Self Deception
Objectivity takes Practice
We like to think we objectively evaluate facts and come to reasonable conclusions. A suggestion from another that we might be biased on a topic is taken as an insult. Well we all have biases and it takes awareness and effort to keep them in check. It is too easy to hear only what we want to hear and ignore that which contradicts our desires.
Jim Carrey (in his role of simpleton Lloyd Christmas) illustrates this phenomenon:
Although this is a funny exaggeration, it does show how ridiculous we can be.
Confirmation Bias
The illustrated phenomenon is known as confirmation bias. Those of us who spend time on social media sites observe this all the time. One often finds this in areas where one holds deeply held positions such as with politics and religion.
Headlines that favor your candidate(s) or party are as true (or false) as those that brutally attack candidates of the ' other side '. The flaws in the unfavorable news are ' immediately obvious', but favorable news is typically accepted without challenge. How many political aficionados are genuinely skeptical about ' good news ' and postpone belief until the claim is reasonably scrutinized? If the news is in support of our beliefs we are likely to accept it without challenge and if it clashes with our beliefs we are likely to be highly skeptical (or simply reject it outright).
A popular method for evaluating a PotUS is to look at economic factors. The better the economy, the better the PotUS. But only if the PotUS is of the appropriate party. D’s for example view the Trump economy as a carryover from the Obama economy while the R’s give full credit to Trump and blame Obama for doubling the national debt. In reality, a PotUS has very little influence over positive growth in our economy. People often recognize facts that support their political positions and ignore those that counter their desires.
The Bible is the most popular religious book ever. And it has been used (and abused) for much of history to get God to endorse a particular position. That is, the Bible can and is read with confirmation bias. An interesting comparison is the clash of interpretation between the Young Earth and the Old Earth creationists (YECs and OECs, respectively). YECs interpret the Bible literally and, per Archbishop Ussher ’s ancient analysis, hold that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. They use this as a defining principle to reinterpret science. They reject all scientific dating methods and hold positions such as human beings coexisted with dinosaurs, the Grand Canyon was formed by forces of Noah's flood and that biochemical evolution is a worldwide conspiracy of godless scientists. In contrast, OECs apply so much poetic license to the Bible that one can only shake one’s head. The Genesis creation account, for example, includes the repeated use of ‘day’, 'night', 'light', 'darkness', ‘Evening came, and morning followed’, sun and moon as 'two great lights', etc. to clearly indicate 24-hour periods (a day as an ancient human being would perceive it in terms of light and darkness and observed celestial changes). Yet, in direct opposition to this, OECs will argue that 'day' as used in this text is an indeterminate period of time that is more likely an epoch and certainly not a 24-hour day.
In both cases we have individuals reading what they want to read: cherry-picking and playing fast and loose with semantics. They will have the Bible say what they wish no matter what.
Cognitive Dissonance
Thing is, human beings are typically much smarter than that. Even the most adamantly stated positions are often privately reconsidered: ‘ Am I really correct here? ’.
In the privacy of the mind most rational people will second guess their positions. Trump supporters must somehow reconcile the profoundly unpresidential, dishonest style of Trump with what they believe he is accomplishing for the good. YECs must constantly deal with the fact that biochemical evolution is continually tested worldwide through many dimensions (the most recent being genetics and DNA) and continues to hold true as one of the soundest theories of modern science.
The human mind can (remarkably) hold several contradictory thoughts without going insane. But the contradiction is still uncomfortable … disconcerting. This discomfort is known in psychology as Cognitive Dissonance.
We try to reduce our Cognitive Dissonance by finding a way to make one of the competing thoughts dominant. If one is concerned that the God of the Bible never offered divine wisdom on the morality of slavery (indeed the opposite followed by centuries of continued slavery) yet is perfect and omniscient, one might resolve the dissonance by deciding it is more likely that God is good and that God has a very good (but unknown to us) reason for never providing moral instruction on slavery.
In response to Trump’s failure to achieve his primary campaign promise of a border wall —and have Mexico pay for it—, one might downplay what is either utter naivety or gross incompetence and give him unearned credit for ‘ trying’ . The dominant campaign pledge is downplayed and any small accomplishment is exaggerated.
In short, we often kid ourselves using tools such as confirmation bias and other forms of self-deception to find positions that bring us comfort even if those positions are ultimately at odds with facts and/or reason. Self-deception seems to be a natural feature of the human mind.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is a mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which one consciously imposes intellectual discipline to improve objectivity and correctness.
It is our nature to be biased — evidenced by the fact that bias is so difficult to avoid or even to detect. We naturally tend to not think critically. Our emotions often lead us to conclude that which is preferable or comfortable. We tend to not strictly follow the evidence to wherever it leads. Critical thinking is a skill and this skill requires practice and effort (and, crucially, recognition of the importance of being objective).
Scientific Method
An ideal venue for critical thinking is modern science. The scientific method imposes a systemic discipline designed to improve the quality of its results by mitigating the natural biases of the human agents (the scientists). And it works. Science is a highly critical method in which the individual researcher consciously tries to falsify his/her findings – aggressively trying to find the flaw in the research. The motivation is clear, nobody wants the humiliation of fellow scientists exposing flaws. In science, one cannot bullshit the evidence or the math (for long) and one does not get a pass for being famous. Indeed, the more famous the scientist, the more career benefit to the individual who exposes a flaw. This is true systemic motivation for critical thinking.
Everyday Thoughts
There is (one would think) obvious value in being disciplined in one's thought process just like the idealized scientist. Before drawing a conclusion, it makes good sense to ensure the conclusion is based on solid evidence (not just a wish or an emotion) and that the analysis is not polluted by personal bias or cultural conditioning. Borrowing from the scientific method we should all be our own devil's advocate. We should be able to state, with evidence, why we hold a particular viewpoint (or belief).
