virus: know thy enemies
« on: 2004-10-07 06:11:02 »
Hallo allerseits!
As announced yesterday, I shall publish certain arguments encountered in my still enduring discussions with Christian believers, along with their refutation. I would be glad for any critical voices in order to further improve the counterarguments. I will publish about one argument each day if I can keep up with formulating them properly.
Regards Björn
KNOW THY ENEMIES... patterns of religious argumentation
Argument 1: The foundation: Faith out of insecurity and fear Memetic quality: medium; mainly emotional components
The basis of all ecclesiastical power rests upon fear. Charles Robert Maturin, Melmoth the Wanderer, p. 131
----- “Should God not exist, and a person believes in him, that person does not lose anything because he/she will perish anyway; should God exist, though, and a person does NOT believe, it is possible that he/she will be punished for being faithless.” -----
First of all, the truth of these premises can be questioned: does a person really lose “nothing” with having a dramatically wrong opinion regarding reality? Will the god of the new testament really punish the faithless?
The latter again rises the question, which “god” one is supposed to believe in – the Christian, Jewish, Islamic subtype? Other religions’ gods? To my knowledge, the coexistence of dozens of deities in the Egyptian pantheon was – among other reasons – based on the wish to avoid the risk not to believe in – among possibly many really not existing – an existing deity and thus conjuring that deities wrath… Anyway this is no inescapable reason to believe in a particular deity.
Among its – only superficially conclusive – logic, the main force of the argument is emotional in nature: the – obviously unavoidable – insecurity regarding the transcendent and the related emotion of fear are exploited in emphasising the possibility that non-believers might err. For persons unable to realise the argumentative weakness of the statement, and especially for those who – spoken with Kohlberg – have not yet achieved a high level of moral development (such as behaving in a certain way only to avoiding the consequences of doing otherwise), it is very appealing.
Mature human beings should not be deterred by the possiblity of being punished, if their behavior rests on the basis of rational decision.
Gorogh Sent: 07 October 2004 12:11 PM <snip> "Should God not exist, and a person believes in him, that person does not lose anything because he/she will perish anyway; should God exist, though, and a person does NOT believe, it is possible that he/she will be punished for being faithless" </snip>
[Blunderov] Pascal's wager I think? To me it seems impossible that a person can *decide* what to believe. One is either persuaded of the truth of something or one is not.
Also, it seems wildly improbable that an all-knowing and wrathful god would
a: not know if a person was a hypocrite and b: not take grave exception to hypocritical persons.
Following from this, it is not impossible that such a god might take even more umbrage than usual to a hypocrite than to a simple yet honest unbeliever.
Thus Pascal's wager may actually be very bad advice indeed.
KNOW THY ENEMIES... patterns of religious argumentation
Argument 2: Association with contradictory qualities Memetic quality: medium; mainly stereotyped, semantic-associative components
----- “Faith is a VENTURE/daring. One has to be STRONG to let go (of one’s rational/faithless view of the world) and open oneself for Jesus etc.” -----
These statements curiously twist the actual emotional differences between believers and unbelievers. (As mentioned before,) faith in the Christian god has many psychological and social advantages that work directly (reducing complexity, thus insecurity, thus fear) and indirectly (e.g., reducing fear through social support). In other words, we these are psychological coping mechanisms available for religious BUT NOT by unreligious persons (of course, a rational view might harbour certain mechanisms to reduce psychological stress, too, such as the comparatively strong opinion of – in principle - being able to understand the world; these mechanisms are imho far less effective than the mentioned specifically religious). Thus, it must be far more stressful to give up faith than becoming faithful.
Memetically, this Argument is – all logical weaknesses aside – very effective (well not as effective as others, thus only the “medium”-category), for notions such as risk-taking and strength have a natural appeal (in German, in fact, “venture” – “Wagnis” – seems strongly associated with the Christian religion). Christianity has succeeded in preserving these concepts/their associations with itself from a time when they might actually have been appropriate in the face of persecution etc., over the birth of a rational view of the world - up to this day (again, not necessarily consciously).
