Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Debunking Christianity: A Listing of Cognitive Biases

My Common Sense is tingling again. John Loftus recently posted the following:

Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. Link
Why do I keep writing about this? Because we know humans are prone to these biases. We know this. So we should all become skeptics. We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true. We should adopt a science-based reasoning rather than a faith-based reasoning. Dr. James Alcock defined faith-based reasoning as "belief in search of data." Given the cognitive biases this is simply a wrong-headed approach if we want to know the truth.

Unless John Loftus is not human (I'm assuming he is and I hope that is not a cognitive bias),  isn't he also prone to cognitive bias? How does he know he has eliminated his biases against the Bible and God? I'm skeptical that he can or has. I don't even think he can see his perceptual distortions, inaccurate judgments, or illogical interpretations. Why shouldn't science-based reasoning also have the same level of skepticism as faith? There are things about reality that we all agree are true yet can't be substantiated or examined using the scientific method.  They can't be weighed, counted, or measured. John Loftus seems to draw the line to stop his skepticism, entrenching his own biases, at the points he is capable and not just unwilling to change but also unable to change.


Debunking Christianity: A Listing of Cognitive Biases
Enhanced by Zemanta

28 comments:

  1. Why shouldn't science-based reasoning also have the same level of skepticism as faith?

    Is this a real question? Although not perfect, science-based reasoning works, is self-correcting and give us things like computers and vaccines.

    Not saying science-based reasoning doesn't also deserve skepticism, all things do, it’s just that it deserve almost infinitely less skepticism than faith based reasoning.

    Just curious too what some of these things about reality are that we all agree are true yet can't be substantiated or examined using the scientific method and can’t be weighed, counted, or measured.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Both faith and science are corrected by truth. You can't have biblical faith in something or anything that isn't true. Of course you are defining faith differently than the Bible does and that means you using a straw man argument.

    As for something that we all agree is real but can't be weighed, counted, or measured scientifically: love. Other examples include moral principles. How do you measure consciousness? Are there varying levels of consciousness? How can we measure that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Both faith and science are corrected by truth.

    Tell that to a Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Catholic, or someone else from one of the umpteen thousand sects you disagree with...

    As for your other point, we don't all agree that moral principles exist. For everything else, brain states can be measured. God of the gaps anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Ryan

    Tell that to a Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Catholic, or someone else from one of the umpteen thousand sects you disagree with...

    Truth is supposed to be more important. I don't think you agree with that.

    As for your other point, we don't all agree that moral principles exist. For everything else, brain states can be measured. God of the gaps anyone?

    Brain states don't answer the question. Of course we agree that moral principles exist. Disagree? You mean it'd be okay for me to walk into your house, slap you and every member of your household across the face, take whatever I want and leave? No? Why not? Most of society would agree with that being wrong and would not want that to happen to themselves or anyone else. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You mean it'd be okay for me to walk into your house, slap you and every member of your household across the face, take whatever I want and leave? No?

    It's my opinion that it would be ok to shoot you if you did that. My opinion coincides with my states laws. But it's still only my opinion. That opinion exists only in my head and collectively in society because it also exists only in a majority of other peopls heads. However, many people do think it's ok to do just what you describe. It happens every day.

    Why?

    We are social animals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Ryan

    It's my opinion that it would be ok to shoot you if you did that. My opinion coincides with my states laws. But it's still only my opinion. That opinion exists only in my head and collectively in society because it also exists only in a majority of other peopls heads. However, many people do think it's ok to do just what you describe. It happens every day.

    So in your opinion I would not be wrong. So what would give you the right to stop me? How do you know society is right? Let's say you are a poor shot and I take your gun and kill you and everyone in the household. Would I be wrong then? What if the police never caught me? If I acted totally in accordance with my own opinions and desires would I still be wrong. According to you I would not be wrong. If I'm not wrong why would you even bother me to stop me from harming you or yours?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Define "wrong" first. Are you "wrong" by some standard that exists independent of human consciouness and would still exist in the event of our extinction? No, I can't imagine you are.

    Are you "wrong" by my standard and our collective societal standard? Yes.

    Are there or have there been societies where what you describe is accpetable? Yes. Would you know differently if you lived in one? I think not.

    ReplyDelete

  8. Are there or have there been societies where what you describe is accpetable? Yes. Would you know differently if you lived in one? I think not.


    That is exactly my point. I wouldn't know it as unacceptable if I lived in such a society. You just proved that we cannot really know what right and wrong are without revelation. It's easy to define right and wrong with an objective standard in place. Society can be wrong. By "wrong" I mean endorsing and embracing behavior that is not ultimately in the best interest for it. For many things without God telling you something is wrong you wouldn't know it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's no such thing as revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course you would say that. Nothing has ever been revealed to you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That does not mean there is no revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Given your epistemological position, you can't prove Mohammed or Joseph didn't receive divine revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Ryan

    Given your epistemological position, you can't prove Mohammed or Joseph didn't receive divine revelation.