- Why do I hold the position that the human release of Carbon into the atmosphere is not contributing to a climate problem?
- Why do I hold that abortion (at whatever stage you wish to investigate) is wrong?
- Why do I hold that homosexuality is not natural (a biochemical consequence) but rather a conscious choice?
If one is using critical thinking skills, then answers to questions like these would not have anything to do with emotion or the parroting of another human being's words. They would not be based upon the credibility of a famous person or because of words in the Bible or Qur'an. Critical thinking employs disciplined reasoning and semantics based upon well-scrutinized evidence (data).
If we are interested in drawing the highest quality conclusions, it is in our best interest to develop the discipline to suppress emotions and desires (and indeed beliefs) and literally follow the evidence to wherever it leads (good or bad).
An inconvenient truth is, in my opinion, superior to a reassuring lie.
Tags
Who is online
393 visitors
Every now and then it is good to publish a general perspective article.
Thank you so much for this article. Well done and much needed.
Thanks Dulay.
It is good and also necessary. Well done as usual TiG.
Much appreciated Gordy.
Wow, an anti Trump and anti Christian seed within the same article. Congrats...
Is this trolling or do you honestly think that this article was written to bash Trump and Christianity? If you truly think that then I suggest you practice objectivity and read what I wrote.
"Trump supporters must somehow reconcile the profoundly unpresidential, dishonest style of Trump with what they believe he is accomplishing for the good. "
This line did not seem objective and sounded like somebody with a negative confirmation bias against president Trump and his supporters.
It is my opinion that Trump is profoundly unpresidential. Do you need evidence of this from me to understand why I might objectively come to that conclusion? Further it is my opinion that Trump is publicly dishonest. Do you not see how I could objectively come to that conclusion?
Apparently you did not read the article carefully. Confirmation bias involves picking (cherry-picking) only the parts one wishes to believe and ignoring facts to the contrary. My conclusions have supporting evidence; evidence that anyone who has observed Trump as PotUS should immediately recognize. For example, it is in my opinion profoundly unpresidential to make personal, gratuitous, derogatory tweats about individuals. And if you are unaware of dishonesty by Trump then the first of many sources I will give you is this .
Finally, this article was not about Trump. You and HA come here and ignore everything I wrote and instead focus on mere examples I have provided to clarify points made in the article. Who is cherry-picking here?
Your cartoon is apt for something Jesus said. The road to destruction is wide and is heavily travelled while the path to salvation is narrow. Your theaters are perfect for describing the saved and the lost.
See, HA, that is why people challenge you. Labeling all those who do not believe as you do as 'lost'. Christians are a minority in the world. Your particular belief system is a subset of Christianity. What you just wrote is arrogant and very offensive.
…narrower than the minds of those who are haughty enough to think they walk it.
Most excellent seed! Thank you!
Logical fallacies, be damned too!
Thanks Robin.
For many on NT, ''don't need no stinking facts'' is the motto of the day/week/month/year/decade.
Worse are those that insist that the facts aren't facts, lies are truth and then demand that we all go along with it to protect their fragile psyche.
The whole 'It wasn't Russia it was Ukraine' delusion is a good example. No matter how many experts [the deep state] document what actually happened, the GOP say: 'But isn't it possible...'.
They actually pursued that line of questioning ad nauseam during the depositions of multiple witnesses. In some cases, it was embarrassing just how conspiratorial the GOP questioning became. They were shot down at every turn yet I have no doubt that they will do it again in the open hearings.
I saw the list of 'witnesses' that the GOP requested and can't help but note that they avoided Dr. Fiona Hill like the plague. Mike Flynn brought Dr. Hill into the Trump NSC, yet she read the GOP the riot act in her testimony. The fact that they want to hear from Nellie Ohr but not Dr. Hill leads me to believe that the GOP is practicing 'confirmation bias' in their choice of who they want to testify in public.
I wag my head. I am ashamed for the GOP. This is so futile. Once again, they want to 'clown' on a set of hearings—even drive the public to give up and tune-out. On Sunday AM Joy there is a segment where she talks with a guest about the polling of White Evangelical Christians who are standing and agreeing with Donald Trump through every lie he tells showing no signs of relenting to the truth even when it is presented in 'black and white' pages! Talk about self-deception!
First of all, to take anything on Joy Reid as objective is to disdain truth and objectivity.
Secondly and ignored repeatedly by leftists is the fact that Conservative Evangelicals have no better option than to support President Trump who has from day one, implemented and/or championed the positions we support.
There is not a single Democrat either running for president or in Congressional leadership who agrees with ANY of our positions.
Tell us CB why we would ever support people who are diametrically opposed to everything we believe in?
AM Joy (Joy Reid and her guests)? Let's just not go there together. We're likely get nowhere.
'Leftists'? Hold on, LFOD, you started that sentence wrong! I am not going to dignify that. Shame, because now I can't delve into the rest of the sentence.
Well, the questioning can go like this:
Now. Now. Separate and apart from democrats, that begs the question:
A. How come Donald Trump even became the 'last man standing' in 2016 for the Republican Party. He was lying through clenched teeth even then.
NOTE: This is Tig's article. Let's not delve too deep or too long without politely inquiring of the article writer about overindulging in politics.
Tig, what say you?
Well as you can tell I am not a stickler for staying directly on topic but, since you asked, I would prefer people discuss what I wrote or at least something near to what I wrote.
as if the whole proceedings aren’t Adam Schiff’s confirmation bias.
Like I have said many times, Bullshit is for sale every day and it's up to us to decide what bullshit belongs to us.
Their kind of bullshit was exposed long ago. I'm not buying. I'll stick with empirical evidence based on facts. Not hyperbole. Not superstition. Certainly not hell, fire and brimstone brow-beating seeds that get posted here damn near daily. As IF they think that helps their cause.
