Hi all,

I wanted to start a discussion to listen to adherents and hear what they have to tell us based on some questions I'd like to pose to them. In other words, I want to sincerely play the role of a seeker and ask them how I would know that their god is The One, True God. The purpose is not to deconvert or convert, I just want to walk through a seeker conversation where I'm allowed to ask questions of adherents and see what they have to say ... to listen. I am willing to expand on what I mean by "The One, True God" if a reader asks for that, to the extent that I think the definition is sufficient for the discussion.

This is the adherent's golden opportunity to proselytize; to convert me.

In order to do this effectively I need to ask the adherent for their imprimatur on a rule by which I can do this without bogging it down so that I can never get my questions asked. So, here it is. I'll ask a question as a hypothetical. It may be that there are more assumptions to the hypothetical that one could add, but I'll ask for the sake of discussion that we allow only the assumptions of the hypothetical I offer. This way, I can at least get through a few questions. If someone thinks the assumptions are insufficient just state that with your answer and we'll accept that as your answer informed by the assumptions of the question.

So, here's my question. I'll ask it and see if I can get a useful answer, recalling that I am a lifelong atheist who has never believed and who is sincerely trying to sort out all the gods out there and figure out which one to follow:

How do I know that your god is The One, True God?

Tags: Evangelical, Socrates, adherents, atheism, atheists, conversion, debate, deconversion

Views: 1739

Replies to This Discussion

Hey Zachary,

KK, I hate seeing a poor guy have to beg to get straight answers to his questions. I'll try play with you,

lol, in my world we call this the "scared chicken effect". After some remonstration and reckoning the faithful will return soon if history is any indication. The lack of replies right now is a good sign. It means they are thinking and dissonance has set in.

...though I'm not sure if my own attempt at giving a straight answer will satisfy you or not.

Either way is fine as every sincere answer advances the conversation.

In each case I would assign such a negligible probability to the second option,

Me, too. ;-)

I am pretty much forced to either choose the first option or else effectively declare a tie (epsilon1=epsilon2 to within the "available precision" of the computing power my brain).

Given that it is merely a comparison, I'm comfortable performing the assessment without the Limit Laws. ;-)

In each of Q2-Q4 I see a wide range of probabilistic assessments I might come up with on the first choice depending on how I interpreted it. So I do think there is an incredibly risky amount of ambiguity there if these questions are going to subsequently be used to lead us toward any particular conclusions.

And that is a key point. The questions are posed in a hypothetical context where we are not yet asking about the big picture. I would not conclude anything "grand" on the basis of these rather obvious answers. Rather, my strategy is to try to bracket the extremes of the conversation so that we can get a handle on the primary question. So, I think we're in agreement here.

For example, in the first choice in Q2, am I to consider the likelihood that Confirmation Bias played a role in the belief that Helios pulled the sun across the sky, or the likelihood that the belief of Helios pulling the sun across the sky is fully explained by Confirmation Bias?

Bingo! Right now we are looking only at the former. Yes, this question truncates that possiblity. I am going to remedy that defect shortly. But for the sake of the question, we're asking if Confirmation Bias is the more likely explanation, realizing that in reality there are probably multiple causes. You're two steps ahead of me!

If the former, I consider that highly likely and therefore choose the first option. If the latter, I consider that to have a negligible likelihood akin to that of the second option and would then be inclined to chalk the race up to a tie of effectively two nothings.

Agreed.

I have more thoughts about the well-formedness of the questions, such as pointing out that the options being compared are not clearly mutually exclusive and so it appears that "both" or "neither" could possibly be a far better choice than being reluctantly forced to exclusively choose one or the other. (For example, a person could find themselves happening to correctly believe in The One, True God, even though Confirmation Bias and Informational Influence are among their reasons, even perhaps their primary reasons, for doing so. In such case, "The One, True God", "Confirmation Bias", and "Informational Influence" would all simultaneously be true.) But I won't expand upon such things anymore for the moment. I've done the best I could to give the most straightforward answers I could in light of remaining ambiguity I perceive in the options. Will wait to see where you take it from there.

Very clever answer. However ... ;-) remember the Conjunction Rule, right? I cannot increase the odds of something being true by adding an uncertain detail, which is what we would be doing if we used that approach, right? It's not called a "fallacy" for no reason. It is deceptive and I can see why someone would advance this point.

