tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post3811933402632176110..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Would Anything Change Your Mind?Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52372322009170089282012-09-27T07:04:39.721-07:002012-09-27T07:04:39.721-07:00“Publicly committed to an apparently untenable bel...“Publicly committed to an apparently untenable belief" - lol. 'Apparently untenable'? I wonder if a 4 paragraph obviously fake article saying evidence had been discovered that conclusively disproves evolution -- a bunny skeleton in the precambrian layer or whatever the famous example Dawkins sometimes cites that would count as disconfirming evidence against evolution -- would dissuade a group of biologists from believing in it. If they were logical, rational biologists, their belief in it should remain completely unchanged until they actually examine the evidence themselves, confirmed that the results had gone through peer review process, ruled out a hoax etc etc. And even before doing so, they could be pretty well certain that it was fake based on the wealth of evidence to the contrary. Exactly the same here. Glad only 24% of this group were blatantly irrational.<br /><br />And yet the article: "It is hard to conceive of a more clear, objective demonstration of outright irrationality. " -- No, you've got it backwards, fella.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58736917156571761512009-02-01T22:18:00.000-08:002009-02-01T22:18:00.000-08:00There is no contradiction between "Jesus rose from...There is no contradiction between "Jesus rose from the dead" and "Jesus body was stolen".<BR/>Jesus cold of <BR/><BR/>A) rose in spirit form<BR/><BR/>b) was able to bilocate<BR/><BR/>c) is a god and thus can take other forms<BR/><BR/>...........<BR/><BR/>So your presentation professor of those two propositions is a false dichotomyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78313482120695519362009-01-12T12:38:00.000-08:002009-01-12T12:38:00.000-08:00Brigitte,I am very sorry about your loss.If you'd ...Brigitte,<BR/><BR/>I am very sorry about your loss.<BR/><BR/>If you'd like to read Vonnegut, I can recommend "Slaughterhouse Five" to you: I thought it was excellent. It is absurd, but I found this to be a strength rather than a weakness. I've only read a few of his books, but the ones I read I enjoyed thoroughly.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33220741919408249992009-01-12T11:05:00.000-08:002009-01-12T11:05:00.000-08:00You may be more familiar with Berlinski than I am,...<I>You may be more familiar with Berlinski than I am, but "supercilious" is an ad hominem and means nothing and is not an argument, so it does not need to be said. Arguing in this way always screams to me: he does not have a decent answer. You'd be better off not saying it.</I><BR/><BR/>No decent answer? And what was the question?<BR/><BR/><I>But at present I don't think we have anything in science that supports macroevolution such as fishes to land, and mammal to sea via, of all things, random genetic mutations. Maybe we will find a different, more credible mechanism (though we've looked for a while already).</I><BR/><BR/>And now it is my turn to express dissatisfaction with your answer, although my question was quite specific and detailed. Do you deny that the <I>Tiktaalik</I> fossils exist, do you think they have been misinterpreted, or do you think they are a trick by Satan or some other supernatural? You may be suggesting that the fossil transitions are accurate enough, but that the mechanism was not evolution, but I would hate to be accused of over-interpreting your response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15079789751361882722009-01-12T10:37:00.000-08:002009-01-12T10:37:00.000-08:00You may be more familiar with Berlinski than I am,...You may be more familiar with Berlinski than I am, but "supercilious" is an ad hominem and means nothing and is not an argument, so it does not need to be said. Arguing in this way always screams to me: he does not have a decent answer. You'd be better off not saying it.<BR/><BR/>I find the stuff about RNA and DNA very interesting and I perhaps could accommodate myself to the idea that God's used all the processes that science discovers and make it harmonize. But at present I don't think we have anything in science that supports macroevolution such as fishes to land, and mammal to sea via, of all things, random genetic mutations. Maybe we will find a different, more credible mechanism (though we've looked for a while already). <BR/><BR/>What then? I am starting to care less and less. Even Behe sees evidence for common descent. Though, I have to say, I don't like it at all (yes, very "unscientific" of me.) <BR/><BR/>Just for interest sake, my husband is the chair of the board of regents for a christian college. I've taken my religion courses there, but my science at the UofA. I am told that the christian college teaches evolution the same way as the UofA.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84508033984037561292009-01-11T12:48:00.000-08:002009-01-11T12:48:00.000-08:00Calling Berlinski's stuff "crap" is not helping yo...