I'm not afraid of the wrath of their sociopathic god in life or death.
So, you are telling us there really is a real chance the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really real? I just knew it!
Ramen!
( Confirmation/bias )
Sure. Just saw a brief interview with several young college girls attending the Alabama--LSU game. All are for Trump. All had their Trump buttons pinned to their shirts.
Do these young lady's realize that another 'Kavanaugh or two' on the Supreme Court may jeopardize their right to use birth control? Not to mention Coal Ash into the streams and rivers?
And we are not 'social beings'. Not anymore.
Are you demonstrating confirmation bias intentionally?
No, simply stating past writings by Kavanaugh and others from The Federalist list.
Citation?
C'mon. Is the right wing really that hapless?
The implication that Brett Kavanaugh would rule to outlaw birth control is raving batshit lunacy until proven otherwise.
Isn't it about time you prove something?
You said, "Batshit lunacy." Alright. Prove it.
There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Brett Kavanaugh would ever rule to outlaw birth control. The fact that you have no citation, can offer no evidence, and have tried to go on the offensive is fairly substantial evidence that even you realize your statement was batshit lunacy but are too stubborn to walk back from it.
The phrase 'batshit lunacy' doesn't really fully describe how ridiculous the statement was. It's almost "need a helmet to keep from licking the windows" insane. It easily measures 12 calicos on the Crazy Cat Lady scale.
"It is too easy to hear only what we want to hear and ignore that which contradicts our desires."
You mean....folks are actually "Human" and not some kinda "AI Borg Robot" ?
And that's a bad thing ?
"Well we all have biases and it takes awareness and effort to keep them in check."
Gosh....not "Everyone" get's government funding to sit back and just "Research" and "Think". Even those types get questioned on thier "Fill-In-The-Blanks "Research everyday !
Must one be paid to think?
Aren't we all paid to think ?
Some just get more than others.
Some are. And some are paid to do, without thinking.
And some seem to resent thinking, and thinkers.
And which would those be ?
The dumb and dumber video really hits home with me. I found myself almost the exact same situation with a girl. My initial attempts to date her were met with a similar response as the video except my gal said absolutely no not a chance. But I could see a twinkle in her eye and I maintained that positive attitude that I could make this happen. Within a month she was mine.
Cognitive Dissonance is a big thing with me.
Example: Vegans will not eat meat, yet many vegans are pro-choice. So why is it not OK to eat an unfertilized chicken egg, but OK to abort a human?
Some vegans I know see it as a matter of animal exploitation, not just a matter of killing animals. They won't consume dairy or honey, either, even though milk cows and bees aren't killed to obtain milk or honey.
Most laying hens, dairy cattle, and bees are taken fairly good care of by their keepers, so this always seemed a bit misguided to me. Some people see their chickens almost as pets. Stressed dairy cattle don't give as much milk. And beekeepers are usually pretty protective of their hives.
Exacty Sandy. My uncle had an egg farm and those hens well so well taken care of. Totally free range, before there was a term for it and the same went for the 4 dairy cows he kept for milk. They were even protective of him.
Well there you have it. You formed your view based on an educated perspective. But huge numbers of people don't know a steer from a bull. That doesn't stop them from believing what they think will help them fit in with their social group, no matter how erroneous it is.
Group think.
In the terminology used to describe the sex and age of cattle, the male is first a bull calf and if left intact becomes a bull; if castrated he becomes a steer and in about two or three years grows to an ox . The female is first a heifer calf, growing into a heifer and becoming a cow .
Easy enough: Look it up! That way their social group can fit in better with all the other groups! (Smile.)
I am not a vegan. However, I believe part of the issue of avoiding animal products is because vegans feel the animals are being mistreated. That is why vegans do not consume products like milk, butter, and cheese.
Hopefully, you follow the proper cleanliness routine after doing so...
For what?
There is animal-friendly farming. Cows don't mind being milked and chickens just lay eggs.
I was raised on a dairy farm. A percentage of cows do "mind" being milked. That is why we put metal bands with a chain in the middle on their back legs. Sometimes the cows fought the kickers until they lost footing and fell on the floor. Because their head was fastened into a stanchion, they could choke to death if they could not regain their feet or be released from the stanchion.
As for conditions in commercial laying houses, I believe most people would be appalled at the confinement of the hens.
and
Without consumers and a profit motive for farmers, these animals would not exist.
Not at all. I have lived on a farm the majority of my life. I am not a fan of the mistreatment of animals. I have seen a lot of it.
I was almost a vegetarian as a child because I not only knew where my hamburger came from, I had petted it, fed it and looked into its dark luminous eyes when it was a living breathing creature.
I have the advantage (and the heartache) of experiencing both sides of this issue.
Mocowgirl,
I don't deny that this goes on in commercial farms, but there are many farms that are animal friendly. It just costs more. From a health POV, humans need animal protein and milk and eggs are a good way of getting it without hurting animals.
My point is that that many vegans who care so much about a chickens egg, are pro-choice and this is cognitive dissonance. If you are a vegan, you should be also pro life to be consistent.
Btw, in no way am I advocating for either.
Now I see your point clearer. It being that if a vegan cares about eggs, they should care about human eggs as well. Well, why didn't you say so in the beginning. (LOL! Love ya!)
This speaks to the larger issue of this discussion. Our life is about a many different set of variables, mostly due to the nature of flesh itself. There is a difference in what we consume internally and what we take care to house, feed, grow, develop, teach, and love (for a lifetime).
Therefore, the "human condition" is not capable of 100% logic or reason, is it?