The refutation of this argument is further complicated due to its unreflective use which never has been subject to conscious analysis due to the frequent confrontation with these concepts in relevant phases of socialisation.
KNOW THY ENEMIES... patterns of religious argumentation
Argument 2: Association with contradictory qualities Memetic quality: medium; mainly stereotyped, semantic-associative components
----- "Faith is a VENTURE/daring. One has to be STRONG to let go (of one's rational/faithless view of the world) and open oneself for Jesus etc." -----
[Blunderov] "The fallacy known as Appeal to Flattery occurs whenever a person attempts to compliment or flatter another in order to get her to accept the truth of a proposition. In some instances, it may be implied that the person deserves the flattery because they accept the position in question. This is type of Fallacy of Relevance because kind or flattering words simply aren't relevant to the truth of an idea or validity of a position. It is also categorized as an Appeal to Emotion because it appeals how a person feels about herself rather than her ability to critically analyze a claim."
[Blunderov] Greetings Björn and assembled congregants.
"There's no way to put God to the test, and that's exactly what you're doing when you design a study to see if God answers your prayers." - THE REV. RAYMOND LAWRENCE, director of pastoral care at a New York hospital." (NY Times today)
Stated another way; "god is, by definition, that which cannot be disproved." Unpacked like this we see the claim is an attempt, magnificent in a way, to conflate 'proving from the negative' and a circular argument.
(One should not forget that Paulians, aka Christians, usually do not hesitate to claim that 'miracles' in general and the miracle of the risen Christ in particular, are proof of god - a position seemingly contradictory to the position "There's no way to put God to the test".('Having your cake and eating it'!).)
Pull the rug from beneath the peoples' feet in this manner; add a dose of flattery and the tithes will soon follow.
Flattery is, as politicians, priests and the advertising industries have long known, is one of the most effective means of persuasion. One might go so far as to say that it is unrivalled my any meme other than fear. Why does flattery work so well?
Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments A common reference point as to why people believe the advice of psychics and astrologers - not to mention many other nice things said about them - is the "Barnum Effect." Named after P.T. Barnum, the Barnum Effect is based upon his famous saying "There's a sucker born every minute."
The Barnum Effect is not just a reference to people's gullibility, however, but specifically to people's predilection to believe positive statements about themselves, even when there is no particular reason to do so. It is an issue of selectively noticing the things which are preferable while ignoring those things which are not. Studies of how people receive astrological predictions have revealed the influence of the Barnum Effect.
For example, C.R. Snyder and R.J. Shenkel published an article in the March, 1975, issue of Psychology Today about a study of astrology which they performed on college students.
Every member in the group of students received the exact same, vaguely worded horoscope about their characters and all the students were very impressed with how accurate it sounded. A few were asked to explain in more detail just why they thought it was accurate - as a result, these students thought it was even more accurate.
At Lawrence University, psychologist Peter Glick along with some of his colleagues performed another study on students there, first dividing them into skeptics and believers. Both groups thought that their horoscopes were very accurate when the information was positive, but only the believers were inclined to accept the validity of the horoscopes when the information was negatively worded. Of course, the horoscopes were not individually prepared as they were told - all of the positive horoscopes were the same and all of the negative ones were the same.
Finally, an interesting study was performed in 1955 by N.D. Sunberg when he had 44 students take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a standardized test used by psychologists to evaluate a person's personality. Two experienced psychologists interpreted the results and wrote personality sketches - what the students received, however, was the real sketch and a fake one. When asked to pick the more accurate and more correct sketch, 26 of the 44 students picked the fake one.
Thus, more than half (59%) actually found a fake sketch more accurate than a real one, showing that even when people are convinced that a "reading" of them is accurate, this is absolutely no indication that it is, indeed, an accurate evaluation of them. This is commonly known as the fallacy of "personal validation" - an individual cannot be relied upon to personally validate such estimations of their fortune or character.
The truth seems clear: whatever our backgrounds and however rationally we may tend to act in the normal course of our lives, we like to hear nice things said about us. We like to feel connected to people around us and to the universe at large. Astrology offers us just such feelings, and the experience of getting a personal astrological reading can, for many people, impact how they feel.