Look at it this way. What if I told you that there are several of these psychological phenomena and adding them to each and every narrative adds greater certainty to an uncertainty as these are studied and replicated, well-known phenoms; whereas the claim of a One, True God is exactly the speculation we're trying to address. Adding that is to add another uncertainty on top of an uncertainty, which will not get us more certainty.

So, from your answer, I'm going to take the former position as being the correct answer in all three; let me know if I'm wrong.

- kk

Question Number 5

About Insufficient Justification

Controlled studies show that, though it may be surprising, belief is generated by simply expressing it as fact; provided it is done in a particular manner. This is why “witnessing” is so popular in most religions; it is a deliberate tool for brainwashing and that is why it is so strongly encouraged.

In many of the studies performed on this phenomenon, a boring, monotonous and trying experience is “sold” using an insufficient justification. This concept is tricky and not at first obvious. But numerous studies have shown it to be true. It is essentially a defensive mechanism used to protect one’s conscience from discomfort or shock when a person is forced or otherwise compelled to act against their conscience. When a person is compelled to lie but given little or no justification for doing so, we tend more strongly to just believe the lie – conveniently sidestepping the guilt of lying, and we tell what we now “believe” to be true. It makes no difference how blatant the falsity of the claim is. But when given much greater justification for lying we correctly tend not to believe the lie when compelled to tell it. This is likely because the conscience is not disturbed or shocked since the individual can justify the lie. This is an utterly fascinating trick used by the creators of religion to brainwash:

… It exploits the very thing that sociopaths and narcissists lack; a conscience.

It is one’s conscience that tends to cause them to do this. Whoever came up with this knew how to run a con job and understood the psychology of a mark. And this is a tell-tale feature of religion; this tendency to observe exploitation of a person’s conscience, sense of compassion and empathy in order to gain their submission and compliance; to make them docile and malleable. It is precisely what persons in positions of power would dream of as a weapon for controlling large populations. This motif will keep coming up throughout.

Because it involves compelling others to lie, it is often associated with authority figures since those are the people often vested in a need to gain consensus to a fiction. So the con artists of religion long ago promoted this idea of “bearing witness” and extolled it as an adherent’s sacred duty to perfrom as often as possible. All they were doing was compelling their adherent’s to tell lies with insufficient justification. Over time these lies solidify into hardened belief systems.                       

Krishna, the full avatar of Hari (AKA Vishnu)

Hindu sacred books represent Crishna, their Saviour and Redeemer, as in constant strife against the evil spirit. He surmounts extraordinary dangers ; strews his way with miracles ; raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring the maimed, the deaf and the blind ; everywhere supporting the weak against the strong, the oppressed against the powerful. The people crowded his way and adored him as a GOD, and these miracles were the evidences of his divinity for centuries before the time of Jesus. 

The learned Thomas Maurice, speaking of Krishna, tells us that he passed his innocent hours at the home of his foster-father, in rural diversions, his divine origin not being suspected, until repeated  miracles soon discovered his celestial origin; and Sir "William Jones speaks of his raising the dead, and saving multitudes by his miraculous powers. To enumerate the miracles of Crishna would be useless and tedious ; we shall therefore mention but a few, of  which the Hindu sacred books are teeming.

When Krishna was born, his life was sought by the reigning  monarch, Kansa, who had the infant Saviour and his father and  mother locked in a dungeon, guarded, and barred by seven iron  doors. While in this dungeon the father heard a secret voice distinctly utter these words : " Son of Yadu, take up this child and carry it to Gokool, to the house of Nanda." Vasudeva, struck with astonishment, answered : " How shall I obey this injunction, thus vigilantly guarded and barred by seven iron doors that prohibit all egress ?" The unknown voice replied : " The doors shall open of themselves to let tliee pass, and behold, I have caused a deep slumber to fall upon thy guards, which shall continue till thy journey be accomplished." Vasudeva immediately felt his chains miraculously loosened, and, taking up the child in his arms, hurried with it through all the doors, the guards being buried in profound sleep. When he came to the river Yumna, which he was obliged to cross to get to Gokool, the waters immediately rose up to kiss the child s feet, and then respectfully retired on each side to make way for its transportation, so that Vasudeva passed dry-shod to the opposite shore.

When Krishna came to a mans estate, one of his first miracles was the cure of a leper.

