LanDroid wrote:What instrument does Michael Hedges play? The sounds he generates cannot be from a guitar!

Yes, he was amazing!

Robert Tulip wrote: We have a fine petri dish of these fallacies cultivating right now in the thread on Gretta Vosper - Atheist Christian.


In this thread, those who assume Jesus Christ was an historical individual systematically confirm their anchored motivated fallacy, by ignoring the abundant evidence that refutes their view and misreading the shreds that support them.

Flann accuses me of fallacious methods for arguing that Jesus is a myth. My assumptions that are at work in this debate are that modern science has an accurate method to understand reality, and that claims which contradict scientific knowledge are false. I am very happy to admit I am consciously and deliberately motivated by effort to confirm these anchoring principles.

By contrast, the anchor that is pulling the true believers to the bottom is that somehow the traditional magical supernatural interventionist God is real.

You seem to be saying here, Robert, that others' anchoring assumptions lead them to fallacies, while yours are proof against the same. I'm very skeptical that it can work this way for any of us, unless I'm misinterpreting you.

DWill wrote:You seem to be saying here, Robert, that others' anchoring assumptions lead them to fallacies, while yours are proof against the same. I'm very skeptical that it can work this way for any of us, unless I'm misinterpreting you.

Harrison explains clearly how anchoring bias operates, for example when an idea is deliberately planted in our heads by an advertiser, without us really noticing, and our subsequent opinions and behaviour appear to be influenced by this subconscious factor.

As Geo pointed out, the assumption that Jesus was a real man is pervasive, and does tend to anchor most people's approach to related topics. It was certainly a shock to me when I first encountered analysis that questioned this belief. I now take the view that recognising that Jesus is a myth is the third big revolution in the Christian paradigm, following those of Copernicus and Darwin.

Obviously nobody is immune from subconscious drives and fallacious assumptions. However, the point of Harrison's book is that we can cultivate critical thinking skills of reliance on evidence and logic as our primary values. That has long been my ambition. I see this critical philosophical method as not just about scientific thinking regarding facts but more broadly about moral thinking, about making principles explicit and coherent, including in analysis of history.

So when I say that my opinion is that astronomy is at the foundation of theology, I am trying to anchor my thinking in objective understanding of the physical universe, and of how the ancients probably thought about reality, in a falsifiable way. Scientific method is the great bulwark against motivated reasoning. If Harrison or I or you or anyone fails to apply scientific method then the conclusions reached will not be rigorous.

Robert Tulip wrote: Harrison explains clearly how anchoring bias operates, for example when an idea is deliberately planted in our heads by an advertiser, without us really noticing, and our subsequent opinions and behaviour appear to be influenced by this subconscious factor.

I don't think Harrison does a very good job on anchoring. Daniel Kahneman, in "Thinking: Fast and Slow" does much better, maybe because Kahneman's influence in the field of economics, and thus his Nobel Prize, is built on his discovery (along with others, apparently, including his lifelong co-researcher Amos Tversky) and exploration of anchoring.

Kahneman puts it in the more general category of priming, in which the subconscious mind is influenced to be more likely to "see" things a certain way just because related neurons have been active.

The term "anchoring" is generally applied to situations in which a number or location is involved, and if we are asked to guess about the quantity in question (e.g. how many geese are usually in a flock? or how much does a two-year-old luxury hybrid SUV sell for?) we are much more likely to formulate our guess from a starting point which has been planted (e.g. someone has mentioned 20 of something, or 4 of something, or, worse, we have heard someone else's guess).

Kahneman points out that, if there is little actual knowledge to work from (e.g. have we seen flocks of geese?) then our guess-forming process can be easily influenced by even just hearing a number.

Wikipedia defines anchoring as a human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered. We adjust from that point as further information arrives. This is well expressed as a way of capturing the nature of the phenomenon.

Robert's interpretation is correct but not precise. That may be okay, since the applications of such a general phenomenon may be more important than the particular ways that psychologists tend to structure it, but I thought it worthwhile to deepen Harrison's necessarily shallow presentation.

Robert Tulip wrote: So when I say that my opinion is that astronomy is at the foundation of theology, I am trying to anchor my thinking in objective understanding of the physical universe, and of how the ancients probably thought about reality, in a falsifiable way. Scientific method is the great bulwark against motivated reasoning. If Harrison or I or you or anyone fails to apply scientific method then the conclusions reached will not be rigorous.

There's another fallacy we can talk about. I don't know its name, but it occurs whenever someone says about another's position, "Oh, I used to think that way, too, but now..." The implied message is that the eyes have been opened, where formerly they were closed to reality. The direction taken has to be from benightedness to enlightenment, obviously, in the mind of this someone. There is, however, no justification in that belief of arrived-at correctness. Many other reasons can account for a change of position besides the epiphany that we might want to think happened to us. We commonly hear about born-agains who used to be atheists, and the reverse. The direction of their conversions has nothing to do with the truth of their claims. The fact that you used to accept Jesus as a human being, and now you don't, doesn't mean you're more likely to be right now.

And if you're saying that your "opinion is that astronomy is at the base of theology," but that's okay because you're using science to investigate it, you've hardly shut the door against motivated reasoning. How do you know that it isn't your belief, which has all the appearance of being cherished, that is running the show?

geo wrote: I never thought about it, but most of us grew up with the assumption that Jesus was a real person and even if we've deconstructed all of the mythical stuff—the son of God, miracle maker, etc.—I am still inclined to believe that Jesus was a real person and that all the myths were subsequently grafted on to him. This could be the anchor bias at work, I don't know. I suspect that we just don't have enough data to make a strong argument either way. All the mythical motifs seem obvious, but as to Jesus being a living breathing person, there's not much to go on. I simply don't care enough about the issue to get too riled up about it.

I suppose this is about foundations, the base of our knowledge, or what we think is knowledge, about the world. The foundation is provided to us through our culture, and of course it might occur that either we discover that there are problems with it, or the general view is revised slowly. Or more likely we continue to accept most of it. It's interesting that at this point for a great many of us, evolution is foundational. We don't remember a time during our maturity as thinkers that we have not assumed that evolution by natural selection is basically true. Over the past 30 years or so, there has been a stronger counter-movement against evolution, which is bound to seem entirely foreign to us, and which we resist strongly due to the the mountains of evidence that have built up for the theory. But I admit as well that I simply like evolution, not just accepting it but being a fan of it. So there is an emotional part to it.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, geo, you seem to be saying that Jesus is not really part of your foundation, and therefore you don't need to care about any of the controversy. The matter does appear largely academic in that light, I can see that. It's more a topic for people with some time on their hands to debate on internet forums!

DWill wrote: There's another fallacy we can talk about. I don't know its name, but it occurs whenever someone says about another's position, "Oh, I used to think that way, too, but now..." The implied message is that the eyes have been opened, where formerly they were closed to reality. The direction taken has to be from benightedness to enlightenment, obviously, in the mind of this someone.

This is a good observation. People tend to view any change in their own view as obviously being one from error to truth. After all, they wouldn't change purposely from truth to error, now would they?

DWill wrote: There is, however, no justification in that belief of arrived-at correctness. Many other reasons can account for a change of position besides the epiphany that we might want to think happened to us. We commonly hear about born-agains who used to be atheists, and the reverse. The direction of their conversions has nothing to do with the truth of their claims.

"Nothing to do with truth" is too strong. If we know of 1000 changing from pagan to Buddhist for every one Buddhist who changes to pagan, this provides useful information. Certainly it does not prove the case for Buddhism, but it suggests that Buddhism is a better fit for the time and place in which we are observing the decisions.

Other factors could intervene. But truth is a major contributor to many of these decisions, and a preponderance in one direction is an indicator, however imperfect, for truth. I doubt, for example, that you could find one "convert" from believing evolution is responsible for the current configuration of species to believing it is not, for every 1000 who "convert" from Creationism to evolution.

Sorry to quibble, but a good point stated too strongly is a burr under my saddle.

