tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post7627181082297807672..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Motivated ReasoningMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-65940325925761788922012-02-23T09:37:13.536-08:002012-02-23T09:37:13.536-08:00I think Occam's Razor is a great indicator of ...I think Occam's Razor is a great indicator of the relative validity in Atheist vs, Apologist positions, and the general rigorousness of the arguments used by people on either side can be a sure sign of their overall rationality.<br />Saying that people on both sides have emotional motivations for being correct, as well as economic ones, is a false comparison, for it implies that is the underlying reason for continuing to defend their respective positions is mostly an exercise in maintaining the status quo.<br />It seeks to ignore that both atheists and apologist's can have more or less rationality in their arguments, and is actually an appeal to emotion fallacy that seeks to undermine the ability to genuinely recognize truthful argument.<br /><br />pensiveblake, I would like to see some citations here for your claim: "<i>Matt DeStefano, no, I don't see how that is at all relevant. Recall, scholars of every stripe say "that [the apostles] genuinely believed they saw, with their eyes, Jesus appearing to them alive from the dead."</i>"<br />Most 'schollars' I've read says this is hearsay, and if true, offer a type of mass hysteria, not hallucination, as an explanation. Mass hysteria is a well explored phenomenon of actual occurrence.mikmikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366766734839522162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11461823386168562102011-10-20T12:31:41.871-07:002011-10-20T12:31:41.871-07:00Hi, I'd love to recommend to you a great athei...Hi, I'd love to recommend to you a great atheistic/skeptical podcast called Cognitive Dissonance. The show can be heard at their site http://dissonancepod.com and is also available on iTunes and Stitcher. It is an irreverent show produced by a couple of intelligent Chicago guys, who are also HILARIOUS.SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06654437344212232425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51852567894601133552011-10-18T09:45:42.883-07:002011-10-18T09:45:42.883-07:00I was a little confused about your final point. It...I was a little confused about your final point. It shouldn't take an epistemologist to determine whether a subject S genuinely believes p (that's not really what epistemologists study, at least not with any special focus). I might be misunderstanding you. Paula Fredricksen (Jewish Prof., Historian of Early Christianity) captures the ubiquitous sentiment of her peers when she writes "I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know as a historian that they must have seen something."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52669452616086098972011-10-18T09:39:29.772-07:002011-10-18T09:39:29.772-07:00Gary Habermas (only now a Christian, because of th...Gary Habermas (only now a Christian, because of this argument) writes "On the state of Resurrection studies today, I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and cataloged about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something."<br />Also, it's important to note that the belief that "there were people who believed they saw x" is not based on the existence of people who believed x between 30-150 years after (AD 60-190). Consider 1 Cor., which non-Christian scholars date to AD 53-55 (and it's not Paul's earliest letter). In fact, here in 1 Cor, we see all sorts of information with is symptomatic of a thriving community and movement which has been existence long prior AD 53-55. Moreover, in 1 Cor 15:3-5, Paul writes "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." Paul here is appealing their pre-existing belief in the appearances to make his argument, a belief which obviously predates this letter. In fact, scholars know for a number of reasons that Paul is here quoting a creedal confession[1] that dates to AD 30-35, according to virtually all atheist scholars (maybe less than 5% put it between AD 35-40).[2]<br />[1]Dale Allison, who denies resurrection, writes that "[1 Cor 15] incorporates, as almost universally recognized, a pre-Pauline formula." Reginald Fuller, who (in the Bultmannian school) similarly denies the resurrection, writes "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition." cf. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 647.<br />[2] cf. The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ultra liberal), p. 647, where we read "The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul "received" after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances." I have a mountain of citations if you want them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78318438864610199742011-10-18T08:38:53.000-07:002011-10-18T08:38:53.000-07:00There are a lot of subtle issues here. First, I&#...There are a lot of subtle issues here. First, I'm not at all clear about what most scholars say. I have found that apologists and evangelicals are not reliable sources of information about that. Furthermore, these claims need to be distinguished: "There is evidence that there was a religious movement of people who believed X that dates 30-150 years after the alleged events of X," from "there were people who believed they saw X." There is a great deal of work that needs to be done to infer the latter from the former. In my experience, too many folks gloss over that gap as if it is easy or obvious. Furthermore, attesting to what people believe, if we are just talking about the relevant academic experts to cite here, is perhaps more the province of philosophers and epistemologists (like myself), especially about supernatural or metaphysical matters, or psychologists, and less the province of historians or Bible scholars. Belief is a rich and complicated phenomena, about which I am one of the experts to be honest, and many of the important subtleties about what it is aren't even on the radar of the typical Bible scholar, apologist, or highly motivated believing historian. My book goes into all of these matters at length. Coming out in the summer.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53977289383062745622011-10-18T07:59:45.977-07:002011-10-18T07:59:45.977-07:00Matt DeStefano, no, I don't see how that is at...Matt DeStefano, no, I don't see how that is at all relevant. Recall, scholars of every stripe say "that [the apostles] genuinely believed they saw, with their eyes, Jesus appearing to them alive from the dead."