To start out, the definition I am using for god is any given being that can supposedly create matter out of nothing, is omnipotent, and is unbound by physical spatial traits. Furthermore I derive that an omnipotent god constitutes as an unstoppable force or can be the causation of such. The existence of such a god forms my hypothesis (which I will regard as true for this proof); therefore the following mainly concerns itself with monotheistic brands of gods.

Using the above traits, the god from my hypothesis could create an object of infinite size and maximum density. This theoretical object would literally fill the entirety of the universe, with every small speck of space filled with matter. This rock constitutes as an immovable object as there is nowhere left to move the rock and thus it is incapable of movement. As an aside it happens that god can create an object so large that he cannot move it.

However the existence of an immovable object by definition means that an unstoppable force cannot also exist. Since that is a part of the definition of god outlined above, I therefore must reject the hypothesis and assert that such a god cannot and does not exist. In particular a god that can create matter unrestrained cannot also be omnipotent in all regards.

Simple, short, and sweet… but the devil is in the details (ha ha). Any god with boundaries and limitations obviously escapes the above, but from my experience that’s the last thing any monotheist will even begin to contemplate (god being the biggest baddest supernatural being that ever was—who also happened to create everything—just isn’t enough, seemingly god must also have limitless power and ability). So please qualify objections to the below considerations.

1)      Can god create an object so large even he cannot move it?

The answer given above is yes. To disagree, please provide what way the following proof is inaccurate and give an alternative:

a)      Definition: god is omnipotent (omnipresent as well).
b)      Definition: god can create matter anywhere out of nothing.
c)       Action: god creates matter everywhere he exists / in all space.
d)      Analysis: there is nowhere left to move the object, thus…
e)      Conclusion: god can create an object so large that he cannot move it.

It is a very logical progression given omnipotence that does not limit god in any way. Please refrain from self-defeating arguments, god cannot create space no matter how capable he is as space is nothing. I literally mean nothing, it doesn’t exist—it is the default before anything is created or exists there. Furthermore adding a step between c and d is self-defeating as well (such as removing a portion of the object to create space to move it) as it implies that before god does something to it the object is immovable.

2)      Infinity and Gravity

The first thing to note is that the matter in the object from the proof is countable infinity and the force is not. Infinity in mathematics doesn’t actually exist either, so any mathematical attempts should have both these considerations explained with it. I’d also like to add here that a theoretically infinite object is at equilibrium and has no center, so that should take care of gravity qualms.

3)      Hilbert’s Hotel Paradox

Hilbert’s Hotel paradox refers to a hotel with infinite rooms each filled with a guest (so full). However the hotel can accommodate infinitely more guests by putting a new guest in room 1 by having the guest in room 1 move to room 2, the guest in room 2 to room 3, and so on for each new guest. The conceptual flaw to this problem is that the hotel isn’t actually accommodating more guests; it’s just that there are now guests infinitely transitioning rooms. In other words the number of guests in rooms did not increase. This paradox cannot apply to the infinite object due to the incapability of having a transitional progression.

4)      Beyond Reason

Please refrain from trying to tell me god is not understandable by human reason. Realize that there would be no correct religion if that was the case as no religion understands god, and there would be no assertions that god exists because it would be beyond reasoning. Besides religions often like to claim we were created in the image of god, thus cannot be outside of our reasoning. I’m going to make an assertion that anybody who asserts such doesn’t actually believe it… By saying god is beyond reason, nobody could then assert that anything above is wrong since it would be beyond their reasoning as well.

There we go, I think that covers all the rift-raft arguments. Let the fun begin!

Related posts

• Your god is Not Omnipotent (109)
• Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy (11)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)

Cursus Walker said, “I make a distinction between Pure and Skeptical Atheism. The former refers only to lacking belief in gods, while the latter extends the attitude to all supernaturalism.”

I couldn’t agree more! I like the terms and thought I’d share them with you.

Pure Atheism: A lack of belief in gods.

Skeptical Atheism: A lack of belief in all things supernatural.

As a skeptical atheist, I have trouble understanding how people can believe in ghosts, ESP, life after death, or anything along those lines, while not believing in any gods. So the concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. But it still amazes me to run into atheists who use no skepticism or logical reasoning when it comes to supernatural woo. Can’t you just feel the cognitive dissonance?

And why do you think that is? Is it a need for comfort? Is it fear of the unknown and death? Is it ignorance in science and the laws of nature? All of the above? Probably.

Of course, as synchronicity would have it, I stumbled upon a QualiaSoup video (thanks to my awesome husband) shortly after and it was so good I have to share it with you here. It’s kind of relevant, but excellent in its own right. About 10 minutes long.