<I>Calling Berlinski's stuff "crap" is not helping you make a point; he just makes common sense points that recommend themselves and also need answering.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see much common sense in Berlinski's writing, but rather a lot fo strawman fallacy. I don't consider fallacious argumentation to be common sense. By the by, a word that seems to come up frequently in discussion of Berlinski is "supercilious."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52087721866696063902009-01-11T12:06:00.000-08:002009-01-11T12:06:00.000-08:00I am sorry Player Piano: my son died on January 2,...I am sorry Player Piano: my son died on January 2, 09 in a motor vehicle accident. We just had his funeral on Thursday with 600 attending and constant phone calls and people coming to the door.<BR/><BR/>I am interested in proper dialogue. I will try to get to Reginald's reading list. <BR/><BR/>Calling Berlinski's stuff "crap" is not helping you make a point; he just makes common sense points that recommend themselves and also need answering. I will try to get to your links.<BR/><BR/>I would love to read Kurt Vonnegut. One time, there was a long interview with him on CBC radio, that I found absorbing. What an interesting person. Rather bleak, however. What would you recommend?Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72443464839708182012009-01-05T19:27:00.000-08:002009-01-05T19:27:00.000-08:00Brigitte,Both Reginald Selkirk and I have attempte...Brigitte,<BR/><BR/>Both Reginald Selkirk and I have attempted to reply to your satisfaction. While obviously he presents a more concrete response, I am just trying to reach out to you in the spirit of an open discussion. I think both of our replies merit a response, especially Reginald Selkirk's. My words may still be from a "cookbook" inadvertantly, but I tried to be honest as I could. Reginald is definitely lighter than usual on the rhetoric - he has examples which I would like to see you consider objectively. <BR/><BR/>I want to know if you are really interested in responding to us - are you really interested in having a discussion about this, or are you just pretending?Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-19384229361483838872009-01-03T13:05:00.000-08:002009-01-03T13:05:00.000-08:00Fishes going on land, is not science to me, forgiv...<I>Fishes going on land, is not science to me, forgive me. I know it is to some. It is not to me.</I><BR/><BR/>How odd that science should be considered a subjective experience; that is pretty much the exact opposite of the objective hypothesis testing which is at the very heart of science.<BR/><BR/>What is your view of the recently published (2005) fossils of <A HREF="http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/" REL="nofollow">Tiktaalik roseae</A>? Do you hold that these fossils do not exist? That their interpretation in context of other fossils in the fish-tetrapod transition <A HREF="http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html" REL="nofollow">(Acanthostega, Hynerpeton, Ichthyostega, Panderichthys, and others)</A> has somehow been botched? That such fossils are attempts to mislead placed in the earth by Satan, or by God himself?<BR/><BR/>I strongly recommend the book <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229380285&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow">Your Inner Fish</A> by Neil Shubin, one of the discoverers of the Tiktaalik fossils. Shubin does a good job of relating his study of fossils to human anatomy. <BR/><BR/>Shubin also explains <A HREF="http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html" REL="nofollow">how the Tiktaalik fossils would never have been found</A> if basic assumptions about geological formations and dating techniques were not accurate. They wanted to find fossils of a certain age and from a certain environment, and evolutionary science told them where to look.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30728687926641678882009-01-03T11:22:00.000-08:002009-01-03T11:22:00.000-08:00Bror, will obviously be the much better authority ...<I>Bror, will obviously be the much better authority on the subject, having more than one degree (as all our ministers have) in the relevant specialty.<BR/><BR/>I am not citing him or any point or any info, as you will notice. I am recommending him, as you have him available as a living, breathing, thinking authority to talk to, not an organization or Magesterium.</I><BR/><BR/>First of all, I have no use for <B>authority</B> on such a subject. I am more interested in <B>expertise</B>. And B.E. has proven himself not to be a reliable expert. He dismisses any view of Biblical texts which runs counter to his pre-drawn conclusions; if any highly respected scholar is willing to accept the possibility that God does not exist, that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, or that the Bible is not the word of God, B.E. dismisses them as a "liberal." He even insists on claims for the Gospels that they do not make for themselves, e.g. that they were written by the persons whose names were tacked onto them by the early church, and that they are eyewitness accounts. He has adequately demonstrated his lack of scholarship to my satisfaction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27023125505904104392009-01-03T11:14:00.000-08:002009-01-03T11:14:00.000-08:00Last night I watched all the clips of David Berlin...<I>Last night I watched all the clips of David Berlinski on You-Tube. (Can you believe never heard of him, watched Expelled, or watched his clips.) Let him explain to you about real hard science, quantification, calculations, reasonableness and all kinds of good unanswered questions.</I><BR/><BR/>Why do you put that crap into your brain? <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://recursed.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-berlinski-king-of-poseurs.html" REL="nofollow">David Berlinski, King Of Poseurs</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/von-neumann-on.html" REL="nofollow">Von Neumann, Berlinski, and evolution: Who’s the hooter?</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkreason.org/articles/windmill.cfm" REL="nofollow">Berlinski and the windmill</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/berlinski_and_his_astonishing.php" REL="nofollow">Berlinski and his astonishing “cows to whales” argument</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/08/berlinski_responds_a_digested_1.php" REL="nofollow">Berlinski responds: A Digested Debate</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-713303770620609152009-01-02T15:31:00.000-08:002009-01-02T15:31:00.000-08:00Brigitte, my pseudonym's Player Piano, not Piano P...Brigitte, my pseudonym's Player Piano, not Piano Player.<BR/><BR/>If only you had read Kurt Vonnegut, you'd know that by now.<BR/><BR/>That's one recommendation I do feel comfortable making to you.<BR/><BR/>Brigitte, you accuse me of using a "cookbook" and yet I am hearing absolutely nothing new from you, either. If the conversation keeps going like this, we may just end up talking past each other. I don't want that to happen here.<BR/><BR/>You just said that "fishes going on land" is not science to you. How am I going to change your mind about what constitutes science? You have already predetermined what is and what is not science. How do you expect me to un-determine that distinction for you?<BR/><BR/>My accusations may be relatively uninformed, but my questions are also relatively unanswered! I don't have extensive knowledge of biblical scholarship - but my own personal reading of the Bible has brought up a series of questions which remain unanswered to my satisfaction.<BR/><BR/>Thousands of years have been expended attempting to answer some of the basic questions I have and no real answers have been forthcoming. <BR/><BR/>Is the Bible inerrant? I do not believe that it is. Is the Bible metaphorical? I believe that it could be, but I also believe that some parts of it were clearly intended not to be metaphorical. However, if some parts of it are metaphorical and some parts are not metaphorical, how can I trust its contents? It doesn't make sense to me. How do I trust what it's saying? There's no reliable standard. The book itself gives much more evidence of human origins than divine origins.<BR/><BR/>This is not an uninformed deconstruction: it is an honest criticism - how does this book, and this belief system, make sense? How is this even possible?<BR/><BR/>Science is trying to answer these questions: religion isn't. There are knowledgable scientists who can help you with your understanding of evolution. I would highly recommend the talkorigins site to you, as a starting point.<BR/><BR/>Maybe there are knowledgable people who can answer my questions about religion, but people have been trying for thousands of years, and still there are not convincing answers. I have an open mind, but I have not been convinced that this religion is true or accurate or divine in origin. All the evidence, to me, points to humanity as the source of this belief system. You can evaluate the scientific evidence of biology for yourself.<BR/><BR/>Maybe we can quit talking past each other. I'll curtail my rhetoric if you have a problem with it - it's part of how I express myself in writing. I want this to be as productive as possible for both of us.<BR/><BR/>As you suggested, I'm talking, and now I'm listening. Answer my questions about the Bible, or have your friend answer them for me. Maybe you will have your questions answered about science. <BR/><BR/>I may be naive, but I am also stubborn.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15304192546944889832009-01-02T08:48:00.000-08:002009-01-02T08:48:00.000-08:00"Is this from the same Brigitte who recently (Dece..."Is this from the same Brigitte who recently (December 13, 2008) wrote, "It matters not whom you cite. One can always cite someone." The irony is strong with this one."<BR/><BR/>I am not citing him or any point or any info, as you will notice. I am recommending him, as you have him available as a living, breathing, thinking authority to talk to, not an organization or Magesterium. There is this thing that is alive and active, the spoken word, LOGOS. Talk and listen, throw out the cookbook rebuttals, as I just asked Piano Player.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91623597057431067762009-01-02T08:40:00.000-08:002009-01-02T08:40:00.000-08:00Piano Player: My experience with my lab instruct...Piano Player: My experience with my lab instructors is my experience and you don't need to give me one more of these worn out rebuttals. It seems people take these rebuttals right out of a cook book and apply them where ever their fancy strikes them, without ever hearing the other person. Fishes going on land, is not science to me, forgive me. I know it is to some. It is not to me.<BR/><BR/>Last night I watched all the clips of David Berlinski on You-Tube. (Can you believe never heard of him, watched Expelled, or watched his clips.) Let him explain to you about real hard science, quantification, calculations, reasonableness and all kinds of good unanswered questions. Just because Science wants to have an open mind, does not mean everything is possible. There is some hopeful monster stuff out there that is not reasonable, and will never be reasonable, and equally is a faith proposition. <BR/><BR/>There are things in real serious science that are proven, quantifiable, and, yes, Unassailable, such as, for example Gravity, as Berlinski explains the difference between anecdotal "evidence" in evolutionary "science", vs. "serious science".<BR/><BR/>Is it unassailable to you that you are here, and your hand is in front of you and work in this complicated way to type on your computer? Or is everything an illusion, relative, debatable? Maybe it's a mirage? Maybe you're not there? Maybe you really are in another universe, and you are just a projection, illusion, antimatter... Whatever. You have to be able to hold some views and some truths.<BR/><BR/>"Christianity is bleeding from a thousand paper cuts" sounds like another cookbook rebuttal.<BR/><BR/>If people don't want to get involved in biblical, textual scholarship stay out of it, but also refrain from uninformed accusations and deconstruction and try to find a balanced authority to lean on when you need to.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84769248479252294692009-01-02T08:30:00.000-08:002009-01-02T08:30:00.000-08:00Bror, will obviously be the much better authority ...<I>Bror, will obviously be the much better authority on the subject, having more than one degree (as all our ministers have) in the relevant specialty.</I><BR/><BR/>Is this from the same Brigitte who recently (December 13, 2008) wrote, "<I>It matters not whom you cite. One can always cite someone.</I>" The irony is strong with this one.<BR/><BR/><I>No doubt, you get your info from our other Bible experts like Dawkins and Hitchens and so on, and what they think reliable biblical scholarship is. Tell me, what would change your belief that their opinion is the best on the subject?</I><BR/><BR/>You could use more doubt, especially since you are so often wrong. And I was thinking more along the lines of Bart Ehrman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60643666633412818652009-01-01T17:29:00.000-08:002009-01-01T17:29:00.000-08:00Brigitte, it doesn't really impress me that you ca...Brigitte, it doesn't really impress me that you call your lab instructors "Darwinist": I don't know that much about biology, but I do know that what we know about biology has greatly improved and changed over time - what Darwin knew is by no means the extent of what we know now. <BR/><BR/>You intentionally use a word like "Darwinist" to act as if there haven't been any advances or changes to biology since Darwin's day when in fact much of what Darwin said about things has been updated and in some cases shown to be utterly incorrect. Biology has changed over time. Ironic isn't it, that "change over time" is also the definition of evolution, yes?<BR/><BR/>You have this alternate viewpoint that biology is some kind of dogma like Christianity or Islam, but that just isn't accurate. If there is evidence that a theory is wrong in biology, scientists change the theory. If there is evidence that any particular interpretation of the Bible or another holy book conflicts with science or reality or common sense, religious people just change their interpretation. It's getting to be that there are so many different interpretations that some forms of religion are almost meaningless. Christianity is practically bleeding from the wounds of a thousand paper cuts, every time some small part of it is re-interpreted differently. Science and religion have both changed over time: but science encourages revision for the sake of knowledge and religion tends to shun it for the sake of a faith which many do not particularly like to witness being questioned.<BR/><BR/>I know very little about biblical scholarship and some other things, but I do know that an "unassailable" belief is usually not a good thing. You accuse biologists of being dogmatic, and yet there you go again.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50481009647709808792009-01-01T11:06:00.000-08:002009-01-01T11:06:00.000-08:00In terms of Biblical scholarship, you might want t...In terms of Biblical scholarship, you might want to have a look at Ben Witherington's work. We don't agree with all of his theology and so on. (There is always stuff to keep discussing). But there are different methodologies for textual criticism and some are clearly outdated and thrown out, were fads. Witherington's work uses the socio-rhethorical method. He took his training in Durham, Great Britain, I think, where the theological school is well known for earlier dating of the texts.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think the earlier dating is completely plausible, mostly because the destruction of Jerusalem is nowhere mentioned. I think the gospels all pre-date this event.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72846501847275695432009-01-01T10:53:00.000-08:002009-01-01T10:53:00.000-08:00"the unbeliever is far more willing to accept shod..."the unbeliever is far more willing to accept shoddy scholarship involving the Bible than he is in any other arena. They often latch onto it, with out investigating it at all, only because it supports there unbelief." (Bror)<BR/><BR/>What an utterly ironic utterance from someone who dismisses the best available textual scholarship and cleaves only to what reinforces his pre-existing belief, as demonstrated repeatedly on this blog." (Reginald)<BR/><BR/>Reginald, think again. Biblical scholarship is a huge subject. It has filled huge libraries for millenia. But Reginald, the micro-biologist, knows what the best textual scholarship is. No doubt, you get your info from our other Bible experts like Dawkins and Hitchens and so on, and what they think reliable biblical scholarship is. Tell me, what would change your belief that their opinion is the best on the subject? <BR/><BR/>Bror, will obviously be the much better authority on the subject, having more than one degree (as all our ministers have) in the relevant specialty. But no: "he dismisses the best available textual scholarship... " Blabla. Bror is your best available textual scholarship at this point but you are not going to have it, don't want to have it. Is it possible to change your mind?Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32727163332767996222009-01-01T10:39:00.000-08:002009-01-01T10:39:00.000-08:00"Arguing that the fake news story doesn't make sen..."Arguing that the fake news story doesn't make sense or that you don't believe it, or that it doesn't fit with what Luther said, is utterly missing the point. The point, again, is that the subjects in the study said that they believed two glaringly contradictory things: 1) Jesus is the son of God, and 2) it has been proven that Jesus is not the son of God."<BR/><BR/>Why on earth would someone have their belief strengthened when they have just come to believe that their belief is wrong? What kind of a belief is believing what you don't believe. That's schizophrenic. What would be the point? They should go on medication.<BR/><BR/>Bror is right to ask: what would change Your mind? What would you need to see? Is nature not beautiful enough? Is man not sinful enough? Is God's solution not radical enough? What do you want? (Your hyperlinks did not work for me)<BR/><BR/>Eric says: <BR/>"So to go back to Matt's original question, is there anything that would change your mind about your religious beliefs?"<BR/><BR/>I've already changed my beliefs and keep adjusting them. I grew up in Catholic school and a Pietist family. Maybe it wasn't a far stretch to become an orthodox Lutheran, but I have changed, and that in adulthood. There is always discussion going on, learning and sharing, disagreeing and agreeing, refining.<BR/><BR/>There was a time growing up, where you ask yourself deeply disturbing questions about why would I be a Christian rather than anything else and you work through your questions. Now I know why I believe what I do and not something else.<BR/><BR/>The challenges to faith are much different than what you imagine: they have more to do with our own failures, with great disappointments, with our own laxness, with our own fears.<BR/><BR/>When I went to the University of Alberta, the anti-Christian environment was something of a slap in the face that made a person question. The dogmatics of the Darwinist lab instructors was at first difficult. (I was not allowed to write a sentence that said: “If evolution is true and fishes made the transition to land in this manner…” I was hauled on the carpet for that.) But after some time, the doctrinaire attitudes of some just made them look silly, and cell biology clinched for me: nature is just too marvellous to have no Maker, however he made it. It is unassailable to me.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79666056732274811082009-01-01T08:09:00.000-08:002009-01-01T08:09:00.000-08:00Oh, and Happy Darwin Year to all.Oh, and Happy Darwin Year to all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29763991843760757162009-01-01T08:08:00.000-08:002009-01-01T08:08:00.000-08:00Christians often notice something akin to faith in...<I>Christians often notice something akin to faith in the atheist. The Atheist just does not want to believe, and will latch on to anything in order not to believe. In fact the unbelieving Atheist seems to be the most prone to believing in conspiracy theories, that cannot be substantiated at all, and certainly don't hold to any historical facts.