Hi Perrie! It is the same as a matter of choice. While a vegan may see an unfertilized chicken egg as in the flesh category, they can at the same time hold a human egg as being flesh in the privacy category. This is how Chief Justice Harry Blackmun understood it in his majority opinion of Roe vs. Wade (1973). I am not vegan, by the way!
Hi CB,
From a scientific POV, and unfertilized egg is nothing more than a protein and the same for milk.
yea, but is it high in cholesterol...?
A qualifier? Is the vegan using the "scientific POV"? From what I can quickly glean on the subject of veganism, such persons abstain from the use of animal substances or animal parts (in a strict fashion). That is, they will not ingest any substance which comes from animal lifeforms, sell animals as a commodity, or care for animals as a producer in varying degrees.
True telling: Last Saturday while in Home Depot I 'encountered' an interesting life-form on one of the aisles. It was quite shocking, bold, interesting, and possibly life-changing at some point—all. This man, who kept dispersing Hawaiian phrases throughout his sentences, wandered pass me and pulled me out of my thoughts and the song I was humming as it played over the store speakers. He 'opened' with something along the lines of, 'I'm in good health and see no lines (wrinkles) on my face.' I responded, "Oh?" To which he launched into telling me about how he does not eat meat (left it behind), drinks distilled water, and the effect can be seen on how clear his face and skin is. Amused, I just listened politely and interjected only cordially. At one point I became mildly alarmed and asked, "Do you see lines and wrinkles on my face?" Trying to gather info on why he was addressing me to begin with! LOL.
After a short expense of our mutual time he and his cart moved on. It did leave me wandering if I could, should, would entertain cutting meat out of my diet. (I don't eat a whole lot as it is already. For food is not a big "hobby" for me.)
Life is funny, though in its "small world" moments. Here I am today talking about veganism with you guys!
And that is the other 'shoe' of vegetarian/veganism: They do not ingest anything that has/had a face!
Dear Perrire, with all due respect, I don't think it's a conundrum at all. I've yet to see a vegan state they've aborted their own fertilized eggs, although its probably happened. Like most people, we evolve to who we are today through trial and error and ideas that come to us.
I'm pro-choice, but I would have never aborted myself. A personal decision. Like myself, I would think most vegans are "pro-leave everyone else to their own choices." Generally speaking, it's a "mind your own business when someone else's choice has zero bearing on you." There isn't a logical case in the world that can argue how anyone else's reproductive rights effect them. Its mostly religious mythology that is at the helm of wanting to control other's bodies and bedrooms. You know, the same ones who spout "God hates fags." Yet, many of those zealots have no qualms sexually abusing children and teens, or raping women when they think no one else is looking.
I think that in my freshman year of high school it hit me that I had been lied to. I started getting a very queasy feeling when I read the book "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee". That lead me into too many books to list, all too many that proved to me that indeed, what I thought was true was mostly bullshit but I had bought into it hook, line and sinker.
The history that I was taught was all from the POV of 'Europeans' heralding the religious concept of 'Manifest Destiny'. Oh how pissed off I was with myself for being so trusting and naïve. I have endeavored never to be so easily fooled ever again. It has caused me to question 'facts' no matter WHO asserts them and to get as much information as I can about the issues. Yet I would be that last person to pretend that I'm unbias or know ALL of the facts.
Did or did not the Obama Administration have great influence over positive growth in and out of the 200x recession, based on administration policies and activities? See chart:
Note: This thought is pulled from the article content. The response could be concise or a simple yes or no, nevertheless. I do not desire any full-flow political discussion here.
Briefly (since this, as you note, is not the topic), our economy is cyclic and extremely complex. The branches of government can do harm but have little positive influence over the economy. The Fed has the most influence and even then they have a very blunt force tool.
When we have a recession we are in a down cycle which then enables a future up cycle whose euphoria and excess will trigger another down cycle ...
So, in essence, any PotUS after Bush who did not harm the economy (it is indeed possible for government to harm the economy) would have presided over its growth. Similarly, Trump has benefited from being PotUS during a time of economic growth. Our next PotUS, however, will likely not have so much luck and will be blamed for it.
I do understand there are complexities to economies. I hear about it often enough. I'll just leave it at that.
Barring those 'basketcases' whom for eons have exploited the ancient books of the Bible to mislead and misguide spiritual people, why might scientists like Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. James Touring . . .
Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear.
So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.
As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the physical resurrection is an atypical example where God works beyond the normally observed physical laws of science in order to accomplish his purposes. Therefore it’s called a miracle. And thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.
. . . have developed a reasonable faith in God?
Good question. There are and have been all sorts of brilliant minds who believe in gods (of various kinds) sans any evidence. Dr. Collins (whom I admire as a scientist) notes that his epiphany which led to his faith was seeing a frozen waterfall divided into three parts . That symbol of the Trinity was the defining event, per him, of his faith:
Don't know, CB, what actually was going on in the man's mind or why he continues to believe. This is more common than not (more people are religious than not) so I remain curious as to why. But the prevalence of worldwide religious belief is no argument that the belief is the result of critical thinking and that it is not a consequence of our culture, DNA, hormones, environmental influences and current body chemistry. Read up on behavioral biology and you will get a deeper appreciation for how little influence our frontal cortex has on our behavior. Critical thinking is difficult and the promises of religion routinely overpower critical thinking when it comes to religion.
You never seem to understand that religious belief is not only not based on "logic", but CANNOT be.
Religious belief is inherently connected to acceptance of a supernatural realm. The supernatural is by definition beyond the ability of (natural) science and logic to explain.
People can be both logical and scientific, and believe in God, but those people accept that the two cannot really be reconciled. Two different things.
Of course I understand that religious belief is not based on logic. It is faith based - belief sans evidence.
Yes, John, that is common knowledge.
The question of religious belief is not so simplistic as you seem to think. And your presumption of my understanding of same is incorrect.
