People Believe and Defend That Which They Prefer to Be True And the Facts Won't Change Their Minds

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one....If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight. In the end, truth will [win] out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

TOP 16 WAYS TO GET A WOMAN/ WIFE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

This list was sent to me by Ed Babinski:

Contra Victor Reppert on the Emotional Appeal of Christianity

Vic had written:

I understand the emotional appeal of Christianity. I also understand what isn't so emotionally appealing about it, such as the claim that I am a sinner whose actions offend the creator of the universe. If I were to invent a religion that appealed to me emotionally, I wouldn't pick Christianity.

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 1)

When John Loftus informed me that there is a “book length rebuttal” available on the net to The Christian Delusion I was expecting an intellectual challenge but instead what I found amounts to no more than relatively lightweight and easily dismissed assertions.

Triablogue’s Moral Relativism Exposed

Killing children could sometimes be obligatory, according to Triablogue.

People Believe and Defend That Which They Prefer to Be True

I take it that the title to this post is uncontestable and undeniably true from what we know about human beings. The ONLY responses I have gotten from believers are these two: 1) The Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Fallacy which does nothing to address the point (see link); and 2) "No this does not apply to me when I assess the truth claims of Christianity because I am the exception to the rule." [How can all of them be the exception to the rule if this is the rule?]

What a load of bunk, oh but wait, what's the title to my Blog again? Ahhhhh, yes.

Dr. Valerie Tarico Responds to the Triabloguers

She does so in the form of a letter to me:

John, you have asked me to respond to a critique at the site, Triablogue, of my chapter, “Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science” for The Christian Delusion. Reading the critique, I am struck, primarily, by the perception that the reviewers, in attempting to state their case, overstate mine. Psychology is a profession focused not on possibilities but on practicalities – not on how things might function in an abstract, philosophical sense, but rather on what we can know about how they do function in the ordinary lives of ordinary humans (and sometimes other species). Psychology asks and attempts to answer a set of questions regarding the contingencies–-replicable cause and effect relationships—that govern people’s lives. At this level of analysis, there is a tentative but useful distinction between knowing and not knowing.

People Believe and Defend What They Prefer to Be True

People believe and defend what they prefer to be true. This is an obvious and non-controversial fact. That's who we are as human beings. That's what we human beings do. That's what psychological studies have repeatedly shown us over and over.

Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like Religion

I've been faulted for suggesting that the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) has force primarily against religious faiths. I think this because of the nature of them, how they were first adopted, the evidence (or lack thereof) that can decide between them, and so forth. To see why, check out the video below by Richard Dawkins. The sciences are in an entirely different league than faith:

The Outsider Test for Faith Visualized

[Written by John W. Loftus] I've argued for the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) but most believers just don't get it. For people like that I've made a playlist of five short videos so they can see what they refuse to see because they're blinded by faith.

Amateur Hour at Triablogue

Triablogue’s amateurs have compiled a supposed refutation of The Christian Delusion. Some uninformed bloggers are already hailing it as a “massive” and definitive refutation. Yet, even the most superficial look at Triablogue’s efforts reveals yet another instance of amateurs who don’t know enough to know that they don’t know enough about the topics they discuss.

Being merciful to DC’s readers, I will not provide an exhaustive catalog of Triablogue’s factual errors, illogical arguments, or misreadings of my chapters. I will provide a few samples within these categories:

A. The Credentials Card
B. Ill-read Reviewers
C. Misrepresented arguments
D. Misunderstood Arguments
E. The Ridiculous and the Mundane

Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 2)

This is the second part of my response to Paul Manata's criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Part 1 can be read here. Again, I'll not repeat myself. In this part I'll examine where Paul also claims it's not a sound argument. Really? Let's look at this.

Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 1)

On February 11, 2006 I first proposed the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in response to something Paul Manata wrote. I think this is instructive. There is nothing quite like discussing/debating the issues that divide us. We learn from doing so. Most of the time it helps me understand how to make a better case against Christianity as it did on that day. So Manata and I have a history, he cursing the day he provoked me to propose the test, and me further refining it from additional criticisms. Along the way Manata has repeatedly tried unsuccessfully to disabuse me of this argument. So here he comes again with more failed arguments. Let's see about them.

Contra Steve Hays and Jason Engwer on the OTF

I'm in the process of assessing Triablogue's online book against The Christian Delusion. Since I don't want to repeat myself if you haven't already done so read my first response.

On Assessing Triablogue's Review of "The Christian Delusion"

I've had enough contact with Triablogue authors to know that I will never get in the last word. And I do not consider them honest in dealing with me. They will quote things out of context and misrepresent me because as Calvinists they do not think I deserve any respect at all. After all, if their God has foreordained me to hell then they have the right to heap additional abuse on me, and they have done so (this is such a nice version of Christianity developed by angry men for angry men, isn't it?). In any case they have written an online book of 257 pages against The Christian Delusion (TCD) so I think some response is needed, especially since I'm seeing links pop up all over the net linking to what they wrote.