Putting Faith in its Place

Related posts

• What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable? (20)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (0)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (10)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)

Here’s the experiment as explained in the book:

You have a serious conversation with a deeply christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is islam. During the session, you discuss that mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to allah and the angels. He wrote a book that he claimed was infallible, and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse.

During the conversation, you agree that mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the koran was clearly written by mohammed and not allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that christianity is the true religion.

Over the next few days, you transcribe the recording onto paper. Then you change all references to mohammed and make them jesus. Now the document reads something like this:

During the conversation, you both agree that jesus was probably delusional to think he could talk to jehovah. The bible was clearly written by men and not jehovah. You both agree it is ludicrous for jesus to claim that he is the last prophet and that all later ones are false. Neither of you can believe that he rose from the dead, nor flew to heaven. It all sounds too crazy, and it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you both agree that christians did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that islam is the true religion.

Now, tell your friend, “I made a transcript of our conversation about islam and would like to go over it with you.” As you read it, watch her reaction. How does she respond to each statement? How soon does she get defensive? How quickly does she start making elaborate arguments that have no more factual basis than the first conversation? If you persist in this line of parallel reasoning, how long before she gets angry or breaks off the conversation? Could this conversation damage your friendship?

You can do this experiment with other prophetic religions. For example, substitute Joseph Smith for mormonism or moses for judaism.

Have you ever tried an experiment like this? Have you ever questioned your friend’s religion? Did it damage your friendship? Or a family member? Does that person still talk to you? How far did your religious friend go to make excuses and explain away his religion in the face of reality?

Related posts

• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• Unexpected Friendship With A Palin Lover (14)
• Getting Sick of Militant christians In My Family (15)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)

Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?

There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence.

I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.

I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?

The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don’t see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power. Religious leaders and apologists should accept that since their institutions are so influential in American life, we have the right to hold their every move up to the light. If they detect that the media are giving them a harder time today than in the past, that is because the bias that protected religion from scrutiny is beginning to dissolve. High time.

By Daniel C. Dennett | January 12, 2010

Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

A few notes:

My first reaction is to disagree with Daniel Dennett. I think there is a definite bias towards religion in this society, which carries over into the media.

For example, watch a football game with the crybaby Tim Tebow playing. They never fail to mention how pious he is and how his parents are ministers, or some other such dreck. What the hell does that have to do with him throwing the ball down the field? Nothing. But the commentators (and whoever decides on such content) feel the need to share a heartwarming story. It’s biased. I’ve never once heard them mention godlessness in a sport, only how religious sports people are. It’s nauseating. Like that makes them better people. Watch their behavior and you’ll see they are no better than anyone else, or often they can be worse.

I agree with Mr. Dennett. It’s about damned time that we hold religious people and institutions accountable when they lie and cause hurt, either directly or indirectly through propaganda and hate-mongering.

I think indoctrinating children with religion and lies is harmful and often abusive. I have no idea how we can even tackle this though.

We also need to work harder on stopping quacks and pseudoscience proponents like Oprah, Jenny McCarthy and anyone else who lies to the public to promote their own agenda. We do so little to stop this sort of harm. So much more needs to be done to hold people who lie for a living accountable. Of course, this includes the religious, including the pope who is just as human as the rest of us, and whose lies are deadly to people in Africa and around the world.

Unfortunately it’s true that religious institutions and many religious leaders are powerful in America and around the world. Why should they be given carte blanche to do whatever they like, even if it is to molest children, or to spread hate, fear and lies, all while not paying taxes?

I wonder how much we really do scrutinize religion, the religious and their institutions, though. Not nearly enough, I’m afraid. But at least we’re getting somewhere. Now, let’s make them pay taxes. If they can bilk people of their hard earned savings while lying to them and using their pulpit for political agendas, shouldn’t they have to pay taxes too?

Related posts

• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• Why Does God Hate Pigs? (13)
• What Would An Atheist Free America Be Like? (8)
• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (26)

For example, many blend christianity with Eastern or new age philosophies such as reincarnation, astrology and the belief in spiritual energy in physical objects. Sizeable minorities in all major U.S. religious groups say they have experienced supernatural phenomena, such as being in touch with the dead or with ghosts.

A third of Americans attend different religious services. Personally I find this amazing. When I studied different religions, I lost my faith in all of them pretty quickly because they sort of canceled each other out. Instead 35% of Americans seem to handle the conflicting faiths and stories just fine.

24% of Americans and 22% of christians, specifically, believe in astrology and 15% have consulted a fortuneteller or psychic. Damn, I’m in the wrong business.