The question is why people accept without evidence supernatural reality that other mere human beings have claimed exist (but throughout history have never provided a shred of supporting evidence).
I suspect at the core it is based on the desirability of the belief. We do tend to accept more readily the 'truth' we prefer and resist the 'truth' we dislike. (See my article for details.)
If everyone used "logic" 100% of the time would the world be a better or worse place?
You so relentlessly demand that people use logic in every situation that it is almost like you don't see the forest for the trees.
I understand why you don't think people should be prisoners of belief in the Bible.
But all the Bible really is is a record of a people's efforts to understand their position in relation to the powers that created their existence. Yes, they were primitive and yes the books are filled with logical error. So what?
It is possible to believe in Christianity and not be a fundamentalist that wants to curtail the rights of others. Many people live that way every day.
You mean to suppress all emotion?? Like no love, friendship, empathy, etc? No, John, that is not what I mean by supporting critical thinking. I am talking about reasoning. Specifically, I posit that it is superior to make decisions based on facts and objective analysis rather than accept as truth that which one simply wishes to be true.
I suggest you quit trying to presume how I think. So far you are doing a crappy job; also your presumption suggests that I am unaware of some of the most basic notions about reasoning and faith. In short, I do not appreciate the lack of intellectual credit you are giving me.
That is your interpretation. Others take the Bible as the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God who is the arbiter of objective morality.
Well, here is the 'so what': the errors of the Bible are strong evidence that it is not the word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God. Ergo, the Bible is not divine. The problem is that far too many people interpret this ancient book as divine (same with the Qur'an).
I have oft suggested that Christians should view the Bible as a quaint reflection of ancient mores, values and beliefs. To use it as inspiration (it does have wisdom) and to appreciate the history it provides (a glimpse into ancient times in terms of religious beliefs). But to not take it literally and certainly not take it as divine. Instead, if one is inclined to believe that there must be a higher power then go with that. Use modern knowledge to better understand this higher power through that which it is believed to have created. This is in contrast to reading ancient words and coming to the conclusion that, for example, homosexuality goes against the will of God.
I could go on but you should get the drift from this.
True. Again, you felt compelled to state the obvious.
Lots of things are considered emotions. For example, the 'gut reaction' that we sometimes feel (or what we call intuition) is not necessarily emotional. It could very well be distilled wisdom from years of experience that has been accumulated through reason.
But emotions such as love, sadness, happiness, etc. are not logical in the sense that I use the term. They are not the result of reasoning through facts to a conclusion. More of a reaction than reason.
Actually, the two can be reconciled. Done so by having an understanding that all has not been revealed to our senses. There are 'matters' about our universe which do not lend themselves to our five senses:
Gravity. Which of our five senses is affected by it? Still, very real indeed.
Childhood indoctrination is very powerful.
I am a naturally curious person and have endless questions. However, as a child, I was taught to never ever question anything about god because he didn't tolerate having his "Word" questioned and would send me to Hell for eternity.
I don't know how adults, who were raised with no knowledge of religion, choose a religion. I don't know if it is possible to be raised in the US without having at least a passing acquaintance with the Christian religion because of the national observance of Christmas, Easter (if only the Easter Bunny), the anti-Halloween crusade, and the continual fight about separation of church and state.
I just watched the following video. The caller reminds me of the society that I was raised in and still live in. She is frightened to even explain why she is a believer because she believes doing so is "sinful" and will make god angry.
It's very familiar to me, too.
No doubt the biggest influence of all time. And it is easy to see why it works. What is not so obvious is the conversion to religion as an adult. Also, the inexplicable defense of the belief based on faith in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Initially, I grieved the loss of my belief system because it had been a part of my daily life for over 5 decades. Within six months, I felt calmer, more content and more at peace with life than I ever had when I was a Christian.
Religion lessened the value of this life - the only life that I was guaranteed to experience.
Religion made me susceptible to mental and physical abuse by predators who knew how to use religion to manipulate and/or justify their abuse. I no longer have to struggle with putting up with those people in my life on any level.
How about you?
In older people, I see it as covering all of the bases just in case there is an afterlife.
With some people, I see it as a manipulative tool to demand a clean slate for their transgressions against others. I have read that many felons find Jesus in prison.
With others, loneliness may drive them to seek out an imaginary friend that is socially acceptable to others in their area. Or some people go through the motions of being a believer in order to have social contacts or avoid fights with loved ones, or just not be shunned if they life in a highly religious area.
I never grieved the loss of religion. It was just a relief.
Those last few sentences from Godless Iowan really struck home with me - the ones about fear of condemnation for sins you didn't even know you'd committed, and the ones about how wretched we are without God. I never attended a Pentecostal church, but the ones I did attend growing up taught the same things - the tiniest misstep landed you in Hell. Doubting was one of those missteps.
I don't think any of my former church leaders was intentionally engaging in causing emotional harm. I think they all truly believed what they were teaching, and intended to save me from the terrible fate they believed awaits nonbelievers. They weren't malicious. Most of them would give you the shirts off their backs.
I was fortunate enough not to be a victim of abuse, but I can definitely see how such teaching would set one up as a target for it. I'm sorry that happened to you.
I have another online friend who was sexually abused by her pastor as a teen. She also belonged to a very fundamentalist church, and was convinced to say nothing because she'd behaved sinfully and tempted him, and he was forgiven by God (she wasn't, apparently), and so forth.
I think, too, that church provides a social outlet that many people are lacking, especially the elderly. It's a place to go, friendly people with whom to interact, organized activities, and a sense of doing good.
I find that a bit odd. Do they think God would not know that they were just going through the motions to play the odds ... that they did not hold a deep belief (like some here on NT)?
Here I think it is more comfort. People finding Jesus as a way to transform themselves to be a better person.