Is God Necessary for Morality? Hell NO!

Just see what happened to William Lane Craig when he debated Louise Antony and then Shelly Kagan on this topic. He lost both times.

Then don't miss Edwin Curley's talk, My Ways Are Not Your Ways: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible. Watch it and tell me with a straight face that the God of the Bible is the objective standard of morality. Yeah, right.

I've written some posts on this topic myself to be found here under the rubric "Atheism, Christianity and Morality."

Who Says One Book Can't Change Your Beliefs?

Previously I had asked whether reading one book could change a person's beliefs (#10 in that link). Apparently it can (well two anyway):

Hey John, just wanted you to know that I threw 20 years of Fundamentalist Baptist Bible teachings away because of your books. Thank you! Your books introduced me to the truth that there were no answers and that Christianity was absurd to the core! I was just more embarrassed that I didn't see what you saw, but that's what happens when you go to Christian Schools, Churches, and Camps....you only get one side of the picture! --Tim Zajac on Facebook.

The Dilemma for Christian Apologists

Christians will object to the following dilemma, no doubt. On the one hand, if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, outsiders will deny it happened at all. On the other hand, if they can explain how it might have occurred, then outsiders can say it’s no longer a miracle. All I can say here is that this is the unavoidable nature of the case when it comes to reported miracles in the pre-scientific superstitious historical past. Outsiders need sufficient evidence of miracles in today’s world to accept the Christian faith. Without this evidence the Christian apologist will always have a near impossible time defending his faith, and as such, I think he should simply abandon this attempt. Without present-day evidence or present day miracles, Christianity probably cannot be adequately defended at all. [First posted 8/12/07]

Dr. Avalos on Accreditation and Jim West.

This is his response to Jim West's ranting against accreditation seeking colleges. Enjoy

Positive Thinking For An Atheist?

I was asked on Facebook about positive thinking for an atheist. Here's my advice:

When it comes to positive thoughts you must learn to believe in yourself. Repeat after me: "I am an important person." "I can achieve my dreams." "I can make a difference." Say it every day a few times per day. You will come to believe what you say. So say it. Then dream big dreams. Don't be afraid to fail. You will fail from time to time. But you will learn for the next time. So dare to fail. And do not listen to the naysayers if you know they're wrong. They are a dime a dozen. You will never achieve anything unless you try. Find like-minded people to learn from who believe in you and hang out with them.

There Was No Worldwide Flood, By Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D.

Christian Bible thumpers need to listen to their own scholars.

There was no worldwide flood. Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical. It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period and were designed to offer ethical answers to questions of why and not questions of how. Link.

We Are Approaching the Golden Age of Atheism

Atheist author David Mills argues in this 47 minute video that there are ten reasons why we are approaching a "Golden Age of Atheism."

Have You Been De-Baptized? Edwin Kagan of American Atheists on Nightline

What do you think of Kagan's claim: "Atheists have no chance whatsoever of prevailing in a direct confrontation with believers. There are far too many [believers]." Does it resemble what David Eller said: "Christians are not easily argued out of their religion because...they are not ordinarily argued into it in the first place." Richard Carrier also chimed in on the use of ridicule.

A Slave to Incompetence: The Truth Behind David Marshall’s Research on Slavery by Dr. Hector Avalos

Since the rise of the “New Atheism” there have been many Christian apologists who think that they have defeated the arguments of the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. A few of these apologists are seasoned theologians and scholars. Others are what I call “hack” writers, who basically cut-and-paste material found in secondary sources, but who do not: 1) check the accuracy of the secondary sources; 2) have the competence to check those sources independently and directly, even if they wish to do so. The goal of hack writing is to publish something quickly and with little effort and so these books are often very thin bibliographically.

Such a hack writer is David Marshall, author of The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2007). To illustrate our point, we shall examine almost every sentence in a section titled, “Jesus Frees Slaves,” and found on pages 144 to 148 of that book.

More Proof People Defend What They Prefer to Be True. Case in Point: Jim West Rants Against College Accreditation

Jim (aka "Where's Waldo") West usually has the number one ranked Blog among SBL's Bibliobloggers every month. This is supposed to mean something I guess. In a post he submitted for The Bible and Interpretation West rants against the "exploitative" nature of college accreditation companies. But guess what? He has a degree from an unaccredited college and teaches for one too, oh my! Here we see a person who should know better arguing against that which he doesn't have simply because he doesn't have it. Why am I not surprised? I've never heard an educated person ranting against an education. Only the uneducated do so. And only an unaccredited person/teacher would do the same thing with regard to accreditation. I commented further there. Sheesh.