifying statements about truth of belief, or area of belief( religious vs other)

A large amount ( if not all ) your beliefs have as a factor, environmental influences, cognitive biases, and/or mental illnesses. Do you deny this?

so therefore, you , personally, by your own statement, cannot commit to your beliefs and have that seem reasonable to you.

If you want to change or qualify your original statement, because you feel it now doesnt reflect what you meant, feel free.

Inadvertently? I dont think so. He has been shown many times by many people that he is treating them as a entire and exclusive category. Yet he denies that he is, and continues with his strawmen.

I don’t think he’s more guilty of that than most people. (Or if so, not by much) I also don’t think the bolded is his position, but it’s illustrative of the problem you two have. It seems to me that you and MB are the perfect storm of someone who is more prone to hyperbole than most and someone who is determined to find the most uncharitable reading possible of the other’s words.

Personally, I think someone who believes the sun will rise tomorrow is more grounded in reality than someone who believes in Chupacabra. If I must grant that I could be a brain in a vat, at least the sun rising is more consistent with the rules of my vat.

See my point above about hyperbole. As soon as I saw “everything good” and “everything evil” I thought, “Here we go…” I didn’t follow the thread closely, but I’m more confident than I am in the sun rising tomorrow that someone called him out for a pretty egregious example of hyperbole.
Surely someone who starts a paragraph with, “Any belief that he doesn’t agree with…” [bold mine] understands exaggeration to make a point.


I don’t think MB is saying he has no biases (MB, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). I think he’s making a statement about the severity or reasonableness of the biases. You need to make huge allowances for possible bias to think there’s a live purple Mastodon in your closet. You don’t have to overcome much of a bias hurdle at all to think the sun will rise tomorrow.

I don't agree that some things are more certain, I think they just seem more certain because their causes and effects appear stable. I'm not suggesting that the sun may not rise tomorrow, (although it may not) but rather that the sun may not be real to begin with, despite it rising and setting on schedule. But I'm not trying to make this a point of debate, I understand what you're saying. I'm very confident that the sun will shine tomorrow, and I know you're not going to like this, but I'm also quite confident God exists. I can't answer if they are equally likely or not, because I believe in both.

I don't think my belief is more reasonable than your disbelief, I think they are equally reasonable. I know you don't agree that my belief is reasonable, and there's really nothing I can say to you at this point that will change your mind. I can admit that there is room for doubt, but I am not deciding to believe in God because it is easier to live this way, I believe in God because of things I've experienced in my own life. IF these things are lies, they subconscious, beyond my control, or both.

That's fair, as long as you don't over-correct and go out of your way to not believe in God. What troubles me is that you refuse to believe there is any possibility that God could communicate with people, so you automatically refute any such experiences as nonsensical. Just because you have never experienced these things doesn't automatically make them untrue, and because of your strong atheistic stance, IF these experiences were possible, I wouldn't expect you to have them.

Again, I'm not suggesting I'm the only one privy to the truth, I can't stress enough how the truth is impossible to know, but I am not someone who wakes up and lies to himself about God and rationalizes things in order to believe. I believe because it's the most reasonable thing for me to do given these experiences which are too difficult for me to deny. If I were to deny God at this point in my life, I would be unequivocally lying to myself and would be the person you described earlier, and perhaps who you believe me to be. Living any other way would make me hypocritical.

Hang around RGT a while and keep track of who agrees with MB. You'll find that very few people end up on his side by the time he's done trying to explain his position. It's not a matter of being uncharitable. It's a matter of him being mostly wrong most of the time. For example, read his thread on Embracing absurdity.

I agree. But he has not even begun to elaborate on the various distinctions as to why this would be the case. He's merely using it as a test case to demonstrate his groundedness. It doesn't actually complete the argument he's making because it's a cherry-picked example.

I still don't know where you got that brain-in-a-vat is a relevant point in this conversation.

Did you actually read what he wrote? Let me quote it in line for you:

I'm not exaggerating his statement and it's not hyperbole. He actually believes this statement. And there have been other places where he has basically said the same thing.

I don't believe I'm using hyperbole here. When it comes down to looking at MB's position, he takes his axiomatic disdain for religion seriously. He asserts it, and he defends it.