Nearly half (49%) of the public says they’ve had a religious or mystical experience, defined as a “moment of sudden religious insight or awakening.”

This is interesting but not surprising. About 1/4 of adults express belief in tenets of certain Eastern religions: 24% believe in reincarnation, 23% believe in yoga as a spiritual practice. 26% believe in spiritual energy located in physical things such as mountains, trees or crystals and 25% believe in astrology. About 16% believe in the ‘evil eye’ or that certain people can curse or cast spells that cause bad things to happen to someone.

“Compared with other religious traditions, white evangelical Protestants consistently express lower levels of acceptance of both Eastern beliefs (reincarnation, yoga) and New Age beliefs (spiritual energy in physical things and astrology). For example, roughly one-in-ten white evangelicals believes in reincarnation, compared with 24% among mainline Protestants, 25% among both white Catholics and those unaffiliated with any religion, and 29% among black Protestants. Similarly, 13% of white evangelicals believe in astrology, compared with roughly one-quarter or more among other religious traditions. There are few differences among religious traditions in belief in the “evil eye,” though black Protestants stand out for high levels of belief on this question (32%).”

“Among Protestants, high levels of religious commitment are associated with lower levels of acceptance of Eastern or New Age beliefs. Among both evangelical and mainline Protestants, those who attend church weekly express much lower levels of belief in reincarnation, yoga, the existence of spiritual energy in physical things and astrology compared with those who attend religious services less often. Among Catholics, by contrast, frequency of church attendance is linked much less closely with these kinds of beliefs, although those who attend less often do express higher levels of belief in astrology compared with weekly attenders.”

“Hispanics are more likely than whites to believe in yoga, spiritual energy in physical objects, astrology and the evil eye, and blacks are more likely than whites to believe in reincarnation and the evil eye. Older people (those over age 65) consistently express lower levels of acceptance of these kinds of beliefs compared with younger people. These beliefs are more common among Democrats and independents than Republicans and are more widely held by liberals and moderates than conservatives. The difference between liberals and conservatives is especially pronounced on the question of belief in yoga as a spiritual practice; nearly four-in-ten liberals express this belief (39%), compared with 15% of conservatives.”

29% of Americans say they’ve felt in touch with someone who has died. 18% have been in the presence of a ghost and 15% have consulted a psychic or fortuneteller.

“Evangelical Protestants are the group least likely to say they have felt in touch with a dead person (20%). Members of other religious traditions are much more familiar with this type of phenomenon, with 37% of black Protestants, 35% of white Catholics, 31% of the unaffiliated and 29% of white mainline Protestants saying they have felt in touch with someone who has died. Differences between evangelicals and other religious traditions are smaller on the questions of ghostly experiences and consultations with fortunetellers.”

Women report being in touch with a dead person more than men. Women are also more than twice as likely to have consulted a psychic or fortuneteller. (20% vs 10%) Interestingly, a college education doesn’t stop people from consulting a psychic. (13% for the less educated, 17% for those with a college education). Conservatives and Republicans report fewer of these experiences than Liberals or Democrats though.

“In total, upwards of six-in-ten adults (65%) express belief in or report having experience with at least one of these diverse supernatural phenomena (belief in reincarnation, belief in spiritual energy located in physical things, belief in yoga as spiritual practice, belief in the “evil eye,” belief in astrology, having been in touch with the dead, consulting a psychic, or experiencing a ghostly encounter). This includes roughly one-quarter of the population (23%) who report having only one of these beliefs or experiences. More than four-in-ten people (43%) answer two or more of these items affirmatively, including 25% who answer two or three of these items affirmatively and nearly one-in-five (18%) who answer yes to four or more. Roughly one-third of the public (35%) answers no to all eight items.”

“With the exception of white evangelicals, majorities of all major religious traditions report holding at least one of these beliefs or having experienced one of these phenomena. In fact, roughly half of black Protestants (50%), the religiously unaffiliated (48%) and Catholics (47%) answer yes to two or more of these items, as do 43% of white mainline Protestants. A slim majority of white evangelicals (53%) answer no to all eight questions, while 47% indicate belief or familiarity with at least one of these items. Among white evangelicals and white mainline Protestants, higher levels of religious commitment (as measured by frequency of church attendance) are associated with lower levels of belief in these phenomena and familiarity with these experiences.”

“Among the unaffiliated, three-in-ten have had a religious or mystical experience. This is lower than nearly any other religious segment of the population but is still a higher proportion than among the general public in 1962 (22%). These kinds of experiences are particularly common among the “religious unaffiliated” (i.e., those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” and say that religion is at least somewhat important in their lives), among whom 51% have had a religious or mystical experience. Among self-described atheists, agnostics and the “secular unaffiliated” (i.e., those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” and say that religion is not important in their lives), roughly one-in-five (18%) say they have had this kind of experience.”

