The Science of Anti-Science Thinking

[Jagella]

Chreistian apologists are fond of making the following two arguments:

1) Science and truth are on their side.
2) If you doubt 1, then you do so because you have a bias against the supernatural.

I'm especially acquainted with 2. Just recently a Christian accused me of stubbornly refusing to believe what he claims about his religion. He sees me as having a bias against the supernatural--his supernatural. It's hard to argue against what he's saying because I cannot prove what biases I do or do not have.

In any case, the feeling is mutual. I see this Christian as having a bias for his beliefs. His bias makes impossible his seeing that his beliefs are false. However, I cannot prove his bias any more than he can prove mine.

So is there any solution to this impasse? Well, it's always very helpful if science is on your side. Despite the claim apologists make in 1, it appears that science is actually on the side of us skeptics. The July 2018 issue of Scientific American includes an article entitled The Science of Anti-Science Thinking. This article deals with the issues of global warming and evolution being denied by Christians who see their beliefs as being challenged by this science. The authors write that simply presenting facts to Christians may backfire due to their propensity to forgo rational decision making in lieu of their cherished beliefs.

Fortunately, psychologists who study thinking patterns have come up with strategies to counter the Christian tendency to take mental shortcuts, reinforce their beliefs, and succumb to pressure from other Christians to believe what they do. One strategy simply involves giving Christians time to consider the reasons that their beliefs are false. Another strategy involves having Christians play the devil's advocate by considering what their opinions would be if evidence that previously appeared to confirm their beliefs had actually contradicted their beliefs. According to the authors, in one study conducted this way Christian bias "suddenly vanished."

So it looks like there is hope in the debate with Christians. Do you share my optimism that reason will prevail?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 9 by Realworldjack]

I think that I clearly articulated that my problem was the fact that, "you made a definite statement that, "his beliefs are false", when you have not in any way demonstrated that they are indeed false."

I did to my satisfaction.

I have three points here. First, DOES Christian bias "prevent people from accepting scientific evidence?" Or, is it that it, "MAY" as you say? You see, there is a huge difference!

I think in many cases Christian bias has definitely prevented people from accepting evidence of any kind. Consider the infamous case of Galileo persecuted by the Christian Inquisition for his heliocentric model of the solar system. He offered to show the evidence to some bishops by allowing them to look through his telescope. Only one of them looked through the telescope, and even he refused to believe what he saw!

This kind of mindlessness is nothing short of dastardly. We need to learn the truth about our world. Such knowledge is essential to our survival. And Christian bias impedes such learning!

Next, would there be scientists who have a bias? Well, I believe that you would have to say that there are, because there are certainly scientists who are Christian, and I would venture to guess, that you would suggest, that their work was bent toward some sort of bias. Would I be correct? Or, do you believe these scientists who are Christian, are able to set any sort of bias they may have aside?

Everybody has a bias. The trick is to be honest enough to overcome it.

And Christians are more than welcome to get involved in science. I'm not sure how biased they might be, but scientific knowledge for anybody can only serve to dispel nonsense.

...are you under the impression that those scientists who are Atheists, would not have any sort of bias?

Again, everybody has a bias. Atheists, however, tend to be free thinkers and have no allegiance to religious dogmas.

The third point I would make here is, do you claim to be immune to any sort of bias? When you were a Christian, did you have a bias? Now that you claim to have rejected Christianity, does this somehow make you immune to bias? Are you under the impression that you, and only those who agree with you, would be immune to bias?

Fortunately, I'm no longer shackled by religious bias, so I'm much freer to fairly assess evidence.

I believe this all goes back to, "not using the mind properly." In other words, there are those who were Christian, and they allowed others to think for them. Once they are no longer Christian, it is not as though they are now thinking for themselves, rather they continue to allow others to think for them.

Citing a scientific article isn't allowing others to think for me. It's assessing evidence. You may post any evidence you have for your position.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 10 by William]

For my own part (not being a Christian) the 'supernatural' would include the Astral Plains which are identified in Abrahamic theology as 'Heaven' 'Purgatory' and 'Hell' and referred to elsewhere as;

Lower: More dark and primal.
Middle: Lighter. 'Rainbows and paradise' vivid colors and exquisite beauty.
Higher: Beyond comprehension (ability to describe using language etc) a pure 'angelic' realm. Where 'angels' reside.