    Wrong. Their "revelations" conflict with the Bible, yet they claimed to be speaking by the same source and the equal authority as the Bible. All three cannot be right simultaneously. Only one of them can be true revelation or none of them are true. The Bible has more than enough support against the other two.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, the bible conflicts with their revelations.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Bible came first. Think carefully about your argument and you can't honestly think that you can just outright reject the Bible, Muhammad, or Mormonism as being the same because they are not. It's easily demonstrable that the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon have errors. However you have not succeeded in pointing out a single falsehood in the Bible. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Bible came first

    Surely you must realize that has nothing to do with anything.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Ryan

    Surely you must realize that has nothing to do with anything.

    Is that the best you got? After the points I raised? Really? I don't know whether to laugh or be insulted. I'll play along.

    You said: No, the bible conflicts with their revelations. You claim to know so much about grammar but if the Bible came first it's the standard for what conflicts with it not the other way around. If you were talking about the Book of the Dead, then yes you can say the Bible conflicts with their revelation. However the Qur'an, and Hadiths and everything produced by Mormonism came after the Bible. They conflict with the Bible. It's not just semantics.

    I'm not saying the Bible is correct because it came first.You can't really think that was the point I was making.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'd love for you to address the fact that one of your most recent posts unambiguously shows you are a moral relativist. It was so funny you posting that given what you tried to say here...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Honestly Marcus, please show me one "point" you raised here besides the bible coming first...

    "The Bible came first. Think carefully about your argument and you can't honestly think that you can just outright reject the Bible, Muhammad, or Mormonism as being the same because they are not. It's easily demonstrable that the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon have errors. However you have not succeeded in pointing out a single falsehood in the Bible. Good luck with that.

    1) The Bible came first. A point!!!

    2) Think carefully about your argument and you can't honestly think that you can just outright reject the Bible, Muhammad, or Mormonism as being the same because they are not. Nothing said here...

    3) It's easily demonstrable that the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon have errors. And yet you don't do this.

    4) However you have not succeeded in pointing out a single falsehood in the Bible. This has been done ad nauseum. You are an idiot. See this for starters.

    5) Good luck with that. Douchyness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pointing out that Kelley Williams-Bolar did not deserve to be in jail or fined more than 30K does not make me moral relativist. The point of the posts about her is that it absolutely evil that in this country the quality of education you have access to should not be depended on how much money you have.

    I can see the points I raised were over your head. So let me restate in words that even you can understand. Rhetorical statements seem lost on you.

    1. You have nothing to offer in rebuttal. Must be the only point you almost understood.

    2. The Bible, Qur'an, and the Book of Mormon are not the same. They don't contain the same information and conflict with each other. Therefore you can't equate their revelations with each other.

    3. I've posted a lot of articles and links on this blog showing that the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon are not true. 'Sides I thought that you would at least agree to that much. If you want to see proof look at the list of labels and read the posts labeled Islam, Mormonism, Book of Mormon, Answering Muslims, and Answering Islam.

    4. You have failed to show that the Bible is wrong. Better people than you have attempted that and failed just as you will continue to.

    5. I'm not conceited. I'm convinced and I know you don't have snow ball's chance in where- you-are-without-Jesus of showing that there is no God 0r that the Bible is wrong. Luck can't help you but I was trying to be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Again, you didn't actually substantiate anything.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You have less than nothing. I provided links to what I was talking about. And you should be ignored because you seem to think the Skeptics Annotated Bible has worthwhile scholarship. It doesn't. It has been addressed by lots of people and not just me. Familiar with it? I pull it up when I want to see a good joke.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And you should be ignored because your a loon. In fact I think I'll start doing that now.

    ReplyDelete
  24. That'd be great. You are commenting on my blog remember? Feel free to ignore what I write. You won't be able to ignore God forever. I hope you take advantage of the grace you have been given and don't end up in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I hope you take advantage of the grace you have been given and don't end up in hell.

    I think deep down you know all of that's not true. Think on this, if Jesus's disciples actually witnessed him perform miracles, would they really have abandoned him? People are willing to fly airplanes into buildings for things they didn't witness. I'm sure you have some defense mechanism against this, but try to really think on it.

    Good bye, your only poster....

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And I thank you for making my job easier, Ryan.

    The question you ask about the disciples and miracles is a simple one. The fact that you can ask it shows that you may never have been born again.

    They abandoned Christ although they had witnessed the miracles for the same reason many of us loose faith and doubt when the going gets tough: human frailty. Same reason why you left (if you were honest).

    You are asking the wrong question. If I were in your shoes, I'd wonder why did they come back? If you had been truly born again, you will be back.

    You may be one who comments a lot but you are by far not my only reader. But we need the comedy relief.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Apples and oranges. You and I never witnessed anyone raise someone from the dead.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete