What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Immanuel Can]

One doesn't have to devote equal time to every belief, because not all beliefs are equally rational, plausible, evidentiary, historical, logically sound and so on.

No, one doesn't, largely because other people will do it for you.

Yes, they will. And if one is happy to take an authority's word for what the disposition of his soul and the orientation of his life are, then one can do so. Many people, perhaps, will surrender their thinking to just such an ideological authority, on the expectation that that will absolve them of the responsibility of a personal commitment or further search.

Of course, it won't. But it will pacify their anxieties for a time, at least until they find out that's not how things work.

That is to say, while the "aesthetic" criterion is weak, and the "rational" is stronger, the strategy of divesting of the whole problem upon an "authority" is an even bigger temptation. However, it's still one that should be resisted by an intelligent and principled person.

Which law of gravity are you talking about?

Well, that question is really of no consequence here. Pick your theory. It was merely an example, the purpose of which was to illustrate a belief that is of higher probability than 50-50. It only need trouble you if you're living under the impression that the existence of gravity is less than 50-50 in probability.

I don't suppose you are.

What do you suppose makes Michael Behe decide that the flagella of some bacteria supports his belief that they were created by God?

Well, I know a bit about him.

Behe's talking about a verifiable scientific phenomenon called "irreducible complexity"; meaning that there are some organisms and systems -- and a very great number, actually -- that require a sophisticated interaction of multiple parts, and thus present a serious problem for any account of reality that relies on physical gradualism.

Moreover, one doesn't have to know every possible wrong answer to 2+2, once one knows for sure that it's 4. Find the right answer, and you can dispense with the wrong ones.

But at no point does "Well, I went for the belief because even though I didn't think it was plausible or true, it was aesthetic" make any sense.

Wittingly or otherwise, you are attacking a strawman. I said early on that I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone's belief.

Sincerity? I never mentioned it. People can, of course, be sincerely wrong. It happens often.

But what most people do not do is simply make important judgments on nothing but aesthetics, especially in defiance of more serious considerations like truthfulness, evidence, logic, plausibility, and so on. You'll find that most folks will recognize that "it's beautiful" is an inadequate reason to believe a thing they already believe isn't true.

{quote]You perhaps have forgotten that at first you couldn't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal:

I thought that such a manifestly wild claim I was unwilling to point out its faults. But since you repeat it, if true, it would mean that people choose their "religion" not for truth but because it's somehow aesthetically appealing.

No doubt some people choose a particular church, mosque or synagogue because they like the architecture, the music or the rituals, or because it's "cultural" to them, and they don't actually give a fig whether it's true or not.

Ummm.

I'm going to highlight something for you above in red, so you get what I'm saying, okay?

You'll see that what I have consistently pointed out, is that most people won't. And as I just said, and I'll repeat here: "You'll find that most folks will recognize that "it's beautiful" is an inadequate reason to believe a thing they already believe isn't true."

Are we clear now?

Confirmation bias is a problem even in academia; everybody knows that even the most conscientious researcher has partialities.

Well, the point of knowing what "confirmation bias" is, is not that one can pretend everybody automatically has it, so it's okay -- the point of identifying it is to eliminate it.

And this is done by checking oneself against contrary possibilities before settling on an interpretation of the data. That can involve considering alternate hypotheses, or reading contrary studies, or subjecting your data to intelligent reviewers who do not share your perspective, or publishing your sources and your raw data with your results so that they come under a broader critique. Whatever you do, the point is to guard against the possibility that your interpretation of the data is merely "aesthetic" or personal.

But just rolling over and accepting "confirmation bias"? No intellectually-honest person should do that.

And no intellectually honest person should imply that is what I have done.

Nobody did.

The "you" there is impersonal, like the "one". Do you see an accusation of you above? You would appear to be inferring something not even implied. I was only refuting the argument that suggests "confirmation bias" would excuse bad thinking.

But my point was simply to say "everybody has a confirmation bias" is merely to say "everybody has a rational duty to be cautious of that bias, and to take the rational steps to mitigate its effects on their judgment." Are we clear now? If you feel yourself indicted by that, it's not coming from me.

But that is, in itself -- your reaction, I mean -- really interesting and indicative of the truth of what I was saying. What's really interesting is that you instinctively take offence at the mere possibility of an implication that you are making judgments "aesthetically," to suit some "confirmation bias" you already have. For unless I misunderstand your point, you think everybody else does exactly that.

That being your supposition, why would you be insulted to think anybody thought it of you, since you are so content to think it about everybody else? That would seem a little imperious, would it not? What would make you the exception to a rule of conduct you happily apply to the rest of the human race? And what, then, would make such an implication so odious to you?

[DPMartin]

Well, and not by accident. There is a direct cause-effect necessity between eliminating religion and the establishment of purely secular utopian plans. There is also a direct necessity, if one wants to establish totalitarianism, of replacing all "religions," ideologies and creeds, with their diverse answers to ultimate questions and their differing orientation points for ultimate values, with the single set of universal answers supplied by the State.

The first cry of totalitarianism is "unity."

I understand your point, but its always been my experience if you what to unite and people you just need a common enemy.

Yes, that's the most useful strategy: find an enemy, and invoke hatred to unify the people.

The first such "enemies" are external: they're the non-revolutionaries, the visibly dissenting to the Socialist State, the people with alternate political views, or religious views, or whatever. They die first.

But once you've created the Socialist State, and have won, and have control, where are you going to get the "enemy" you can use to justify your continued reign, and also the explanation for why the Revolution has not produced the utopian goals it promised? And so the answer always turns out to be the same: it's the "counter-revolutionaries" that are to blame, the "enemies of the state" buried among us, the "betrayers of the revolution" who are insufficiently "committed to the cause," and so on. And these become the new focus of rage.

In other words, the excuse for the Socialist dictators' own failures is that we, the people, weren't unified in support of their revolution. There were dissenters, disbelievers, discouragers, and so forth, scattered even among the "faithful". And utopia won't come until we all are unified. So the State must be cleansed of these defiling influences, these disunifying elements...

That's when the purges begin. (I mean, you know what a "purge" is, right? It's when you "get out of your system" the pollutants that are defiling it. And that's what the Socialist authorities do next. They start a purge.) They first devour any real "dissenters" they can find, but afterward have to root out those who are less than fully committed, or who have made some slip in political correctness, or who are just accused and suspected of maybe being weak on "revolutionary principles." So the Socialist State starts eating the flesh of its own members. And it continues that as long as it can, until its own inevitable collapse. For you cannot devour your own flesh forever, without destroying your own strength completely.

However, Socialists NEVER admit they were wrong; they right their countries flaming into the ground. And to the end, they'll claim that their revolution was 'betrayed" by not enough people buying in with enough fervour.

In other words, it was a problem of unity all along, they'll say.

that's pretty much it, your summery sounds like recent Russian and china history and now future USA history.

but note socialists are secular, a soft word for atheist.

a side note a guy I used to work with in the 90's had family in the Ukraine and since the iron curtain was down he when to visit, he noted that when they spoke of politics or like subjects they would whisper in their own home, still feeling the fear they had to have before.

[tillingborn]

You perhaps have forgotten that at first you couldn't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal:

I thought that such a manifestly wild claim I was unwilling to point out its faults. But since you repeat it, if true, it would mean that people choose their "religion" not for truth but because it's somehow aesthetically appealing.

No doubt some people choose a particular church, mosque or synagogue because they like the architecture, the music or the rituals, or because it's "cultural" to them, and they don't actually give a fig whether it's true or not.

Ummm.

I'm going to highlight something for you above in red, so you get what I'm saying, okay?

You'll see that what I have consistently pointed out, is that most people won't. And as I just said, and I'll repeat here: "You'll find that most folks will recognize that "it's beautiful" is an inadequate reason to believe a thing they already believe isn't true."

Are we clear now?

Clearly not. I have pointed out that you don't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal and you highlight your attempt to refute that by referencing architecture, music and rituals.
Given that 'you' can be

impersonal, like the "one"

could you clarify who "you" means in

"You'll find that most folks.