I personally find the heavens posited by religion to be less than enticing. I'd prefer an earthly existence absent of evil with many earthly pleasures.

In any case, it is religion's promise of life eternal (ζωήν αἰώνιον) that can lead to bias. People want so badly to cheat the grave, that they will reject any evidence that they cannot cheat the grave. To overcome such bias, we need to let people know that the promises of religion are empty and that they need to seek hope in this life.

Scientism does have a bias for anything which can be directly verified through scientific methods and generally has a bias against anything which is not amenable to application of the scientific method and standards.

But why believe anything on blind faith? Don't you test for truth all the time? If you were to descend from a cliff using a rope, would you not make darned sure that rope was securely anchored? If you took it on faith, then you probably would not survive to tell the tale.

Isn't 'the proof in the pudding' as to what bias we each have, according to our positions and subsequent expression of those?

I'm not sure if having a position on an issue necessarily demonstrates bias. My positions on various issues are based in evidence and logic. In fact, I have often needed to overcome bias to arrive at what I now accept as true. For example, I needed to overcome my Christian bias to realize that the Bible is the work of people who made up the god therein.

However, I cannot prove his bias any more than he can prove mine.

Then it would be fair of you not to presume his beliefs are necessarily false.

I don't presume his beliefs are false. I know his beliefs are false because I've examined the evidence.

Beliefs are things which cannot be shown to be either true or false.

Actually, some beliefs are easy to falsify. Aristotle believed heavier objects fall more quickly than lighter objects fall. To prove him wrong just drop two objects at the same time! You will see them hit the floor at the same time (assuming the absence of air resistance).

Falsifying prayer works the same way. Just pray, and see if it happens! Discounting coincidence, prayer will fail. Christian bias keeps prayer going because they will insist it still works and will explain away failures as not being God's will or some such nonsense.

Certainly there are some actual claims which are made. I make the claim that I have experienced OOBE, as one example. The fact that my claim is not easily replicated or able to be examined under scientific method and standards might cause concern for practitioners of Scientism, but not for myself.

Such experiences are false on their very faces. If people are out of their bodies, then they have no eyes to see or ears to hear, yet they claim to see and hear things!

Whoops--I never thought of that!

There will be many who are able to incorporate biological evolution into the overall idea of creationism and perhaps this has the effect of making their idea of GOD even more awesome for that?

Theistic evolution is a pseudoscience. I don't think it really helps that much if people see TIMITS as making evolution happen.

So in that, both theists and atheists would be required to cease with their petty arguments and find a solution to global warming regardless of what position of belief they adopt on the question of GOD and the afterlife/supernatural.

Do you see this as even likely?

I don't think it's likely at all that Christians will ever completely embrace science. To really solve the troubles we face we must dispense with superstition.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 11 by Jagella]

I think that I clearly articulated that my problem was the fact that, "you made a definite statement that, "his beliefs are false", when you have not in any way demonstrated that they are indeed false."

I did to my satisfaction.

The fact of the matter is you made no argument at all in the OP concerning how his beliefs were false. Rather, you made a statement that they simply were. Maybe, you can give us your argument, of how his beliefs are wrong, and when you demonstrate your case, then maybe we can shut this site down?

I think in many cases Christian bias has definitely prevented people from accepting evidence of any kind.

It is certainly true, that many, many Christians are blinded by their bias, and will refuse to listen to any sort of reason, and this can be easily demonstrated. Now, what in the world would any of this have to do with, Christianity being true, or false?

However, somehow, you are under the impression, that bias is somehow worse, with Christians, then it would be, with anyone else, as if there are those who are not Christian, demonstrating their open mindedness, everyday?

Consider the infamous case of Galileo persecuted by the Christian Inquisition for his heliocentric model of the solar system. He offered to show the evidence to some bishops by allowing them to look through his telescope. Only one of them looked through the telescope, and even he refused to believe what he saw!

Are you for real? You mean to tell me that you are reaching back that far in an attempt to demonstrate such a thing? I think that I have already admitted that there are many, many Christians who are blinded by their bias.