A passionate Brahman, having received a slight insult from a certain Rajah, on going out of his doors, uttered this curse : " That he should, from head to foot, be covered with boils and leprosy ;" which being fulfilled in an instant upon the unfortunate king, he prayed to Crishna to deliver him from his evil. At first, Crishna did not heed his request, but finally he appeared to him, asking what his request was? He replied, "To be freed from my distemper." The Saviour then cured him of his distemper.

Krishna was one day walking with his disciples, when "they met a poor cripple or lame woman, having a vessel filled with spices, sweet-scented oils, sandal- wood, saffron, civet and other perfumes. Krishna making a halt, she made a certain sign with her finger on his forehead, casting the rest upon his head. Krishna asking her what it was she would request of him, the woman replied,  nothing but the use of my limbs. Krishna, then, setting his foot upon hers, and taking her by the hand, raised her from the ground, and not only restored her limbs, but renewed her age, so that, instead of a  wrinkled, tawny skin, she received a fresh and fair one in an instant. At her request, Krishna and his company lodged in her house."

 I bet he did ;-)

On another occasion, Krishna having requested a learned Brahman to ask of him whatever boon he most desired, the Brahman said, "Above all things, I desire to have my two dead sons restored to life." Krishna assured him that this should be done, and immediately the two young men were restored to life and brought to their father.

The learned Orientalist, Thomas Maurice, after speaking of the miracles performed by Krishna, says :

"In regard to the numerous miracles wrought by Krishna, it should be remembered that miracles are never wanting to the decoration of an Indian romance; they are, in fact, the life and soul of the vast machine; nor is it at all a subject of wonder that the dead should be raised to life in a history expressly  intended, like all other sacred fables of Indian fabrication, for the propagation and support of the whimsical doctrine of the Metempsychosis."

To speak thus of the miracles of The Christ Jesus, would, of course, be heresy although what applies to the miracles of Krishna apply to those of Jesus we, therefore, find this gentleman branding as "mfidd" a learned French orientalist who was guilty of doing this thing.

So, I want to ask you about a Hindu God. Perhaps he is The One, True God? Of course, the "God" is Vishnu, or Hari whose emissary was Krishna. Krishna was the "full avatar of Vishnu" meaning he was the corporeal manifestation of Vishnu on Earth, the incarnation of God.

Its not terribly long but long enough that I need to introduce him before I go further, so I'll put this in one post as a prelude.

Hindu sacred books represent Krishna, their Savior and Redeemer, as in constant strife against the evil spirit.

He surmounts extraordinary dangers;

fills his journeys on his way with miracles ;

raising the dead,

healing the sick,

restoring the maimed,

the deaf and the blind ;

everywhere supporting the weak against the strong,

the oppressed against the powerful.

The people always crowded about him wherever he went and adored him as a God, and these miracles were the evidences of his divinity for centuries before the time of Jesus The Christ, the only begotten son of YHWH.

The learned Thomas Maurice, speaking of Krishna, tells us that he passed his innocent hours at the home of his foster-father, in rural diversions, his divine origin not being suspected, until repeated miracles soon discovered his celestial origin; and Sir William Jones speaks of his:

... raising the dead, and

saving multitudes by his miraculous powers.

To enumerate the miracles of Krishna would be useless and tedious; we shall therefore mention but a few, of which the Hindu sacred books are teeming.

When Krishna was born, his life was sought by the reigning monarch, Kansa, who had the infant Savior and his father and mother locked in a dungeon, guarded, and barred by seven iron doors. While in this dungeon the father heard a secret voice distinctly utter these words : " Son of Yadu, take up this child and carry it to Gokool, to the house of Nanda." Vasudeva, struck with astonishment, answered : " How shall I obey this injunction, thus vigilantly guarded and barred by seven iron doors that prohibit all egress ?" The unknown voice replied : " The doors shall open of themselves to let thee pass, and behold, I have caused a deep slumber to fall upon thy guards, which shall continue till thy journey be accomplished."

Vasudeva immediately felt his chains miraculously loosened, and, taking up the child in his arms, hurried with it through all the doors, the guards being buried in profound sleep. When he came to the river Yumna, which he was obliged to cross to get to Gokool, the waters:

immediately rose up to kiss the child s feet, and then respectfully retired on each side to make way for its transportation, so that Vasudeva passed dry-shod to the opposite shore.

!!

When Krishna came to a certain man's estate, one of his first miracles was the cure of a leper.