The only change of position that I've seen consistently from him is that he used to claim "Religion does no good." Now he's changed that to "Religion is a net negative." But even that comes with caveats. (And getting him to move off of *THAT* position was quite an ordeal!)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...l#post39199955

Once again, we have what is more or less an axiomatic disdain for religion. "I give up on 'nothing religion does is good' but I'll take up a position that I know will be 'more robust' because I know I've set an impossible-to-prove standard. Essentially, I can *NEVER* be proved wrong. Mwahahaha!" (That's hyperbole. But just barely... )

Edit: Think about it --- He acknowledges that there's basically no way to prove his position. But he's going to hold the position firmly anyway. And he thinks that he's coming to the conversation with an open mind and willing to be shown that he's wrong? Or that he's not demonstrating his own deep biases? If he were consistent with what he's claiming, he would take a more agnostic position, and not try to hold such conclusions.

He's not, the problem is neeeel is pointing out that MB has claimed he doesn't know how people commit to beliefs while being subject to these bias while committing to beliefs subject to the same bias and not seeing the distinction. The comparison between the sun rising and the cupachabra is a strawman he's not qualifying the impact the bias should have on our ability to commit to beliefs.

So I agree with you MB has a defence there that he's ignoring because he won't accept the contradiction between saying he doesn't know how people commit to beliefs while committing to them.

What I think is more interesting is not contrasting MB's belief the sun will rise but contrasting his beliefs on faith with other beliefs on faith. These seem to be subject to the same bias he's accusing others of committing to beliefs in the face of.

This is a reply to an earlier post by you that I was mulling over. I think it addresses some of what's been discussed since.

Yeah, empirical is not the right word. What I consider empirical is based on experience and that can be subject to bias and assumptions. I guess I didn't want to use the word 'scientific' because so many people feel that it is in opposition to theism, which I suppose to a great extent it is, but I didn't want to muddy the waters by creating a 'them and us' situation. But, scientific is the right word. I have a scientific outlook and I think that to a degree that is effective in countering my biases and assumptions. And, the more extraordinary or outlandish the claim, the more that kicks in.

This is non-sensical to me. I wouldn't say that you had faith in medicine because faith doesn't' require evidence, you have confidence and for a good reason. There's plenty of uncontested evidence to show that it's real and that it works. You display this confidence in many areas of your life, not faith.

I don't agree that we take things on faith all the time and yes I want religious 'evidence' to be treated separately, because religious faith is a commitment to something with no uncontested evidence to support it. Even if there are degrees of faith, religious faith is at the far end of the spectrum.

When the evidence cited by theists is from personal experience, but fails to meet all the scientific criteria, then it's much more likely to simply be the result of bias and assumption. Is there any evidence that you, or any other theist has that couldn't be described as 'wishful'?

From Wiki

I don't think my trust in medicine is without faith. People talk about faith in justice systems or faith in humanity of course there are degrees of faith.

You don't need religious evidence to be treated differently, this is the point you evaluate by the same standards. Don't get into arguments as to whether the evidence exists get into the argument as to whether it's sufficient or whether it's actual evidence. Treat it the same and dismiss it on consistent terms.

Getting to the point discussed since. Do you think my belief in god compromises my belief the sun will rise tomorrow?

Ok, first of all, thanks for ignoring the dogmatic tone of my last post, it's a posting style I'm struggling to let go of :P)

Yeah, I'm aware that another definition of faith is 'deeply held confidence', (why is there so much dissent on this issue?) and if that's the definition we're using then yes I have faith in lots of things, but whether we use the word faith or the word confidence, perhaps more so if we use the word confidence, the question arises as to from where that confidence stems?

This is kinda what I was driving at with NR. I feel that my confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, even though it might not, is more justified than a belief in a god. It's less likely to be influenced by my biases and assumptions because I have ample, universally accepted uncontested evidence, that the sun has risen every day since this planet has existed. (I'm talking about the sun existing so can we not get sidetracked because I used the word 'rise'?)

Besides convincing personal experiences, what makes the idea that any of the gods actually exist, a reasonable thing to be confident of?

Faith, confidence, there are degrees of both, what are they influenced by? What types of confidence would you describe as 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable'?

I believe that religious evidence is subjective and in that respect it should be treated differently. (Religion isn't alone in that, there are many types of supernatural belief and I think that the evidence for all of them is subjective, otherwise they'd be 'natural'.)

If subjective isn't the right word, I guess I'll find out fast enough :P

No, unless you followed a religion that had some sun specific prophecies or some such. I'm fairly certain that Christianity doesn't.

Is the likelihood that your belief in god is more the result of your influenced, biases and assumptions higher than with your belief that the sun will rise? Yes, IMO.

Ok, perhaps we should move on, I'm curious about what aspects of your chosen religion to believe, and which you don't. Are you a member of a particular Christian sect?


If god exists then of course he can communicate with people, he can do anything.

How do you know that I haven't in fact had similar or exactly the same experiences as you? (not in sum, I mean we may have shared some types of experiences, after all, I live in the same world that you do and in a very similar culture). What may be very different is how we interpreted those experiences, in fact, I think that's more likely than that I've never had any of the experiences that you've found so convincing.

The only way to know of course is to discuss some, would you do that?

Wrt to the bolded, how do you know this? What are your checks?

I don't think that the fear of being hypocritical should prevent you from changing what you believe, if it were a proper obstacle then science would get nowhere and science has achieved more progress in a few hundred years than religion did in 4000 years of recorded history (that's the sort of statement I make that drives Aaron to apoplexy and I know that it's extremely generalised but I find it a good way to elicit insight).

I'd go so far as to say that feeling is another one of the inbuilt mechanisms by which religious memes survive, that they can create this need in their followers. You're asked to commit to something so life changing that to lose that would have a significant impact, and that's not an easy thing to do.

Sure NP.

I generally consider faith in consistent terms, the faith I have in God, the faith I have in the doctor and the faith I have in justice are all manifestations of confidence and trust. To varying degrees obviously.

So I think your confidence the sun will rise is more justified than my confidence in god but I don't think that's the interesting question, I think it's important in the context of the discussion you are having with neeel because he's rightly, pointed out a contradiction that I think you should qualify. However the interesting question is grounds for belief.

If personal experience is convincing it seems a mistake to expect people to not be confident in it.

I can only answer the stuff that I find compelling I find compelling and the stuff I don't I don't. I can't really answer for anyone else.

Evidence can be considered compelling or not to others however it's interpreted by the individual. You don't treat the evidence differently you evaluate it consistently.

So I think you're comparison between those South Americans who believe cupachabra and your belief in the sun rising to be different enough for you to have inadvertently introduced a strawman. You aren't comparing like with like beliefs given the confidence we can have in one in contrast to the other.

( I get that neeeel doesn't think it inadvertent in this case I do.)

So I think you're right in regard to your pointing out the contradiction between him asking how people commit to beliefs while subject to bias while he admits to committing to beliefs subject to the same bias but I think the strawman is inadvertent here because he's not qualified why beliefs may be subject to different confidences despite them all being subject to bias.

I meant that they were convincing to the individual but may not be generally convincing. What convinces you may not convince me, or vice versa, so apart from personal experiences that have been convincing to them, what do theists have that makes belief in a god a reasonable thing to do? Personal experiences seems to be the most common reason or support offered for belief. If that's taken away, say because the believer had accepted that in this particular context, cognitive biases, environmental influences and assumptions had played a more than significant role in making those experiences convincing to them and that they are not actually reliable, what's left to the average theist?

I say 'average' because if I asked someone like WLC this question, he could talk for the next three days on other reasons he has to believe.


I think that maybe you can, it's what I'm doing after all. There are many many beliefs that are utterly convincing to the poeple that believe it but that you may be highly sceptically about, so there must be some means by which you are measuring your confidence level in something. Since you're confident about your belief in god, something which I find mystifying, I'm curious how you measure reasonable confidence?


Ok, I'm not clear on what this means. If there's a legal standard for evidence, which I doubt religious evidence would meet, then religious evidence is being judged by some other means, what is it? If it's only what makes sense to the believer, and that wouldn't necessarily make sense or be convincing to anyone else, then isn't it entirely subjective and how can that generate confidence?

I'm not sure what the strawman is, I was trying to illustrate that although I'm also subject to biases, assumptions and environmental influences, that it doesn't mean that all beliefs are equal and should be subject to the same level of skepticism. I chose Chupacabra because that is clearly a highly localised phenomena, and one that Neeel most likely does not believe, where environmental influences have almost certainly played a significant role in causing belief.

If someone tried to convince Neel that chupacabra was real, isn't it likely he would argue that they only believe that because of where they live and that they're probably deluding themselves, where he is applying scientific methodology and reserving his belief until there is convincing evidence? so, if they turn around and accuse Neel of being subject to the same biases etc etc, would that make the existence of Chupacabra more likely or that his disbelief and reservation of judgement isn't reasonable?

I don't think that all beliefs are equal but there is an inconsistency when you say that you don't know how people can commit to beliefs subject to these cognitive biases they have while admitting that you commit to beliefs subject to the same bias. It's inconsistent. The other thing is that people may commit to beliefs because of bias, asking them how they commit to beliefs that may be subject to bias somewhat misses the point.

I don't consider all beliefs subject to bias in the same way, I agree with DeuceKicker that we don't need to submit to a debilitating skepticism but we should try to apply consistent standards when evaluating evidence, we should also be open minded when trying to consider how others evaluate evidence irrespective of whether or not we find it compelling.