But the question is, what sort of scientific truths, are Christians today able to suppress? Who are the scientists, who are being persecuted, or attacked by Christians today?

The fact of the matter is, Christians have no control over the truth, or science. Christians have no control over any scientists, demonstrating whatever it is, they can demonstrate. So then, what is your complaint? Why do you care, if there are Christians who refuse to acknowledge, what science has demonstrated?

The fact of the matter is, the truth will eventually come out, just like it did as far as the things Galileo attempted to demonstrate. And since Christians are not in control, then science today, can in no way be hindered, by Christian bias.

The next thing I would ask is, what scientific truths are Christians today, refusing to accept? Can you name one?

This kind of mindlessness is nothing short of dastardly.

No, it is not that, "it IS." Rather, that, "it WAS" and I would agree with you. However, you do understand that this was hundreds of years ago, and the Church was sort of in control at that time, but it is not at this point, and can do absolutely nothing at all, to suppress scientists from presenting the truth.

You see, you may have a point, if Christians had anything at all to do with science, but as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, are not Christian. So how in the world, could Christian bias have any impact at all upon science, other than Christians themselves, maybe not accepting it?

We need to learn the truth about our world.

I agree, and there is absolutely nothing Christian bias can do to affect such learning.

Such knowledge is essential to our survival

Allow me to explain to you that the human race has survived quite some time, without the knowledge we have, today.

And Christian bias impedes such learning!

HOW! Please, explain to us, how in the world Christians can, "impede" the work of science at this point? I mean, even if every Christian in the world was to ignore science, (and this would be nowhere near the case), how could Christians affect such things?

Everybody has a bias. The trick is to be honest enough to overcome it.

Oh? So allow me to assume that, you, and those who agree with you, have learned this "trick" while those of us who are Christians could not possibly master this trick as you have, right?

I will also assume, that when you were a Christian, you did not possess this ability, but somehow when you became an Atheist, you miraculously obtain the knowledge of this trick? Funny how that works, isn't it?

And Christians are more than welcome to get involved in science.

Oh, thanks! I did not know you were in control of that?

I'm not sure how biased they might be, but scientific knowledge for anybody can only serve to dispel nonsense.

So let me guess? Christian beliefs are "nonsense" right? And there cannot possibly be any sort of nonsense in science, right?

Seriously! There are those who simply go from one Church to the other, don't they? The first Church they were in was a Christian Church, but they did not "use the mind properly" and simply listened, and suked in all they were fed.

But hey! Now, I am in the Church of science, and it is perfectly fine for me to "not use my mind properly", because I am just as sure in this new Church, as I was in the first Church, that nothing can go wrong. SO, DILLY, DILLY!

Again, everybody has a bias. Atheists, however, tend to be free thinkers and have no allegiance to religious dogmas.

DILLY DILLY, my friend!

GOOD GRIEF! I cannot even imagine anyone being able to fix their fingers to type such a thing? In other words, when I was a Christian, I just thought I had it going on. But now that I am an Atheist, I know I got it going on, because, we are free thinkers.

Meanwhile, back in the, "real world" there are those of us who understand that there are both Atheists, and Christians, who have the ability to think outside the box. With this being the case, since there are Christians who can think outside what they believe, and continue to remain Christian, this means that it really would not matter, how many Atheists there are, as opposed to how many Christians who would have such an ability, because the fact would remain, that it would be possible for a Christian to really think outside the box, and remain to be a Christian.

However, I do have one question here. How many of these "free minded Atheists", would there be, who would be free minded enough, to understand that there are many good, and solid reasons to believe that Christianity may in fact be true? Notice here, that the question is not, that it is true, but that there are a good number of facts, that well support its claims?

Because you see, as a Christian, I am free minded enough to understand, unbelief. In other words, I am not the type of Christian who claims there is no reason for unbelief, because I understand that, many who doubt, have reason to doubt.

So then, how free is your mind? Is it free enough to understand that while there may be plenty of reasons to be an Atheist, there are also plenty of reasons to believe the reports contained in the Bible? Or, is this too much, and your mind is not that free?

If your mind is not free enough to acknowledge that the other side has reasons for what they believe, then who is it, that really has the freer mind?

Fortunately, I'm no longer shackled by religious bias, so I'm much freer to fairly assess evidence.