A passionate Brahman, having received a slight insult from a certain Rajah, on going out of his doors, uttered this curse : " That he should, from head to foot, be covered with boils and leprosy ;" which being fulfilled in an instant upon the unfortunate king, he prayed to Krishna to deliver him from his evil. At first, Krishna did not heed his request, but finally he appeared to him, asking what his request was? He replied, "To be freed from my distemper."

The Savior then cured him of his distemper.

Krishna was one day walking with his ... disciples, when " they met a poor cripple or lame woman, having a vessel filled with spices, sweet-scented oils, sandal- wood, saffron, civet and other perfumes. Krishna stopped where he was and she made a certain sign with her finger on his forehead, casting the rest upon his head. Krishna asking her what it was she would request of him, the woman replied, nothing but the use of my limbs. Krishna, then, setting his foot upon hers, and taking her by the hand, raised her from the ground, and

... not only restored her limbs, but renewed her age, so that, instead of a wrinkled, tawny skin, she received a fresh and fair one in an instant. At her request, Krishna and his company lodged in her house." Oh, I'm sure he did.

On another occasion, Krishna having requested a learned Brahman to ask of him whatever boon he most desired, the Brahman said, "Above all things, I desire to have my two dead sons restored to life." Krishna assured him that this should be done, and

... immediately the two young men were restored to life and brought to their father.

The learned Orientalist, Thomas Maurice, after speaking of the miracles performed by Krishna, wrote :

In regard to the numerous miracles wrought by Krishna, it should be remembered that miracles are never wanting to the decoration of an Indian romance; they are, in fact, the life and soul of the vast machine; nor is it at all a subject of wonder that the dead should be raised to life in a history expressly intended, like all other sacred fables of Indian fabrication, for the propagation and support of the whimsical doctrine of the Metempsychosis.

Is it more likely that the re-telling of miracles was based on Insufficient Justification or is it more likely the re-telling of the miracles was based on the fact that Hari Krishna is The One, True God and yours is not?

- kk

KK,

  Hooray! Patterns! I like patterns.

X: Some psychological factor commonly accepted as influencing social dynamics, belief, and/or behavior

Y: Some religious belief with ancient origins which is pretty well guaranteed to appear ridiculous to any modern, English-speaking, internet user who is likely to be appearing on this forum, regardless of whatever faith system they themselves may adhere to

Q[2-5] (my own refined version): Is it more likely that X played at least a significant role in influencing people to believe in Y, or that Y is actually a true belief system?

For all pairs (X,Y) supplied so far, I'm going to pick option one: between the two choices given it seems more likely to me that X played a significant role in influencing people to believe in Y than that Y is actually a true belief system,... although I would also wish to register discomfort here in feeling that I'm being asked to compare apples to bananas. (Since, for example, psychological factors could be used to persuade people either to believe in something true OR in something false, and since, for another example, the presence of psychological factors does not annul the possibility of numerous OTHER factors playing an important role as well. That is, the influence of psychological factors on a person's belief in a proposition, and the truthfulness of that proposition itself, are two distinct axes. Sure, there are relationships, but the relationships can work in a lot of different ways. Comparing the likelihood of one point on one axis to another point on an altogether different axis feels quite weird to me.)

[As far as psychological factors influencing what people believe. Yes, absolutely, whether they are evangelical Christians, evangelical atheists, nominal Muslims, traditional Hindus, or whatever, yes, I think that psychology plays a very big role for all of us. I have more thoughts on that, but again, I'll try to restrain myself from too much commentary on such points especially while you are still developing the arc of where you are taking us.]

Hey Zachary,

X: Some psychological factor commonly accepted as influencing social dynamics, belief, and/or behavior

Y: Some religious belief with ancient origins which is pretty well guaranteed to appear ridiculous to any modern, English-speaking, internet user who is likely to be appearing on this forum, regardless of whatever faith system they themselves may adhere to

But is that really why it looks ridiculous? Are you sure? Several points here. Not all examples will be ancient. But, would it look just as ridiculous to someone who is not on the internet? Would it look as ridiculous if translated into any language of your choice? But even if that's not the case,

could it be that it looks ridiculous just because it is?

I think we have to consider that possibility. Just because it may set the stage for conflict with your belief system doesn't mean that its ridiculous appearance is contrived.