<br />The atheist is called to give an explanation of this event. What would give them such a visual experience? Most atheist historical Jesus scholars think they hallucinated. So I recommended Matt McCormick to try and tie this in to the association between dissonance and hallucinations. Otherwise, dissonance simpliciter is just irrelevant to the datum Christians call atheists to explain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21815817288450568912011-10-13T20:33:29.206-07:002011-10-13T20:33:29.206-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mellodeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07515414035373189099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58306948576961036332011-10-12T19:50:32.011-07:002011-10-12T19:50:32.011-07:00"The followers who had resigned from their jo..."The followers who had resigned from their jobs, given away their material belongings and were present at the arranged place and time with full conviction in their imminent salvation, became even more ardent believers after the prophecy failed, and started to proselytize even more actively for the cult. However, those for whom the cognitive stakes were lower (e.g. those who kept their belongings and stayed home in fearful expectation of what was supposedly to come), were more likely to abandon their beliefs afterwards."<br /><br />Pensive, you can't see how that can possibly relate to the resurrection?Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29556640417613477322011-10-12T15:24:39.136-07:002011-10-12T15:24:39.136-07:00Presumably this runs both ways. E.g., Matt, how in...Presumably this runs both ways. E.g., Matt, how invested do you feel you are in your position? "the strength of this uncomfortable tension depends on the degree to which people have invested in their beliefs, for example by way of public commitment, or by the time and effort spent acting in accordance with these beliefs"<br /><br />Also, I'm also not quiet sure yet how it relates to the resurrection. Presumably you mean the case for Jesus' resurrection, wherein scholars grant that the apostles didn't simply (somehow) hold that God had vindicated Jesus in an obscure way, but that they genuinely believed they saw, with their eyes, Jesus appearing to them alive from the dead. <br />Relevant articles would sooner be ones pertaining to group hallucinatory experiences brought on by said cognitive dissonance. Though I'm skeptical that group hallucinations occur, if they do, the hypothesized criteria don't seem to be met in the apostles case. Many think it is very difficult to explain the apostle's experience naturally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-41670523219380529502011-10-11T15:16:29.311-07:002011-10-11T15:16:29.311-07:00I love your blog and I remember learning about cog...I love your blog and I remember learning about cognitive dissonance in psychology and relating it to religion.A Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12263345178097309314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-65528755596712113362011-10-06T20:25:01.882-07:002011-10-06T20:25:01.882-07:00I find these studies fascinating for many of the s...I find these studies fascinating for many of the same reasons you do. However, I am trying to get a handle on the explanatory power and scope of these studies with respect to religious beliefs. Now, it seems fairly clear that these studies can readily account for some of the more obvious instances of religious belief, but I wonder how they relate to reflective religious belief. For example, Richard Swinburne seems to be a paragon of reflective religious belief. My opinion on this is that Swinburne has a very advanced education compared to most adherents of the various religious belief systems, but various motivational and cognitive biases have been with Swinburne throughout much, if not all of his academic career, and along his academic career, his life has followed a kind of "trajectory of reflective religious belief formation" that has resulted in a fairly sophisticated web of beliefs and justifications such that much of his motivational and cognitive biases are buried deep compared to a non-reflective believer. In other words, these studies are uncovering biases that are inherent in all people who have religious belief, but in the case of some reflective religious belief (i.e. Richard Swinburne), these motivational and cognitive biases are buried pretty deep. So, someone like Swinburne is rational given his background beliefs, heuristics, priors, etc., and he is capable of rationally responding to objections to his view, but ultimately, he has several unconscious motivational and cognitive biases inextricably entangled around his reasoning and decision procedures that he may or may not be culpable for? What do you think about the things I have said?<br />ThanksTruth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-57270308269143849882011-10-06T14:56:18.725-07:002011-10-06T14:56:18.725-07:00@DeStefano
Yes, I did read the comments. That is e...@DeStefano<br />Yes, I did read the comments. That is exactly what I mean by a lack of a <i>serious</i> response. McCormick revealed, as the atheistic <i>apologist</i> that he is, that there are no conditions, hypothetical or real, under which he will concede that his views are irrational.<br /><br />@McCormick<br />And you are an atheistic <i>apologist</i> guilty of the very things you accuse others of. It's hard to imagine how you don't see how Rauser completely undermined your pet argument.thedarkfalzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05771043287322870456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58636979358755930322011-10-05T23:07:06.482-07:002011-10-05T23:07:06.482-07:00There are no conditions, hypothetical or real, und...There are no conditions, hypothetical or real, under which those dedicated to apologetics will concede that their views are irrational. So engaging with their rationalizations can only result in their claiming victory.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78214694013125930282011-10-05T20:46:04.927-07:002011-10-05T20:46:04.927-07:00thedark,
Did you read the comments? There was a p...thedark,<br /><br />Did you read the comments? There was a pretty lengthy discussion there in which he did respond.Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-68778912162209171822011-10-05T10:40:17.557-07:002011-10-05T10:40:17.557-07:00It seems this article could be particularly applic...It seems this article could be particularly applicable to <i>you</i> given how you responded (or lack there of) to Randal Rauser's (powerful) critique of your pet argument against the resurrection, <br /><br />Here: http://bit.ly/pCaj6q<br />Here: http://bit.ly/pGcm6b<br />Here: http://bit.ly/qemfvT<br />Here: http://bit.ly/nUesz0<br />Here: http://bit.ly/pKAAgF<br /><br />I think it would be most beneficial to your argument to make a more serious response this time.thedarkfalzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05771043287322870456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29469556933273035222011-10-02T09:06:53.606-07:002011-10-02T09:06:53.606-07:00I believe that if the average believing peep could...I believe that if the average believing peep could study, even just a little bit, a few key terms then they would be on the road to Team Atheist: cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies (all of them) and motivated reasoning. Awesome as usual buddy,<br /><br />KRissAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446845644368676537noreply@blogger.com