I don't wish to accuse you of hopelessly misrepresenting my argument if you are simply talking about some third person or persons.

[Immanuel Can]

but note socialists are secular, a soft word for atheist.

Yes, it is.

A funny thing, though: the word "secular" was originally a word coined by religious people, and described the difference between the "sacred" and the "profane" areas of life. That bifurcation, that dichotomy, the idea that there were things that are "not Godly" or "not of religious concern" opened up a sort of institutional space in which Atheism could find roots. As more and more of life became "secular" and not "sacred," the plausibility of Atheism rose: the idea that God was either irrelevant or non-existent became more and more plausible as people saw themselves surrounded by an increasingly "secular" world-order.

One sees this in Nietzsche, for example. By the time he was writing, the secular realm had expanded to the point at which his "Madman" could ask where God could even be found. There seemed no area left in life in which God was relevant. But this was a product of modernity, too. Man began to feel self-sufficient. The light of his cities blotted out the stars. His fears of mortality were assuaged by recourse to physicians. His food begun to come from the store, not the field. His house was insured against fire. And his moral qualms were outweighed by his opportunities to explore alternate activities.

Man stopped thinking about God. And that's when Nietzsche said, "God is dead": not that God had actually been killed, but that God had, as Nietzsche saw it, only ever been a concept in the first place, and now was a concept no longer needed.

One wonders if he still holds the same opinion.

All that really changed, though, was man's attitude.

a side note a guy I used to work with in the 90's had family in the Ukraine and since the iron curtain was down he when to visit, he noted that when they spoke of politics or like subjects they would whisper in their own home, still feeling the fear they had to have before.

I've seen that effect -- in abused women, actually. Psychologists call it "hyperalertness."

It happens when a person is a persistent victim of abuse, and develops self-defensive habits that often persist far beyond the day or the situation in which any actual threat exists. It means the person has been significantly psychologically damaged, and it may take years (or happen never) that they are able to escape the aftereffects of the abuse they've suffered.

That's Socialism at work.

[Immanuel Can]

I have pointed out that you don't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal

The red. Look at the words in red.

[tillingborn]

I have pointed out that you don't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal

The red. Look at the words in red.

I assume you mean the red words in the passage below:

You perhaps have forgotten that at first you couldn't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal:

I thought that such a manifestly wild claim I was unwilling to point out its faults. But since you repeat it, if true, it would mean that people choose their "religion" not for truth but because it's somehow aesthetically appealing.

No doubt some people choose a particular church, mosque or synagogue because they like the architecture, the music or the rituals, or because it's "cultural" to them, and they don't actually give a fig whether it's true or not.

Ummm.

I'm going to highlight something for you above in red, so you get what I'm saying, okay?

You'll see that what I have consistently pointed out, is that most people won't. And as I just said, and I'll repeat here: "You'll find that most folks will recognize that "it's beautiful" is an inadequate reason to believe a thing they already believe isn't true."

Two things. Firstly: They do not indicate that you understand that you understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal. I'll try rephrasing the question: Do you understand that some people like some ideas?
Secondly: Nobody, and certainly not me, is arguing that anyone believes a thing they already believe isn't true for aesthetic reasons. Here are two examples where I have already made that point.

Again, can you say that YOU believe things for "aesthetic" reasons alone, even if you don't believe they're true?

That is not my argument.

But at no point does "Well, I went for the belief because even though I didn't think it was plausible or true, it was aesthetic" make any sense.

Wittingly or otherwise, you are attacking a strawman.

The reasons I can think of for your persistence with this interpretation do you no justice. Here is your chance to explain your mistake in a way other than that doesn't rely on you being forgetful, dishonest or stupid.

[Immanuel Can]

I have pointed out that you don't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal

The red. Look at the words in red.

I assume...

Don't assume. Just read. You'll get it.

[tillingborn]

The red. Look at the words in red.

I assume...

Don't assume. Just read. You'll get it.