This is not a sign of stupidity. Quite the contrary, the ability of a person to find coherency and meaning in a variety of disparate and often contradictory statements can be seen as a sign of real creativity and a very active mind. It requires good pattern-matching and problem-solving skills to develop a reasonable reading from what they are normally given, so long as the initial assumption is granted that the reading should be expected to provide valid information in the first place.
These are the same skills we use in order to derive meaning and understanding in our daily lives. Our methods work in our daily lives because we assume, correctly, that there is something meaningful and coherent out there to understand. It is when we make the same assumption incorrectly and in the wrong context that our skills and methods lead us astray.
It is not really surprising, then, that so many continue to believe in astrology, psychics and mediums, year after year, despite the ample scientific evidence against them and general lack of scientific evidence to support them. Perhaps a more interesting question might be: why don't some people believe such things? What causes some people to be skeptical more consistently than others, even when being credulous feels good?
[Blunderov] Seemingly, context is the high ground of oratory - command it and you command the field. To do this you must control which definitions are in play. Whether cowboys and crooks, freedom-fighters and terrorists, the saved and the damned - how could it not be obvious which side to choose?
(It is possible to suppose that the obverse of the Barnum effect also applies; that it is relatively easy to persuade people to feel negatively about those that are perceived as 'other'.)
You never, ever go after God with scientific inquiry. If you try it, you will wind up with religion in charge of *everything* and the death of science.
The explanation of WHY this is true will take too long for me to explain while typing in the back of a cab.
Think seriously about the consequences of “disproving prayer”.
[Blunderov] Greetings Björn and assembled congregants.
"There's no way to put God to the test, and that's exactly what you're doing when you design a study to see if God answers your prayers." - THE REV. RAYMOND LAWRENCE, director of pastoral care at a New York hospital." (NY Times today)
Stated another way; "god is, by definition, that which cannot be disproved." Unpacked like this we see the claim is an attempt, magnificent in a way, to conflate 'proving from the negative' and a circular argument.
(One should not forget that Paulians, aka Christians, usually do not hesitate to claim that 'miracles' in general and the miracle of the risen Christ in particular, are proof of god - a position seemingly contradictory to the position "There's no way to put God to the test".('Having your cake and eating it'!).)
Pull the rug from beneath the peoples' feet in this manner; add a dose of flattery and the tithes will soon follow.
Flattery is, as politicians, priests and the advertising industries have long known, is one of the most effective means of persuasion. One might go so far as to say that it is unrivalled my any meme other than fear. Why does flattery work so well?
Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments A common reference point as to why people believe the advice of psychics and astrologers - not to mention many other nice things said about them - is the "Barnum Effect." Named after P.T. Barnum, the Barnum Effect is based upon his famous saying "There's a sucker born every minute."
The Barnum Effect is not just a reference to people's gullibility, however, but specifically to people's predilection to believe positive statements about themselves, even when there is no particular reason to do so. It is an issue of selectively noticing the things which are preferable while ignoring those things which are not. Studies of how people receive astrological predictions have revealed the influence of the Barnum Effect.
For example, C.R. Snyder and R.J. Shenkel published an article in the March, 1975, issue of Psychology Today about a study of astrology which they performed on college students.
Every member in the group of students received the exact same, vaguely worded horoscope about their characters and all the students were very impressed with how accurate it sounded. A few were asked to explain in more detail just why they thought it was accurate - as a result, these students thought it was even more accurate.
At Lawrence University, psychologist Peter Glick along with some of his colleagues performed another study on students there, first dividing them into skeptics and believers. Both groups thought that their horoscopes were very accurate when the information was positive, but only the believers were inclined to accept the validity of the horoscopes when the information was negatively worded. Of course, the horoscopes were not individually prepared as they were told - all of the positive horoscopes were the same and all of the negative ones were the same.
Finally, an interesting study was performed in 1955 by N.D. Sunberg when he had 44 students take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a standardized test used by psychologists to evaluate a person's personality. Two experienced psychologists interpreted the results and wrote personality sketches - what the students received, however, was the real sketch and a fake one. When asked to pick the more accurate and more correct sketch, 26 of the 44 students picked the fake one.