I can see that. But is that a true belief?
I think quite a few people do that today. I suspect there are far more agnostic theists than gnostic theists nowadays. And I also suspect a great number of church goers are -in honest reality- agnostic atheists.
Yup one of the masterstrokes of religion - get the faithful to believe that even starting to doubt their faith is a profound failure. That goes along with getting them to buy the idea that believing what other human beings claim on faith alone (no evidence; actually in spite of the evidence) is a very good thing to do.
Not at all. Feel free to reply to me always. If I have signed off, I may not see it for days so please don't take offense that I am ignoring you.
It is the Christian religion itself. It was not distorted on any level whatsoever. I know because I have read the Bible myself. This is a very abusive religion that fosters division, judgment and even violence from start to finish.
Thank you for your kind words. I feel the same about every other person who has been abused because of religion. The only way that I know I can help them in any way is to be honest about my life experience with believing in a supernatural being that is nothing less than evil.
A parent would not put their children's favorite candy in front of them and tell them they couldn't ever have it.
A parent would not have a dozen children, hide from them, and then kill them all because they didn't follow the rules.
A parent would not demand that one of their sons sacrifice his son in order to show loyalty.
No decent loving parent would do any of the above. I certainly expect more out of an all great, all knowing, all loving supernatural being that I would out of a mere mortal.
For those who don't set the bar very high for their god, I guess that Yahweh is their man.
Imo religion is fine. It is certain people and sects that distort it to fit their views.
A few people know this yet growing up my Grandfather was a Methodist minister.
Him and my Grandmother were two of the most selfless, giving, caring people I have known. Never bad intentions or any type of manipulation. Never cared for wealth or material things. In his seventies my Grandfather was playing volleyball with the kids in his church. He had retired and he and my Grandmother bought a trailer and toured the country. After several years he went back to what he loved.
They never once tried to force their views on anyone else yet would sit and talk about them with anyone that wanted.
He spent his final years comforting other people and tending to their needs. At his funeral service five different preachers from several denominations came to talk about him.
Imo religion can be a great tool to help with life choices, comfort etc. Then there are those that can twist it for an agenda or a money making endeavor.
mocowgirl can of course correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she's referring to an outward, insincere religious conversion. Acting as if one has assumed religious beliefs. Potential parolees might do so in the belief that parole boards will see their conversion as a sign of regret and rehabilitation (and they may be correct in that belief). Politicians might do so to pander to a religious electorate when they've engaged in very public past transgressions but wish to be elected.
I am not sure what those people really believe.
I suspect that many of them have spent their lifetime as con men/women. They view God as just another mark.
100% correct. Thank you for clarifying.
This has been discussed before elsewhere (but not recently), and I did not want to be redundant.
Although, I do not doubt that some prisoners have hit rock bottom and sincerely do turn to a religious belief in order to gain some kind of direction for their lives.
In 1986, my babysitter's husband (age 26) tried to commit suicide by taking a semi truck head on in their little car. It took them hours to cut him out of the wreckage. And days of surgery to keep him alive.
Prior to the wreck, he had called his mother to say good-by. He said he wanted to die before he sinned again and while he was still "right" with god.
He was a Pentecostal.
That is just terrible. I can't imagine the pain he must have been in, or the terror his mother felt.
It is terrible. I can still remember how distressed his wife was because he was hours late being home from work when I picked up my children that evening. It was several hours after that before he drove head on into the semi.
I saw them a few times several months after he was released from the hospital and then lost touch as I had moved and life went on ---- hopefully, for all of us.
I can't imagine not knowing where he was, not able to do anything to help him.
I hope he got the mental health treatment he needed.
I did. Belief in Yahweh explained all existence and the purpose of all existence and the direction of all existence. Absolutely nothing had happened, could happen or will happen without Yahweh guiding it because of Yahweh's eternal plan for his beloved creations.
At 53 years of age, I had to come to grips with the realization that I was on a tiny rock hurtling through space with absolutely no one at the controls of anything.
I soon found it more comforting to understand that life is happenstance instead of directed or planned. There is no supernatural being directing weather events and earthquakes that kill and displace hundreds of thousands of people yearly. There is no supernatural being responsible for fertilizing human eggs because it wants that egg to become a human being to serve some higher purpose as a leader, cannon fodder, or some other level of human minion.
I revere my life and I revere your life and everyone else's. I guess it could be termed "spiritual" on some level. Maybe others would try to tie this emotion to an innate religious yearning. Myself, I tend to view it as an inborn survival instinct because our species survives on cooperation instead of domination. If domination becomes our innate instinct, our driving emotion, then we will probably go extinct as a species.
I doubt it. To the best of my knowledge, they doubled down on attending church and staying "right" with god.
I have friends who were Pentecostal. I have attended church with them a few times and even went to a few revivals. I loved their music, but had been taught by my grandmother's church (Church of Christ) that speaking in tongues without an interpreter present was forbidden. My parents church (Methodist) never mentioned speaking in tongues so I decided that Methodists must not believe in it period.
My Baptist friends had cool skating parties. They were allowed to skate to music, but not dance to it.
In my quest to find the one true religion, I even attended the Mormon church a few times when I lived in California and Hawaii (as a military wife). Met some very nice people, but have since found out that Mormon women have to pretend to be happy about everything all of the time & use a lot of tranquilizers.
I thought religion is supposed to be the opium of the masses, not drive the masses to use opium to cope with religion.
My mom attended a Pentecostal church growing up. She brought us up in nondenominational churches, but they were closest in doctrine to Freewill Baptists, I believe. My dad does not attend church, except for weddings and funerals, and I honestly don't know whether he is a believer or not. I'm fairly sure he has doubts, at the very least.