What I am trying to get is whether you are forgetful, dishonest or stupid. Given that there was only two minutes between my post and your reply, I think we can rule out forgetfulness.
Nobody, and certainly not me, is arguing that anyone believes a thing they already believe isn't true for aesthetic reasons. Here are two examples where I have already made that point.

Again, can you say that YOU believe things for "aesthetic" reasons alone, even if you don't believe they're true?

That is not my argument.

But at no point does "Well, I went for the belief because even though I didn't think it was plausible or true, it was aesthetic" make any sense.

Wittingly or otherwise, you are attacking a strawman.

The reasons I can think of for your persistence with this interpretation do you no justice. Here is your chance to explain your mistake in a way that doesn't rely on you being dishonest or stupid.

[Immanuel Can]

I assume...

Don't assume. Just read. You'll get it.

What I am trying to get...

Projection.

I didn't say what you said I said. When I explained that, you ignored it and just kept going. I haven't got another story for you, so you're just going to have to take the truth.

[Nick_A]

Tillingborn

Nobody, and certainly not me, is arguing that anyone believes a thing they already believe isn't true for aesthetic reasons.

Men do it all the time. It is the foundation for the cosmetic industry. They enjoy believing in what women pretend to be for the man's aesthetic belief in beauty and what can be done with it..

[tillingborn]

I didn't say what you said I said.

I suppose that brings forgetfulness back into the reckoning. What I said you said was this:

Again, can you say that YOU believe things for "aesthetic" reasons alone, even if you don't believe they're true?

And this:

But at no point does "Well, I went for the belief because even though I didn't think it was plausible or true, it was aesthetic" make any sense.

Are you claiming that was not you?

[tillingborn]

Tillingborn

Nobody, and certainly not me, is arguing that anyone believes a thing they already believe isn't true for aesthetic reasons.

Men do it all the time. It is the foundation for the cosmetic industry. They enjoy believing in what women pretend to be for the man's aesthetic belief in beauty and what can be done with it..

I disagree. I think the foundation of the cosmetics industry is that people wish to enhance their appearance for more reasons than I can imagine.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you claiming that was not you?

You wrote this: "They do not indicate that you understand that you understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal."

Then you went back, presumably, and read the red print, and still couldn't understand the point. Either that, or you were just determined not to "understand." But go back and read the red again. We'll talk when you understand.

[tillingborn]

Are you claiming that was not you?

You wrote this: "They do not indicate that you understand that you understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal."

Then you went back, presumably, and read the red print, and still couldn't understand the point. Either that, or you were just determined not to "understand." But go back and read the red again. We'll talk when you understand.

This is called gaslighting. I'm sure everyone knows someone who cannot admit that they are wrong. The most common reason for this is low self esteem, which creates a moral dilemma: should we laugh or feel pity? I suppose the answer depends on our own self esteem. The really funny/tragic cases are so terrified of admitting their weaknesses or mistakes that they will question the perception and memory of the people who challenge them. In conversation this can lead to confusion, self-doubt and anger for the victim. When the discourse is written down, it is a simple matter of going back and checking. I understand you perfectly well, Immanuel Can; whether we talk depends on the state of your ego.

[Skepdick]

This is called gaslighting. I'm sure everyone knows someone who cannot admit that they are wrong. The most common reason for this is low self esteem, which creates a moral dilemma: should we laugh or feel pity? I suppose the answer depends on our own self esteem. The really funny/tragic cases are so terrified of admitting their weaknesses or mistakes that they will question the perception and memory of the people who challenge them. In conversation this can lead to confusion, self-doubt and anger for the victim. When the discourse is written down, it is a simple matter of going back and checking. I understand you perfectly well, Immanuel Can; whether we talk depends on the state of your ego.

This could totally be interpreted as a monologue/self-talk...

In context of the problem "Who decides?"

Your ego has determined that you are the one who decides when you "understand".
Your ego has determined that Immanuel is in no position to inform you that you are misunderstanding the intended meaning of his words.

It's not gaslighting, when your perception is actually wrong.