“Mystical or religious experiences are most common among people who regularly attend religious services. More than six-in-ten of those who attend weekly say they have had this kind of experience (61%), compared with half of those who attend monthly or yearly (48%) and just one-third of those who seldom or never attend religious services (33%).”

“Blacks are much more likely than whites or Hispanics (69%, 47% and 44%, respectively) to report religious or mystical experiences. More than half (55%) of baby boomers (age 50-64) identify with such experiences, compared with fewer young adults and seniors (43% each).”

“There is little difference along party lines on this question. Roughly half of Republicans, Democrats and independents say they have had a religious or mystical experience. More than half of conservatives (55%) claim to have had such experiences, similar to the number of liberals who have had these kinds of experiences (50%) and much higher than among moderates (43%).”

Now, as with all surveys, this was just a small, diverse sampling of the public. 4,013 adults to be exact. So keep that in mind.

I guess what I find disturbing is how many diverse and conflicting beliefs these people walk around with. That’s called cognitive dissonance (anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs or the like).  Only I guess it’s not when it doesn’t register in the conscience.

Are the masses of people who populate America this unconscious? This unaware of what they believe? How terrifying is that?

The sad thing is, this isn’t shocking. I mean, just look at what is on offer for TV these days. Ghost Hunter, anyone?

Mindless drivel spoonfed to self-absorbed, willfully ignorant narcissists.

Well, here’s a lolcat to cheer you up!

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Suffer The Martyr And They Will Come (3)
• I Didn’t Get Struck By Lightning (8)
• How To Talk To A True Believer About Atheism And Religion (32)
• Here We Go Again… (125)

I’m seeing this video being repeatedly posted on Facebook as it chains its way though the theist world. From what I’ve gathered from the YouTube mirroring, this is a TV commercial running in the Republic of Macedonia. The campaign is apparently something like “Knowledge Is Power.” And this part of the campaign is apparently sub-headlined “Religion is knowledge, too. Bringing religion back to school.“

On several Facebook posts by friends or family, I’ve pointed out that its not a “true story” as claimed. Even pointing out the Snopes article which says that not only did Einstein not do this, but the whole story is an urban legend. The unanimous response so far has been “So what? Its a good story; and even if Einstein didn’t say it, its still the truth.”

The title and the argument of the commercial don’t really coincide. The title asks “does God exist?” while the argument presented is that “if God exists, then he is evil.”

The problem with the argument is that it is comparing objective information with subjective information (apples-to-oranges).

Cold may not exist because it is actually the lack of heat; but heat also really does not exist. Heat is the measurement of temperature. Temperature can be measured with scientific instruments to precise specifics. Multiple scientists from varying cultures with different instruments would measure the same temperature. Darkness actually being a lack of light, but still describing something that is scientifically measureable. Again even with variations in equipment, personnel, and their personal experiences, scientists would reach the same conclusion when measuring the same thing. Thus, they are objective.

Evil, being described as the absence of good is very subjective. Two people raised in different parts of the same state would classify the same deed at different levels of evil. Expand the potential for difference in ‘measuring’ evil (or absence of good) if your sample audience is from completely different cultures or times in history. The ‘measure’ of the absence of good is subjective to the era, the country, the nationality, the culture, the personal faith, the personal experience, and the acceptance of society norms for each individual. Thus, this measurement is subjective.

I also think that the dishonesty of the video creator claiming Einstein had this argument with a professor is poor form. And really goes even further to discredit the argument. But when has ‘Lying for Jesus’ ever been a true ethical struggle for most Christians.

And of course bringing religion into school curriculum is always a bad idea.

Related posts

• [UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center (5)
• Why Do Christians Hate The ACLU? (5)
• What Jesus Wouldn’t Do and What I Have Done (6)
• Vaccines In The News Again (26)
• The Resurrection Never Happened (20)

I embrace reason and a desire to understand the universe. While we certainly don’t have all of the answers, that doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. There is always something interesting to learn about.

I love asking questions. One that has puzzled me in the last year or so is why people cling to false beliefs so strongly. No matter how much I reason with a True Believer ^TM or try to educate them with facts, they just dig in their heels, sit on their haunches and bray their myths and lies over and over. They block their ears, squint their eyes shut and cry out, “I can’t hear you, I won’t listen… lalalalalalalalala….”