Q[2-5] (my own refined version): Is it more likely that X played at least a significant role in influencing people to believe in Y, or that Y is actually a true belief system?

Reasonably similar to what we're asking but I will stick with my wording.

For all pairs (X,Y) supplied so far, I'm going to pick option one: between the two choices given it seems more likely to me that X played a significant role in influencing people to believe in Y than that Y is actually a true belief system,...

Then I think we can move on to the next question, though I might wait to see if we get anyone to agree with you first.

...Since, for example, psychological factors could be used to persuade people either to believe in something true OR in something false...

No drivebys. ;-) In these discussions we do point-counterpoint. This point was addressed with a counterpoint.

You cannot make something uncertain more certain by adding an  uncertainty which is analagous to saying that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one; i.e. Conjunction Rule.

so that doesn't work. What you're doing is called an "embellishment"; that is, adding a detail to the narrative that includes a supernatural element alongside the pyschological factor compared to that same supernatural element, as opposed to comparing a supernatural element alone to the psychological phenom alone. Because the supernatural element is the very uncertain thing we're trying to assess, by doing this you are adding an uncertainty on top of an uncertainty which will not increase certainty.

Now, you can either debunk the Conjunction Rule (good luck) or show that it is not applied properly (also I think a challenge). That's the next step to sustain that argument, right? I knew we'd spend a lot of time on you, Zachary ;-)

That is, the influence of psychological factors on a person's belief in a proposition, and the truthfulness of that proposition itself, are two distinct axes. Sure, there are relationships, but the relationships can work in a lot of different ways. Comparing the likelihood of one point on one axis to another point on an altogether different axis feels quite weird to me.

See above. You're repeating the Conjunction Fallacy. We must be careful about what details we wish to add to the narrative to ensure they are not mere embellishments, imo.

Having said all this, your answer is clear but I'd like to see if anyone else has any input ... hint, hint.

- kk

Hey,

A quick duck analogy is in order here.

Suppose I say that an object walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. And I ask if it is more likely that it is a duck or not a duck? Then you reply, well, there are other possibilities. It could be that "god" made this object act this way, so it really isn't a duck. The problem with this objection is that you are adding an uncertainty (an act of god) to an uncertainty which rather than increasing the odds that your alternative explanation is true decreases those odds.

So, we can't really say that, well, its possible people were influenced by Confirmation Bias, but it is also possible that people were influenced by Confirmation Bias and the fact that god really did intervene and was behind these events (Helios really did fly across the sky). This doesn't help the odds of your desired inference but lowers them

- kk

"Duck vs. (not duck)" is a straightforward "X vs. (not X)" binary comparison (where obviously X=Duck).

If that is the kind of comparison you wish you make, you could be asking either the psychological binary question: "Is it more likely that believers in Helios were influenced by Confirmation Bias or that they were not influenced by Confirmation Bias?", or else be asking the astronomical binary question: "Is it more likely that there is a Helios chariot pulling the sun across the sky or that there is not a Helios chariot pulling the sun across the sky?"

As it stands, instead of comparing "X vs. (not X)" or "Y vs. (not Y)" it seems you are instead comparing "X vs. Y". As I understand it (and I could be very wrong, that is what I've been trying to clear up), it seems that you are asking us to compare the relative probability of, say, a certain psychological condition being true versus the probability of a certain astronomical condition being true. Apples and bananas. That is why I say it seems weird. So, no, I do not at all see the pattern established in Q2-5 as being of the "duck vs. non-duck" variety, and if you meant them to be "duck vs. non-duck" questions then please clearly state what the "duck" is in each question so I can say "yes" or "no" to the duck.

This doesn't help the odds of your desired inference but lowers them

I think you are abusing the Conjunction Fallacy, although I could be misunderstanding you.

Let:

  A=people were influenced by the Confirmation Bias

  B=Helios really did fly across the sky

It would be fallacious to claim that P(A and B) > P(A). Indeed, you would be correct to assert that P(A and B) <= P(A). However, it would also be entirely correct to assert that P(A and (not B)) <= P(A). If we start off with assertion "A", then whether we add "B" or "not B" to "A", either way we end up with a lesser probability than if we had not added anything. This is because P(A)=P(A and (B or (not B))), and since the proposition "B or (not B)" has a priori probability of 100% of being true, neither "B" alone nor "not B" alone could ever trump "B or (not B)". So, after all of that, we are not one iota closer to determining the relative merits of "B" versus "not B".

