I'm starting to appreciate the atheist perspective

[Mr E]

Epistemology has become one of my pet interests. The big distinction is between beliefs that are "justified" (or have "warrant") and those that do not. Alvin Plantinga points out that to be justified, beliefs must first and foremost be formed on the basis of "cognitive faculties operating as they were intended to operate in an environment in which they were intended to operate." So the delusional Aussie fails that test. This is my problem with Flat Earthers and similar folk: Unless we assume you're simply pretending to amuse yourself, which is my charitable default position until proven wrong, your cognitive faculties are clearly not operating properly - so how seriously can we take your views on anything.

Beliefs can be solidly justified - rationally arrived at on the basis of plausible evidence and inferences - but completely wrong. It happens all the time to all of us. So "justified belief" is not "knowledge." The standard definition of knowledge is something like "justified true belief" - your beliefs are both justified and true - although philosophers continue to debate what actually constitutes knowledge.

The problem with religious belief (including atheistic nonbelief) is that we can never have knowledge. All major religions provide a basis for justified belief, or that we would not have lasted as long as they have and attracted as many sane and intelligent believers as they have. But their metaphysical "truths" simply can't be known, at least this side of the grave or the Second Coming. So we acquire as much knowledge as we can and form beliefs sufficiently strong to be called deep convictions - but they are still simply beliefs, not knowledge.

It's difficult to admit that one's most cherished beliefs that form the very foundation of his life may simply not be true, but that's the unavoidable reality when it comes to religious beliefs.

I had an amusing incident when my role as an assistant attorney general was to file paternity cases against deadbeat dads. As a newbie, I was delighted when a test came back with a 99.4% probability of the guy being dad. The main office called and said "Dismiss the case." WHAT - 99.4% probability and you want me to dismiss??? "That's not even close - it's gotta be 99.9%." Geez, I thought I had knowledge and I didn't even have justified belief!

Anytime you are ready to actually discuss your beliefs, you just let me know. Oh, but YOUR beliefs are the exception, right?

 

[Mr E]

In many cases becoming an "atheist" is an over-reaction to leaving Christianity. A person need to do a 180 to leave the church. A right or left turn does the job.

]

Like former smokers. It’s not enough to simply quit. You must become a crusader.

 

[O'Darby III]

Anytime you are ready to actually discuss your beliefs, you just let me know. Oh, but YOUR beliefs are the exception, right?

To provide a semi-serious answer, religious beliefs are in a different category (metaphysical) where the truth truly can't be known. This is why I always say I don't completely dismiss atheism, any species of Christianity, or any species of any other religion. I can try to reach well-thought-out convictions as to what is most likely to be true, but the fact is I can't know and something that seems completely unlikely to me may actually be The Truth. One of my best friends, a very intelligent guy, believes we are living in an alien-generated software program. Well, maybe.

Questions about the natural order are at least susceptible to scientific investigation, assuming we can trust our brains and senses. They are not absolute Truths either - perhaps the so-called Law of Gravity will cease to operate tomorrow. But in many areas - the shape of the earth being one - I think we can be certain to a level of "human certainty." If someone sees anomalies, it is certain to a level of "human certainty" that the explanation is not that the earth is flat.

I come back, as I have before, to the JFK assassination community, where I was once a gung-ho conspiracy theorist. Once I had a truly extensive base of knowledge, the scales fell from my eyes. I could see that my conspiracy beliefs were being driven partly by psychology - a massive assassination conspiracy and cover-up is way more interesting than Oswald and his clunky Carcano - and partly by an insufficient base of knowledge, meaning over-familiarity with the gee-whiz assassination literature and lack of familiarity with the real evidence. I could then see what the other conspiracy enthusiasts were doing. Almost none of them were suffering from an insufficient base of knowledge, and many of them were highly educated and intelligent, but the psychological motivations (to which they were absolutely blind) were screamingly obvious. They want the world to be a certain way and have a certain set of explanations, and only a massive conspiracy in the assassination would fit the bill. This is exactly what the psychological and sociological literature has shown - a specific "conspiracy orientation" that isn't necessarily pathological but is a definite profile. This is why these folks never just believe one extreme conspiracy theory, but multiple ones.

The other thing that was fascinating was how closely - really closely - the JFK assassination conspiracy community resembles a religion.

 

[Mr E]

To provide a semi-serious answer, religious beliefs are in a different category (metaphysical) where the truth truly can't be known. This is why I always say I don't completely dismiss atheism, any species of Christianity, or any species of any other religion. I can try to reach well-thought-out convictions as to what is most likely to be true, but the fact is I can't know and something that seems completely unlikely to me may actually be The Truth. One of my best friends, a very intelligent guy, believes we are living in an alien-generated software program. Well, maybe.

Questions about the natural order are at least susceptible to scientific investigation, assuming we can trust our brains and senses. They are not absolute Truths either - perhaps the so-called Law of Gravity will cease to operate tomorrow. But in many areas - the shape of the earth being one - I think we can be certain to a level of "human certainty." If someone sees anomalies, it is certain to a level of "human certainty" that the explanation is not that the earth is flat.