Thus, more than half (59%) actually found a fake sketch more accurate than a real one, showing that even when people are convinced that a "reading" of them is accurate, this is absolutely no indication that it is, indeed, an accurate evaluation of them. This is commonly known as the fallacy of "personal validation" - an individual cannot be relied upon to personally validate such estimations of their fortune or character.
The truth seems clear: whatever our backgrounds and however rationally we may tend to act in the normal course of our lives, we like to hear nice things said about us. We like to feel connected to people around us and to the universe at large. Astrology offers us just such feelings, and the experience of getting a personal astrological reading can, for many people, impact how they feel.
This is not a sign of stupidity. Quite the contrary, the ability of a person to find coherency and meaning in a variety of disparate and often contradictory statements can be seen as a sign of real creativity and a very active mind. It requires good pattern-matching and problem-solving skills to develop a reasonable reading from what they are normally given, so long as the initial assumption is granted that the reading should be expected to provide valid information in the first place.
These are the same skills we use in order to derive meaning and understanding in our daily lives. Our methods work in our daily lives because we assume, correctly, that there is something meaningful and coherent out there to understand. It is when we make the same assumption incorrectly and in the wrong context that our skills and methods lead us astray.
It is not really surprising, then, that so many continue to believe in astrology, psychics and mediums, year after year, despite the ample scientific evidence against them and general lack of scientific evidence to support them. Perhaps a more interesting question might be: why don't some people believe such things? What causes some people to be skeptical more consistently than others, even when being credulous feels good?
[Blunderov] Seemingly, context is the high ground of oratory - command it and you command the field. To do this you must control which definitions are in play. Whether cowboys and crooks, freedom-fighters and terrorists, the saved and the damned - how could it not be obvious which side to choose?
(It is possible to suppose that the obverse of the Barnum effect also applies; that it is relatively easy to persuade people to feel negatively about those that are perceived as 'other'.)
KNOW THY ENEMIES... patterns of religious argumentation
Argument 2: Personal experiences - "Revelations" Memetic quality: very high; mainly psychological-emotional components <snip> "I have myself experienced God: He answers my prayers, lead/leads me on the right track, comforts me, I can feel his presence etc. Thus, I do not need arguments anymore."
This argument is the psychologically most serious. Persons that actually honestly can formulate it are most likely lost/inaccessible. To me, it is a genuinely psychopathological character trait of clinical relevance</snip>
[Blunderov] I actually have quite a lot of time for this kind of theist - in my experience they tend (usually) to be quite quiet and private about their beliefs. They are at the opposite end of the spectrum from the non-cognitive atheist who flatly refuses to discuss even the remote possibility that there could be any such thing as 'god' without first being presented with hard evidence to this effect. Sadly, most discussions I have ever had with believers have eventually devolved to these two irreconcilable positions.
(The only question I have ever been able to ask which showed any signs of testing the bullet-proofing of faith is 'how do you know the bible wasn't written by the devil?')
But I don't think one should be too unkind. There are many people who are manifestly better off for their faith. Some really do get saved - from themselves! It's the inquisitive one's that WE want.
Best Regards.
(Oh and BTW Bjorn, I would be deeply honoured to be quoted by you. Gosh! That doesn't happen to me every day! Thank you for the compliment.)
<snip>'how do you know the bible wasn't written by the devil?'</snip>
... a believer could assume god to exist either way, though; only without the bible as authority you would not have as many guidelines on how to behave... would be okay, too. besides, isn't that statement somewhat gnostic in nature?
björn from beyond
[Blunderov] I not absolutely sure of what you mean by gnostic here; but if I read you aright, I don't think asking the devil question implies that the questioner is himself tacitly admitting the existence of god. The questioner is simply attempting to undermine the premise of an argument.
The virtue of the question is that it more or less forces the believer onto his own rational resources. Disqualified (for the moment anyway) from citing the scriptures as the source of his conviction, the believer has no other recourse than to attempt to apply reasoning to the problem - in itself a pungent point. (Unless he can successfully claim that the bible has brought nothing but good to the world. Not a position that I would care to defend.)