Yesterday I found a new study on ScienceDaily titled “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification”. It was published in the most recent issue of Sociological Inquiry. It’s a study by four research institutions to understand why people kept believing that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks even once it was obvious that there was no evidence supporting that claim.

But that’s not why I was so fascinated. What caught my attention was the underlying research about false beliefs.

Some people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence thanks to a mental phenomenon called motivated reasoning, says sociologist Steven Hoffman, visiting assistant professor at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study. “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. For the most part,” says Hoffman, “people completely ignore contrary information” and are able to “develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information.” (Newsweek)

Now, let’s think about the belief in a god that created the world in 6 days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, shall we? And of course, Jesus who died on the cross to save us all from hellfire and damnation. So let’s talk a bit about motivated reasoning:

On page 2 of the paper it states: This model [motivated reasoning] envisions respondents as processing and responding to information defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring, discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information (DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000).

Motivated reasoning is a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen et al. 2006).

Sound familiar?

What happens when one set of ideas (about god the father and his peace-loving hippie son Jesus) is repeated over and over to you when you are a child? You haven’t even formed your ego before age 6, and already you know about Jesus dying on the cross for you, or whatever myths your parents and religious community has brainwashed you with. When you get older and information starts to conflict with these beliefs, how do you handle it?

Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Of course the easiest way to deal with cognitive dissonance is to justify and rationalize your beliefs, and deny anything that might contradict them. That brings us to:
Confirmation Bias: an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions or working hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

Back to the paper (page 3): This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them, regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

So how do people go about dealing with contradictory information to their beliefs? There are several options: (% is how many people in the study used the different strategies)

• Bayesian Updating: the willingness to change your mind in the face of contradictory information from a trusted source. To successfully change your opinion you need to attend to new information, remember it, and then use it in decision making. (page 7 of the study) (2.04% of respondents actually changed their mind when given contradictory information)
• Deny you ever believed the contradictory information in the first place. (page 9) (14.29% in the study simply denied that they had ever held the false belief)
• Resist the new information: (page 11)
  • Counter-argue: directly rebut the contradictory information. (12.24%)
  • Attitude Bolstering: bring facts that support your position to mind without directly refuting the contradictory information. Change the subject and justify your opinion with other reasons that seem good to you. (32.65%)
  • Selective Exposure: Ignore the contradictory information without rebutting or supporting other positions. Just say you don’t know. (6.12%)
  • Dispute Rationality: argue that opinions do not have to be grounded in facts or reasoning. (16.33%)
  • Inferred Justification: infer evidence which would support your beliefs. This is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with something you believe strongly and work backward to find support for it. (14.29%) (with another 2.04% possibly also falling in this category)

So, here’s what I think. You get indoctrinated by your family, your church, your peers, your culture and your society. As a child you are a sponge for their information about everything. As you get older, perhaps you are faced with contradictory information. You are going to either attend to that new information and assimilate it after careful thought, perhaps changing your belief system in the process. Or, more likely, you’re going to resist the new information in one or more of the above listed ways.

Oh, and regarding attentiveness to the contradictory information by the study’s respondents, the researchers said,

“We found that while all of our “above average” respondents did attend to the information, a substantial minority of our less well-informed respondents—nearly one-third—ignored or refused to engage with information that challenged their political preferences, even when that information came from a source they favor. (page 16)

How many times have I had a conversation with a religious person only to have them pointedly ignore the information I have? Lots. Or when they quote from their own bible and only pick out the parts that support their set beliefs, and blatantly ignore the parts they don’t understand or don’t like? Cherry-picking, anyone?

So this is all food for thought. It at least starts us thinking why most people cling to their gods and myths like safety blankets. It certainly gives us an idea as to how they resist the facts, logic and new information they may come across in favor of their old comfortable beliefs.

Note: I need to clarify something. Belief is a powerful force in our minds that we can all fall into.  Quite some time ago I wrote about how knowledge and beliefs are stored differently in the brain. I am sure I have justified my beliefs many times in my life. You probably have as well. I think the difference is when some people are confronted with conflicting information, they attend to it, maybe do some research on it, process it, then use it to change their minds as necessary. I’ve done that many times. The more I practice re-analyzing old beliefs and getting rid of ones that have no basis in reality, or ones that don’t fit my ethics and understanding of the universe, the easier it gets. I think that’s what makes some people skeptics and atheists. It can be quite challenging.

I think there is a difference between a skeptic who is willing to look at different information and change their mind and someone who is dogmatic. That is who is addressed here.

What are your thoughts?

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Atheism is the Default (46)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (10)
• The Christian Questionnaire (8)
• Religion Is Evil And Contagious (0)