This sounds so much like one who just converted to Christianity that I cannot believe it? "I once was lost, but now I am found", right? GOOD GRIEF!

So again, is your mind free enough to understand, and admit, that there are good reasons to believe Christianity may be true? Or, is your mind so shackled by your bias as to blind you to such things? Because I will assure you that I understand the reasons behind unbelief, and I do not insist that those who do not believe, must, and have to be unreasonable. So again, who is it, that has the freer mind?

Citing a scientific article isn't allowing others to think for me. It's assessing evidence.

Be for real! You did not access anything at all? In fact, from what you gave us, there was nothing that was indeed a fact. So, I would not call any of these things, evidence.

You may post any evidence you have for your position.

Well, what I usually do, is to post facts, that I know to be true, in support of the claims I make, and you will usually never see me post anything from anyone else, because I understand that there is bias, and those I am posting to, may have some sort of objection to the person I may cite. Therefore, I usually stay away from such things.

This should indeed demonstrate the one who tends to think for themselves, as opposed to the one who allows others to think for them. In other words, I do not tend to allow others to argue for me.

[Jagella]

First, PLEASE spare me a book-length posted response to what I'm posting here. One short paragraph is sufficient to respond to each of my comments. From your own Bible (Ecclesiastes 5:3):

For a dream comes with much business, and a fool's voice with many words.

[Replying to post 13 by Realworldjack]

Consider the infamous case of Galileo persecuted by the Christian Inquisition for his heliocentric model of the solar system. He offered to show the evidence to some bishops by allowing them to look through his telescope. Only one of them looked through the telescope, and even he refused to believe what he saw!

Are you for real?

What I am is completely irrelevant to the issue of Christian attacks on science and scientists...

...But wait--are you posting an example?

You mean to tell me that you are reaching back that far in an attempt to demonstrate such a thing?

As far as I'm concerned there are no statutes of limitations on persecutions. Christianity will forever be guilty for what it did to Galileo and the truth he had to offer the world.

But the question is, what sort of scientific truths, are Christians today able to suppress? Who are the scientists, who are being persecuted, or attacked by Christians today?

In addition to the opposition to the Theory of Evolution and global warming, many Christians oppose stem-cell research. Stem-cell research holds promise to heal injured spinal cords, and to oppose it harms the many people who must live with spinal-cord injury.

The fact of the matter is, Christians have no control over the truth, or science. Christians have no control over any scientists, demonstrating whatever it is, they can demonstrate. So then, what is your complaint? Why do you care, if there are Christians who refuse to acknowledge, what science has demonstrated?

Many politicians, honestly or not, tend to kowtow to voters most of whom are Christians. For example, our president, a Christian, denies the evidence for global warming. When elected officials oppose science this way, it may give the public the false impression that some scientific theories are wrong. It might also result in funding cuts to important scientific research. We cannot gamble with our future this way. The human species faces threats like never before, and it would be the ultimate folly for us to endure a global disaster because we acted like fools preferring comforting religious myths to solid scientific evidence.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

So it looks like there is hope in the debate with Christians. Do you share my optimism that reason will prevail?

No. I do not think reason will prevail; at least not for many many years from now.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

So it looks like there is hope in the debate with Christians. Do you share my optimism that reason will prevail?

No. I do not think reason will prevail; at least not for many many years from now.

I try to be optimistic, and it seems that secularism is winning. For example, skeptic Michael Shermer has written that atheism is on the rise in America.

So what's a Christian apologist to do? I'd recommend working in home-health care.

[historia]

Fortunately, psychologists who study thinking patterns have come up with strategies to counter the Christian tendency to take mental shortcuts, reinforce their beliefs, and succumb to pressure from other Christians to believe what they do. One strategy simply involves giving Christians time to consider the reasons that their beliefs are false.

. . . .

Do you share my optimism that reason will prevail?

Let's test this hypothesis.

A couple of months ago in the Mental-Illness Theory of Religion thread, you yourself strenuously denied the scientific findings regarding religious adherence and positive mental health. Since that evidence contradicted your prior ideological position, you disparaged the results of over 700 peer-reviewed psychological studies, calling them "pop-psychology" and a "pack of lies."