</I><BR/><BR/>Christians often notice things that are not true. Bror Erickson has no convincing evidence to present, and wishes to read into this a reluctance by atheists to accept convincing evidence. And the irony overwhelms of his admonishing others about "conspiracy theories" when he himself admits to believing in witchcraft, a superstitious belief encouraged by his acceptance of the Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>the unbeliever is far more willing to accept shoddy scholarship involving the Bible than he is in any other arena. They often latch onto it, with out investigating it at all, only because it supports there unbelief.</I><BR/><BR/>What an utterly ironic utterance from someone who dismisses the best available textual scholarship and cleaves only to what reinforces his pre-existing belief, as demonstrated repeatedly on this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4538657753389666172009-01-01T07:01:00.000-08:002009-01-01T07:01:00.000-08:00Paulv wrote:"How would this experiment work if it ...Paulv wrote:<BR/>"How would this experiment work if it was run on commited atheists. With a false article on evidence of the supernatural? The point of cognitive dissonance is that people stick with a vested belief, regardless of new information."<BR/><BR/>That's a good point. I think in most cases, belief change doesn't happen immediately. There is a 'sinking in' period where one has to adapt to new information. <BR/><BR/>But I think there is an asymmetry between conversion to religious belief and conversion away from it. My observations have been that most people are converted TO religious belief because of emotionally powerful experiences. But people are seldom converted FROM religious belief in this way. Rather, they become increasingly uncomfortable with their intellectual doubts. They find their questions multiplying, and theistic answers to their questions increasingly unsatisfactory until they finally find themselves saying, 'Hey, I don't think I believe this stuff anymore."Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-14904915500499178352009-01-01T05:27:00.000-08:002009-01-01T05:27:00.000-08:00How would this experiment work if it was run on co...How would this experiment work if it was run on commited atheists. With a false article on evidence of the supernatural? The point of cognitive dissonance is that people stick with a vested belief, regardless of new information. So people with a public declaration in atheism may belief simultaneous that the supernatural does not exist, and that there is more to life than the material (ie. the supernatural does exist). The research says much more about cognitive dissonance than it does about any particular choice of worldview, since no worldview is void of belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21431223521022811782008-12-31T14:53:00.000-08:002008-12-31T14:53:00.000-08:00What would change my mind?The Bones of Christ. You...What would change my mind?<BR/>The Bones of Christ. <BR/>You are correct wanting it to be true does not make it true. Believing doesn't even make it true. But I tend to think I have good reason to believe. <BR/>I wasn't dodging. I was asking. You make what I write out to be an ad hominem charge. It certainly wasn't meant to be. I was merely pointing out that that study cuts both ways. But I certainly would not be swayed after reading one article in the New York Times, they are hardly considered a reliable source of even current information these days.Bror Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33650385611242101562008-12-31T13:05:00.000-08:002008-12-31T13:05:00.000-08:00I'd love for some of this stuff to be true. Who d...I'd love for some of this stuff to be true. Who doesn't want to live forever in a state of rapturous joy? And the idea of having a divine, powerful protector and comforter that provides answers is deeply appealing. <BR/><BR/>And it sure looks like there's evidence that being religious is good for us, so there's additional incentive: <BR/><BR/><A>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30tier.html?_r=1&ref=science</A><BR/><BR/>But wanting it to be true or benefiting from believing it don't make it true or rationally justify believing it. And leveling this ad hominem charge (again) instead of actually addressing the real question: do reasons or evidence make any different to what you think? is just another evasion, particularly when I've addressed the issue numerous times. Arguably, this whole blog is dedicated to outlining just what would make it reasonable to change my mind. <BR/><BR/><A>http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-would-change-your-mind.html</A><BR/><BR/><A>http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/reasonable-belief-proof-and-uncertainty.html</A><BR/><BR/><A>http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/so-called-right-to-believe-confusing.html</A><BR/><BR/><A>http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/sinking-raft-im-standing-on.html</A><BR/><BR/>And on and on. . . . <BR/><BR/>MM<BR/><BR/>http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/coherence-and-atheism.htmlMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.com