In my experience the usual defence is simply to change the subject as soon as possible, but I'd like to think that a lingering doubt can only but remain...
<bullshit>“Should God not exist, and a person believes in him, that person does not lose anything because he/she will perish anyway; should God exist, though, and a person does NOT believe, it is possible that he/she will be punished for being faithless.”</bullshit>_____________
I like what Robert M. Martin has to say about Pascal’s wager in his book There Are Two Errors . . . :
<snip>But consider the contrary reasoning of the same type. There’s really very little evidence for the existence of God, and rational people harbour reasonable doubts about it. Surely a just God who values rationality wouldn’t punish people for being reasonable. He might even reward them for their careful and independent habits of thought. And he might even punish believers for their credulity—for their sloppiness of mind in going along with the herd, believing what there’s so little evidence for. On the other hand, believing in truth is a good thing, its own reward. If there isn’t any God, non-believers are right, and believers wrong. . . .
• If you believe and God does exist—punishment for credulity • If you believe and God doesn’t exist—misfortune of being wrong • If you don’t believe and God exists—reward for rationality • If you don’t believe and God doesn’t exist—benefit of being right.</snip>
Should you believe?
Either way, you’re better off being a non-believer.
’Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have known what it’s like to have sex with someone besides yourself. —LenKen
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
And not only is it an appeal to flattery and one’s vanity, it also turns the truth on its head: It takes real courage, daring, and strength to mindlessly follow the herd—to believe what the vast majority of one’s peers (at least profess to) believe—rather than thinking about the big questions for yourself, using your own reasoning abilities, and coming to your own conclusions. Yep, only a coward and a weakling would defy the majority. People are funny. As an ironist in this wacky world, I feel like a kid in a candy store—or a Kennedy in a liquor store . . . or a priest in a preschool. Huzzah! _____________
Blunderov <squooker@mweb.co.za> wrote: Gorogh Sent: 08 October 2004 01:24 PM
KNOW THY ENEMIES... patterns of religious argumentation
Argument 2: Association with contradictory qualities Memetic quality: medium; mainly stereotyped, semantic-associative components
----- "Faith is a VENTURE/daring. One has to be STRONG to let go (of one's rational/faithless view of the world) and open oneself for Jesus etc." -----
[Blunderov] "The fallacy known as Appeal to Flattery occurs whenever a person attempts to compliment or flatter another in order to get her to accept the truth of a proposition. In some instances, it may be implied that the person deserves the flattery because they accept the position in question. This is type of Fallacy of Relevance because kind or flattering words simply aren't relevant to the truth of an idea or validity of a position. It is also categorized as an Appeal to Emotion because it appeals how a person feels about herself rather than her ability to critically analyze a claim."
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
’Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have known what it’s like to have sex with someone besides yourself. —LenKen
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
>You can believe not to have free will and still feel and act as if you have. (Besides, what follows from having no free will? That you'll have to lie down and die? No, nothing at all - no behavioural changes implied...). />
Yes, you have no free will over how a movie that you watch will play out, but it may still be worth watching -- it is still an adventure.
"People who don't kill themselves, just can't help it. Each time we fail to end it all is a kind of temporary solution to a permanent problem"
there are always two sides, aint there?
----------------------------- still hangin in there ...
<snip>Yes, you have no free will over how a movie that you watch will play out, but it may still be worth watching -- it is still an adventure.</snip>
is a nice analogy indeed. I shall remember it.
Not exactly in the spirit, but still within the topic of the thread: two days ago I had a good conversation with a member of Bahai - are there any opinions out there on this religion? Even though they do have their dogmas, they seem to be a far lesser evil than many of the world's major religions - they basically accept the historicity of all religions and say that religions were more or less meant to solve certain problems of a particular time's (and region's) particular society. They believe that the prophets of all religions described the same "entity" with different words, interpreted through the different needs of their society.
At least, that's how I understood it - I found it surprisingly rational for a religion (no, no danger of conversion for me).
Might it not even be a good strategy to encourage a certain more ratio-compatible kind of religion, following the long term plan of, e.g.
luring Christians into Bahai, then luring Bahai into rationality...
Author
Logged