No church I attended had an official position on dancing, that I know of. There was no objection to us teenagers attending prom and so forth, so I assume it was not prohibited. Alcohol was strictly forbidden. Communion wasn't a big thing, but on the rare occasions when we did take communion, we had grape juice.
I am between listening the video above and reading comments. However, your comment strikes me as one to address immediately. Is all childhood about implicit indoctrination, seeing that no parent in its proper mind would share anything with its offspring that it thinks will do it harm and surely a lot of information, thought, and 'protective' thinking goes into the rearing of child and children?
Even as adults, we live in "indoctrinated" states of shared values, traditions, customs, rules, and regulations. That is, we live in communal settings only because we hold to a state similar to a group, locale, city, state, or in the larger scheme, and country. In light of this, it can be evidenced we are all indoctrinated from birth to the grave!
Indoctrination means to get someone to hold beliefs simply because they are told to do so. It is the opposite of educating with a method of critical thinking.
I think it is fair to say that every parent imposes beliefs on their kids without explanation and expects them to believe them without question. For example: 'never talk to strangers when alone' or 'it is good to be patriotic' or 'never touch anything that is hot'. That is technically a form of indoctrination. But it is not true that every parent indoctrinates their children with religious beliefs.
You might want to watch this week's episode of The Atheist Experience.
A lifelong atheist became a Christian because God revealed himself by prompting the atheist to watch a video about the rice experiment. In this week's episode, we also learned that Turkey has confirmed the existence of Noah's Ark. Examinations, of the Ark, have revealed that Noah used steel cables in the construction. Another caller had issues with space scientists. These scientists are lying about the existence of the space station because it is impossible to have a space station orbiting the Earth. Just impossible.
One caller talked about his phobia of dying. He has made up his own afterlife scenario and is contemplating writing a book about it. His therapist is encouraging him. Could this be the start of a new sect of a religious order if enough people find his version of an afterlife more satisfying than others they have heard of?
I have only watched a dozen episodes of The Atheist Experience because I need time to digest just how detrimental the Christian religion has been (and still is) to our education system in the US. However, this week's offering was a really good episode overall. I don't know how many biases were revealed. I am just thankful that I shed a few that I used to have in common with some of the callers that I have listened to over the past couple of months.
Why would a scientist of any pedigree believe in God without evidence (in any sense of this word)?
Dr. Collins is describing something important to his way of looking at life in his unique waterfall description. He can only describe it as a memory looking back on the significant day his spirit opened up. In a crude analogy I can like it to the first time a teen boy or girl discovers ejaculation and orgasm—usually accomplished alone and by accident. Or the joy of a first sexual experience with another person. Mind you, these are definitely rough analogies!
Spirituality introduction is not 'sensual.' It is discovery of something longed for . Dr. Collins was on a quest in search of an answer and the reply 'appeared' to him in the form of a three "standing" waterfall.
True story that you might have remembered I shared was in a shower . I, too, was 'questing about' with all longing and one day while under the water, my spirit opened up and in my inner-"CB" I began to see life differently (to say the least) !
I can venture that everyone who has had a spiritual awakening can recall one instance in time when it occurred.
Once on NT I wrote an article about the life and times of John Newton , the former slave trader, who when his spirit opened up he "repented" of trading people into slavery and ultimately became the writer of the classic hymn - Amazing Grace and Rector St Mary Woolnoth, London, 4 August 1802 in charge of many other spiritual lives. (Source: )
Another (from that bi-article) is George Foreman , who was not looking for change. At least, he may not have known he had a longing to change from his rough youth and atmosphere. Still, it came in a boxing locker room again involving shower and water after a fight in which he was defeated by hea vyweight Jimmy Young . For years now, Mr. George Foreman is founder and minister of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in Houston, Texas.
All of these men, myself included, "repented" and changed into something we testify to existentially many years later.
I hope this gives you some insight into what is in some of our minds. (Smile.)
Will do mocowgirl.
If you asked Dr. Collins I predict he would tell you that his faith is not based on evidence and clearly not based on science or the scientific method. The human mind is very complex and is capable of compartmentalization and rationalization.
Dr. Collins wears a scientist hat (very well by the way) and he also, independently, wears a Christian hat. He somehow resolved the cognitive dissonance. I do not know the details of his mind so I can go no further.
Yes. It is written God looks upon the heart. . . . God does not "see" or regard the flesh of man as man does itself. This is why it is 'hard' to discern what is in some men and women (the innner man or woman) when they behave contrary to what is good, wholesome, and decent.
Prisoners find spirituality as part of a holistic change, after such persons have made a tragic mess of their lives.
It is similar to an illustrative tale I fashioned and sometimes share about a smoker who ends up in the hospital mortally ill. While in the care of physicians, our 'client' is visited by a minion of Satan who comes with pretense of commiseration of 'case.' The demon details all the years spent inhaling cigarettes, all the dates cautions were verbalized, all the negations of warnings, all demands of personal freedoms, and then the creature moving to sit at the foot of the bed-clamps down: "You damn fool. Now look at you. You're laying here with terminal cancer. All because you listened (to me). What made you think I, I, cared anything about you well-fare?
Many persons in jail don't stop-down long enough to see their "undone condition" until the 'end-point' of time behind bars. Deep realization and penetrating remorse causes many men and women to "consider their ways" and to seek help from a Source they have heard is willing to changes lives. If they want to "get their heart right."
Thank you, Ender for your testimony of some people true to their testimonies.
Of course not. I never implied it. Our 'way of life' in the United States is an overall indoctrination to the "American standard," nevertheless. (The implication: Those who truly oppose it are free to simply pack up and take their leave.) Our nation has more freedoms than most, but not nearly as many freedoms as some (in other nations).