I come back, as I have before, to the JFK assassination community, where I was once a gung-ho conspiracy theorist. Once I had a truly extensive base of knowledge, the scales fell from my eyes. I could see that my conspiracy beliefs were being driven partly by psychology - a massive assassination conspiracy and cover-up is way more interesting than Oswald and his clunky Carcano - and partly by an insufficient base of knowledge, meaning over-familiarity with the gee-whiz assassination literature and lack of familiarity with the real evidence. I could then see what the other conspiracy enthusiasts were doing. Almost none of them were suffering from an insufficient base of knowledge, and many of them were highly educated and intelligent, but the psychological motivations (to which they were absolutely blind) were screamingly obvious. They want the world to be a certain way and have a certain set of explanations, and only a massive conspiracy in the assassination would fit the bill. This is exactly what the psychological and sociological literature has shown - a specific "conspiracy orientation" that isn't necessarily pathological but is a definite profile. This is why these folks never just believe one extreme conspiracy theory, but multiple ones.

The other thing that was fascinating was how closely - really closely - the JFK assassination conspiracy community resembles a religion.

The shroud of Turin would be another apt example, where beliefs become a religion unto itself made possible by completely unprovable claims.

Ah, but it’s always better to fight from the high ground as Sun Tzu would teach. Claim your position as authoritative, even when it’s not….

An admission that beliefs are still beliefs, even when you wholly believe them, is a great starting point.

 

[O'Darby III]

The shroud of Turin would be another apt example, where beliefs become a religion unto itself made possible by completely unprovable claims.

Ah, but it’s always better to fight from the high ground as Sun Tzu would teach. Claim your position as authoritative, even when it’s not….

An admission that beliefs are still beliefs, even when you wholly believe them, is a great starting point.

The Shroud of Turin is one my most longstanding, intense interests. The "serious" community, as exemplified by www.shroud.com, is remarkably rational. Those who hold Catholic beliefs, or any religious beliefs for that matter, undoubtedly have some level of cognitive bias, but the extensive scientific discussion and analysis is remarkably "scientific."

My hopefully rational position is that (1) if it is a 13th century fraud, it is still fantastically interesting and (so far) impossible to explain; (2) there are legitimate doubts about the accuracy of the carbon dating; (3) there is a sound historical basis for believing it is much older than the 13th century; (4) the blood stains are real and entirely consistent with a flogging, crucifixion and crown of thorns, as well as the same blood type as the Sudarium of Oviedo; (5) the fabric and pollen are consistent with first century Israel; and (6) if it can ever be conclusively dated to the 1st century, it will be difficult to view it as anything other than evidence of the resurrection. I lean toward authenticity mostly because there has not been a convincing explanation for the image or the medical accuracy of the bloodstains.

The only real nonsense of which I'm aware has been (1) the assorted skeptical "explanations" that simply don't mesh with the facts (e.g., "it's a painting"); (2) a group of once-prominent researchers who "saw" all sorts things - flowers, tools, I don't know what all - that simply aren't there; and (3) those for whom it's entirely an article of faith and who refuse even to consider it could be anything other than the burial shroud of Jesus.

The beauty of shroud.com is that it's been owned and operated for almost 30 years by Barrie Schwortz (with whom I've communicated), a Jew who has no dogmatic position but was the official photographer of the 1978 STURP team that examined the Shroud.

 

[Mr E]

The Shroud of Turin is one my most longstanding, intense interests. The "serious" community, as exemplified by www.shroud.com, is remarkably rational. Those who hold Catholic beliefs, or any religious beliefs for that matter, undoubtedly have some level of cognitive bias, but the extensive scientific discussion and analysis is remarkably "scientific."

My hopefully rational position is that (1) if it is a 13th century fraud, it is still fantastically interesting and (so far) impossible to explain; (2) there are legitimate doubts about the accuracy of the carbon dating; (3) there is a sound historical basis for believing it is much older than the 13th century; (4) the blood stains are real and entirely consistent with a flogging, crucifixion and crown of thorns, as well as the same blood type as the Sudarium of Oviedo; (5) the fabric and pollen are consistent with first century Israel; and (6) if it can ever be conclusively dated to the 1st century, it will be difficult to view it as anything other than evidence of the resurrection. I lean toward authenticity mostly because there has not been a convincing explanation for the image or the medical accuracy of the bloodstains.

The only real nonsense of which I'm aware has been (1) the assorted skeptical "explanations" that simply don't mesh with the facts (e.g., "it's a painting"); (2) a group of once-prominent researchers who "saw" all sorts things - flowers, tools, I don't know what all - that simply aren't there; and (3) those for whom it's entirely an article of faith and who refuse even to consider it could be anything other than the burial shroud of Jesus.

The beauty of shroud.com is that it's been owned and operated for almost 30 years by Barrie Schwortz (with whom I've communicated), a Jew who has no dogmatic position but was the official photographer of the 1978 STURP team that examined the Shroud.

lol. Too easy

 

[O'Darby III]

lol. Too easy

Too rational.