Now that you've had time to think about it, are you ready to admit that this evidence is compelling and your objections to it the result of ideological bias?

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Jagella]

I personally find the heavens posited by religion to be less than enticing. I'd prefer an earthly existence absent of evil with many earthly pleasures.

In any case, it is religion's promise of life eternal (ζωήν αἰώνιον) that can lead to bias. People want so badly to cheat the grave, that they will reject any evidence that they cannot cheat the grave. To overcome such bias, we need to let people know that the promises of religion are empty and that they need to seek hope in this life.

The problem with this need - I suppose I mentioned it in my first post in this thread - is that you have the alternate reality against you and this has always been the case in relation to atheism vs theism.

The jumping the gun by attempting to use science to back up the idea that this alternate reality does not exist 'except as a brain hallucination' isn't doing the trick and even if it could somehow do the trick - say by use of drugs which might inhibit the ability for people to have the experiences - that would not stop people who die from having the experience if indeed the alternate reality was real and not a brain hallucination.

I think you are being far too simplistic in relation to why you think people believe in life after death "because people so badly want to cheat the grave" but I also think there is going to be a time when the grave will no longer be a thing to worry about, and that it is science which is leading humanity towards this eventuality.
In that, the will to 'cheat the grave' is not simply a theist-based prompting, but something which is part of the total human experience regardless of philosophical position. That scientists are working toward that end shows me that 'cheating the grave' as you put it is more the ambition of the secular world than the ambition of those who's focus includes the spiritual.

The theist perspective will undoubtedly have those types who fit under the heading "people who so badly want to cheat the grave" but I think it is an instinctive quality in which humans intrinsically know that there is more to life than death, and that not everything is going to be peaches and cream for everyone in relation to the next phase of experience.

But why believe anything on blind faith?

Is it all only a matter of blind faith though? Obviously that is your bias, but is it even realistic?
Indeed, if there is more to experience for the individual after the body has died, is it not at least equally a matter of 'blind faith' to believe that there isn't, based on one's interpretation of scientific data this side of the black stump?

And what of the 'faith' part? Generally it is about faith in the belief that one will not have to endure some/any of the horrors which are experienced as real to which thousands of people have reported happening in the next phase - and these reports have been around as long as humans have existed and are embedded into the folklore of cultures which way back when, were separate from one another but told such similar stories. That alone provides a big hint that there is more to this than 'glorified brain-farts.'

The faith is not blind but specific.

Isn't it rather more the case of blind faith to believe one will not have to experience anything in the way of 'heavens' or 'hells' based upon scientific reports that interpret data related to consciousness as being something intricately emergent from brains?

Blind faith in the interpretations of scientism and the subsequent derision of religious 'superstitious' beliefs from that sector. Certainly there is a direct relation to bias in regard to that.

Don't you test for truth all the time?

Example me one truth and how to test it.

If you were to descend from a cliff using a rope, would you not make darned sure that rope was securely anchored? If you took it on faith, then you probably would not survive to tell the tale.

This could be used by a theist as an adequate analogy of someone putting blind faith in what scientism claims about the subject of life after death.

I'm not sure if having a position on an issue necessarily demonstrates bias.

Perhaps. But is it truthfully about individual 'issues' or more about the underlying basis for which one takes position on every issue which comes up in relation to the underlying basis?

My positions on various issues are based in evidence and logic.

My point entirely, with in mind the 'evidence and logic' is the catch-cry of scientism which tends to insert itself into subjects which are not based in the logic of physical reality alone. How is it 'logical' to do that? Yet every attempt is made to do that!

In fact, I have often needed to overcome bias to arrive at what I now accept as true. For example, I needed to overcome my Christian bias to realize that the Bible is the work of people who made up the god therein.

I have done similar process and 'behold' I am still a theist and appreciate science for its place in the scheme of things and don't use it to try and argue against most theological concepts.
Indeed any which show positively that something did not occur to which theist stories make claims did occur, such as a world-wide flood, I can regard as made up. I don't bother trying to argue the issue with Christians, because I know that the stories are only part of why they believe as they do.

I don't presume his beliefs are false. I know his beliefs are false because I've examined the evidence.

No. You claim his beliefs are false. You did not go into what those beliefs are, mind you. You simply generalize it as being based in the 'supernatural'.