DWill wrote:

geo wrote: I never thought about it, but most of us grew up with the assumption that Jesus was a real person and even if we've deconstructed all of the mythical stuff—the son of God, miracle maker, etc.—I am still inclined to believe that Jesus was a real person and that all the myths were subsequently grafted on to him. This could be the anchor bias at work, I don't know. I suspect that we just don't have enough data to make a strong argument either way. All the mythical motifs seem obvious, but as to Jesus being a living breathing person, there's not much to go on. I simply don't care enough about the issue to get too riled up about it.

I suppose this is about foundations, the base of our knowledge, or what we think is knowledge, about the world. The foundation is provided to us through our culture, and of course it might occur that either we discover that there are problems with it, or the general view is revised slowly. Or more likely we continue to accept most of it. It's interesting that at this point for a great many of us, evolution is foundational. We don't remember a time during our maturity as thinkers that we have not assumed that evolution by natural selection is basically true. Over the past 30 years or so, there has been a stronger counter-movement against evolution, which is bound to seem entirely foreign to us, and which we resist strongly due to the the mountains of evidence that have built up for the theory. But I admit as well that I simply like evolution, not just accepting it but being a fan of it. So there is an emotional part to it.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, geo, you seem to be saying that Jesus is not really part of your foundation, and therefore you don't need to care about any of the controversy. The matter does appear largely academic in that light, I can see that. It's more a topic for people with some time on their hands to debate on internet forums!

You’re right, DWill, evolution wasn't foundational for me when I was growing up. It was not a topic of conversation in our house that I recall. I believe I read a few books by Stephen Jay Gould when I was in my twenties and, gradually, evolution became a kind of anchor point in which I now see the world. Indeed, it's often difficult for me to accept that knowledge of evolution is not really valued by our society. Arguably in some ways it is actively suppressed and I see that as a shame.

I also recognize that evolution and naturalism are intuitive and appealing to me—I am a fan of evolution, as you say. But clearly this is not the case with everyone. This must be that foundational aspect to which you refer. Put another way, evolution isn’t everyone’s bag, even if it is true (as the evidence shows).

By the way, I think this astromythological (or astrotheological) stuff is fascinating even if I don’t have that emotional connection that others seem to have (both for and against). Maybe some of those who grew up in a Christian household or who were, say, exposed to Biblical themes and symbolism feel a profound and possibly subconscious connection to the material that is at odds with the way they understand the world to be. And maybe this helps to propel that emotional connection? I think I do feel some of that emotional connection myself, maybe not so much with astrotheism, per se, but certainly with Greek mythology and with aspects of mythology that deal with the seemingly universal yearning to connect on some mystical, "spooky" level. Maybe this is what Joseph Campbell is driving at when he says that “transcendent reality” cannot be captured directly in words or images. We rely on symbols and mythic metaphors to connect to some reptilian or subconscious realm inside of our animal brains.

I missed your earlier post about the "changing position fallacy." That's very astute of you. Thanks to Harry Marks for quoting it.

You can take an Implicit Association Test online, through Harvard's website, and see if any subconscious biases against racial groups, overweight people, the elderly, gays, or women are creeping around inside your head. Don't be upset, however, if the results don't match up well with how you think of yourself.
p. 177

Here 'tis:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

The direction of their conversions has nothing to do with the truth of their claims.

not disagreeing in any way

but it brings this to mind

many people spent years trying to make christianity work, they couldn't

after decades and decades of trying they simply could not make it work

they reluctantly almost dejectedly gave up and said

this is it, never thought it would come to this but orthodoxy is simply unworkable, it doesn't work

so they change

so when they say

i used to be a christian but now i'm not

it means something

matt dillahunty and robert price are good examples

if anyone could have made orthodoxy work it would have been those two and they couldn't because they are men of integrity.

going the other way whenever i have met anyone who goes from atheist to christian it has been usually a psychological leap to cope with the uncopable, it has not involved truth reasoning and evidence

it has involved needing to escape psych pain.

theres much more to it of course and i am only speaking in the rough.