And yet, it the video, Truth Wanted (above) the former Pentecostal minister tells the caller he can isolate the sectors of his brain where spirituality and its adjoining "praise and worship" is occurring in realtime. It appears complexity in the human mind has been simplified quite a bit; the compartmentalization and rationalization 'zone' exposed to a light in science.
Dr. Collins would inform anybody that his faith is a well-reasoned faith based on his experiences living 'out' his faith. No, I do not think Dr. Collins applies the scientific method to matters of faith. It simply becomes a matter of 'apples and oranges' at that point.
Does he consider his faith to be evidence-based? From what I have observed it is based on feelings with the backdrop of 'there just must be something greater'.
This, by the way, seems perfectly reasonable to me.
What is unreasonable and inexplicable (to me) is Dr. Collins belief in the Bible. A creator makes sense. But the definition of said creator along with the stories as depicted in the Bible makes no sense. I must wonder if Dr. Collins views the Bible as the expression of faith from ancients and not as the divine word of a perfect God. That is, does Dr. Collins actually believe the ark story, the Babel story, the Adam & Eve story, ...? Does he really believe his creator is so petty and emotional as Yahweh? Destroying the entire planet (including the animals)?
I find it hard to believe that he does not see the errancy of the Bible yet he apparently buys the Trinity concept so this is unclear.
Tig, here is the thing. Dr. Collins once considered himself an atheist. So the radical change to a belief in God and to facing the Christian God came out of some investigation (it is a process to change from non-believer to believer). The authenticity in the journey to becoming an informed believer, or simply one who makes an initial leap of faith after giving consideration to the possibilities, comes from doing some research and development. Dr. Collins does not appear to me as a man who would give himself over to a grand delusion without reasoning it through fris. Thus, he is not deluded man, in my opinion.
I, Dr. Collins, nor Dr. Touring (mentioned above) can vouch for the genuineness of lives, activities, or supernatural "one-off" events in the Bible which occurred before our births and outside of our modern senses. We have no choice but to accept the aforementioned by "faith." Something we are instructed to do within the pages of the Book. One must understand that our Christian faith is not "centered" on the creation account anyway.
However, there is one more thing to consider. Spiritual change witnesses of itself in the life of a believer. That some believers have gone back or go astray in one manner or another can be a problem, but not for believers who hold their faith in truth and for a lifetime.
It is possible for a brilliant person to hold inexplicable religious beliefs.
If you discover anything specific about what caused Dr. Collins to become a Christian (triggered by seeing the trinity waterfall) let me know. Until then one can speculate endlessly.
Finally, as I have noted many times, the fact that people hold religious beliefs does not make the beliefs true.
One of my dearest clients was a top level western based Chaplain. I loved him dearly. He loved his God, but never in a million years would he use his belief as a weapon. To each his own. Like Enoch, he was sincere, kind, and willing to be there for the most down trodden soul, no matter who. He radiated the true spirit of the Jesus Conciousness. He was of love for all humanity. He loved me and we had many of these talks. He understood exactly why I was where I'm at. Never ever tried to convince me otherwise. He was sagely and I had immense respect for that. He was accepting and tolerant of all Faith's even though he was Christian himself. He had to be. Being a Chaplain is not being there for Christian's only.
Well, at least Dr. Collins' brilliant mind and its validity in science will hold him in good stead and cause him to be a voice to be reckoned with!
Elijah was 'triggered' in this fashion on one occasion. I'll call it the " power of triggering ":
It is studied that the Lord, being a commanding Spirit can be the power and the glory 'at Will.' When one understands the concept, it is easier to accept the understated majesty of a fall 'situated' in a state which speaks to the spirit of someone. Many powerful life-changing sermons have been given on the heft found in speaking not in a boom, but rather in a distinct murmur. Dr. Collins explained how a sight seen delivered him to a life-long faith.
God can do this. Multitudes of people witness of it "happening" all the time.
This article is trying to intellectualize why people do bad things. They do bad things or support bad people because they themselves are inherently bad people.
It's simple: Everyone knows the difference between good and bad. Everything else is excuses for not doing the right thing.
What do you mean by 'inherently bad'?
No that is not the purpose. The purpose is to explain and explore how we think in general and to encourage people to use more reason (critical thinking with solid facts) and less emotion in their decision making processes.
People tend to gravitate towards what they are comfortable with. It could be a policy or a person.
Take the current President. He's evil and does evil things. Supporters like to pretend they don't like him. But the truth is they are quite comfortable with everything he does because that's who they are deep down in their core. They are inherently bad people. Society has been able to shame them into doing the right thing under the right leadership but those guardrails are gone under this Administration. So we see their true colors.....who they really are.
I see it as more of an explanation regarding why some people make bad decisions, not necessarily why they do bad things, although on occasion, those bad decisions may lead to people doing bad things.
Consider pseudoscience - antivaxxers, for example. I wouldn't say they're bad people. I'd say they're misguided. I'd say that among antivaxxers, there are probably quite a few well-intentioned folks who are misled about vaccines. They've been taught to fear "chemicals", and to minimize, in their minds, the effects of vaccine-preventable illnesses. I doubt that they really want a child to die of polio, or to be born with severe birth defects from maternal infection with rubella. They're making the decision to oppose vaccination based on emotion and bad information. They're deceiving themselves, with a lot of help from those similarly deceived.
Tomato/Tomahto .
Excuse/Explanation
Results = same
Posit: The person or persons who act to a great extent on emotions will be generally unreasonable. The person or persons who act to a great extent on reason will be generally unemotional.
I don’t know about that they use emotions to motivate and energize their audience. Just watch a Martin Luther King video the guy used an extremely emotional delivery approach to his speeches.
Did Dr Martin Luther King use a great extent of emotion in his message delivery; or, was he appealing to the leaders and majority of the day to a greater extent be reasonable?
Interesting thought-lesson there, Dean M.! (Smile!)
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.