Indeed, I see another potential fallacy that may very well be lurking around here. I don't know a name for it, but anyone with a solid background in probability theory will immediately recognize it. As above, it is correct to assert that P(A and B) <= P(A). It would be fallacious, however, to thereby conclude that P(B) <= P(A), or that P(B) < P(not B).

My point is this: if someone wanted to argue that P(A and B) > P(A and (not B)) you wouldn't be able to throw accusations of "Conjunction Fallacy" at them. Agreed?

Hey Zachary,

We're changing the nature of the question now. You framed it this way:

Let:

  A=people were influenced by the Confirmation Bias

  B=Helios really did fly across the sky

My point is this: if someone wanted to argue that P(A and B) > P(A and (not B)) you wouldn't be able to throw accusations of "Conjunction Fallacy" at them. Agreed?

I think we're having two different conversations here. No, in this formulation I would not say you have committed a Conjunction Fallacy; however, that proposition is absurd on its face and, if we doubt that, we could put that question out there. I think we should.

Is it more likely that both Confirmation Bias and the fact the Helios really did fly across the sky is true or is it more likely that confirmation bias is true (and that Helios did not fly across the sky).

It never occured to me you would want to make that claim since it argues against your proposition rather boldly, right? I would think most readers would see option two (the latter option) as the nearly trivial answer, given only those two options.

I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to come up with a question that is independent of the religious context but the same in every other respect, put it out there and I think it will be clear that objections to this question as being "ridiculous" are only ridiculous because the proposition is ridiculous (that Helios really did fly across the sky).

- kk

But is that really why it looks ridiculous?

I'm not making any claims as to any relative cause/effect relationships between the elements of "Y". There are no "becauses" in "Y". "Y" is a descriptor which encompasses the examples given so far. If further examples are given, my "Y" might be due for modification.

Not all examples will be ancient. But, would it look just as ridiculous to someone who is not on the internet? Would it look as ridiculous if translated into any language of your choice? But even if that's not the case,

could it be that it looks ridiculous just because it is?

I think we have to consider that possibility.

All of the above: OK, fine, no problem.

No drivebys.

I understood that to mean that you didn't want people making a post, then running away and never being heard from again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting) I'm still around. Maybe I don't get what you mean by "no drivebys".

See my comments on "the duck". I'm pointing out that, at least as far as probability theory is concerned, it would be perfectly valid, for example, to assert that P(A and B) > P(A and (not B)). There is no Conjunction Fallacy there.

Consider. Let:

  F=the earth is flat

  G=Barack Obama is president of the US

It is true that P(F and G)<=P(F). That is, adding "Barack Obama is president of the US" to "the earth is flat" actually results in a lesser probability than the assertion of the earth being flat alone. But the irony here, or non-intuitive thing, if you will, is that P(G) is much, much greater than P(F). So even though, strictly speaking, adding "and G" to "F" decreases the probability (in an ever so negligible manner, in this case) to the sole assertion of "F" alone, that does not in any way speak poorly of the truth value of "G". "G" itself is far, far, more credible than "F". The fact that P(F and G)<=P(F) does not establish anything regarding the relative merits of "F" versus "G", or of "G" versus "not G", it simply establishes that "G" can never be more probable than the (very true but very meaningless) assertion that "G or (not G)", which what you are implicitly saying about "G" when you write P(F).

Hey,

See the magical professor

- kk

You're repeating the Conjunction Fallacy.

I would definitely want to be aware if I making making such a logical fallacy. If you still believe that I am claiming that P(A and B) > P(A), for some A and B, please state what "A" and "B" you think I am doing that to.

Hey,

See the magical professor

- kk

Hey Zachary,

I might have quoted the wrong snippet of your text, but here's at least one other snippet that relates to my point:

For example, a person could find themselves happening to correctly believe in The One, True God, even though Confirmation Bias and Informational Influence are among their reasons, even perhaps their primary reasons, for doing so. In such case, "The One, True God", "Confirmation Bias", and "Informational Influence" would all simultaneously be true.)

Again, whatever detail we add must be a relatively certain, established fact. So, it is even less likely that Helios really did fly through sky and Confirmation Bias was in play. So, we would not choose confirmation bias on that basis, but rather we'd choose it solely on the basis of the confirmation bias.

- kk

 

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Discussion Forum

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service