Beliefs are things which cannot be shown to be either true or false.

Actually, some beliefs are easy to falsify. Aristotle believed heavier objects fall more quickly than lighter objects fall. To prove him wrong just drop two objects at the same time! You will see them hit the floor at the same time (assuming the absence of air resistance).

When I wrote the above, I thought it might be challenged as you have done, but decided to leave it as is because you were specifically speaking about the bias of supernatural beliefs rather than beliefs which are able to be tested here in the now of the physical world.

In that I was referring to the types of beliefs you were referring to. If you wish to switch tracks now, then 'I wish you well with your journey'.

Such experiences are false on their very faces. If people are out of their bodies, then they have no eyes to see or ears to hear, yet they claim to see and hear things!

Whoops--I never thought of that!

Then it is feasible that consciousness in not dependent on a physical body in which to experience being.

Things happen in the physical reality which we cannot explain. Why should this be different re any other reality?

Theistic evolution is a pseudoscience. I don't think it really helps that much if people see TIMITS as making evolution happen.

Your fixation on TIMITS isn't helpful as there are many other ideas of GOD which don't have a being sitting on a throne in the clouds.

For example, this post as well as this post.

I don't think it's likely at all that Christians will ever completely embrace science. To really solve the troubles we face we must dispense with superstition.

Well when it comes to black cats and walking under ladders, sure. But when it is asserted that there is nothing to this alternate reality (aka 'supernatural') one will definitely have extreme problems convincing those who have experienced such, that they are just being 'superstitious'.
When it comes to Abramite claims which can be tested and shown to be false, by all means do ones best to convince the believers but remember while you do that the things which you can show evidence against are not enough to convince the believers that GOD doesn't exist and that afterlife is a fable.

Often these things are conflated and individual Christians seem to have this kind of thinking that not to believe everything the bible tells them is the same as not believing in GOD or afterlife, so with that, they are hardly likely to budge when presented with secular science and scientism who's members actively are trying to get them to not believe in a world-wide flood or a 6 thousand y/o universe, but also that ANY idea of GOD (their's or others) is 'superstition' etc...

Somewhere along the line those who teach the importance of logic have to come to the conclusion that it is illogical to think they can convert all the Abramites or any and all other theists for that matter to atheism/scientism.

[Jagella]

Fortunately, psychologists who study thinking patterns have come up with strategies to counter the Christian tendency to take mental shortcuts, reinforce their beliefs, and succumb to pressure from other Christians to believe what they do. One strategy simply involves giving Christians time to consider the reasons that their beliefs are false.

. . . .

Do you share my optimism that reason will prevail?

Let's test this hypothesis.

A couple of months ago in the Mental-Illness Theory of Religion thread, you yourself strenuously denied the scientific findings regarding religious adherence and positive mental health. Since that evidence contradicted your prior ideological position, you disparaged the results of over 700 peer-reviewed psychological studies, calling them "pop-psychology" and a "pack of lies."

Now that you've had time to think about it, are you ready to admit that this evidence is compelling and your objections to it the result of ideological bias?

I've enlarged the word "you" in the quotation above to underscore that I am coming under personal attack. Personal attacks are illogical because in most cases they have nothing to do with the issue under discussion. In this case the scientific study of Christian bias is the issue, and any alleged denial of scientific evidence on my part on a completely different thread is totally irrelevant to the issue on this thread.

In any case, we have here an example of the Christian tendency to take mental shortcuts, reinforce their beliefs, and succumb to pressure from other Christians to believe what they do. The "mental shortcut" here is the personal attack. This illogical screed is an instance of the bias mentioned in the magazine article I cited in the OP.

So hist, please get back to the issue and answer the question for debate clearly posted in the OP: Do you share my optimism that reason will prevail?

[PinSeeker]

ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!

You personally attacked him, historia!!!! You called him a... a... a... a "YOU"!!!! How dare you call him a "YOU"!!! Oh my GAWD!!! You attacked him!!! OH MY GAWD!!! I mean, never mind that it had devolved into a one-on-one conversation. You called him a "YOU"! OH. MY. GAWD!!!!



Hilarious. You turned his own words on him, and that's all he had. Hilarious.