Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 253 (113187)
06-07-2004 4:45 AM


In the "True Christian" thread, schrafinator, articulated two concepts: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
IMO, all theists use these techniques to maintain amd justify belief in a personal God who purportedly interacts in their life. Theists vehemently deny the charge. Nevertheless their attempts to deny that they utilise post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias, IMO they merely demonstrate that these techniques and their acceptance are institutionalised within religious belief itself.
It can be reduced to the following simple equation:
All good stuff = God's influence.
All bad stuff = Lack of faith/sin/evil/or a test by God.
Nothing ever = evidence that God doesn't interact/exist at all.
And, most definitely, God can never be subjected to a controlled test. Even the Bible prohibits this.
This classic post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias is used in relation to claims about prayer, miracles and faith healing.
Theists attempts to justify the success of prayer, miracles and faith healing very much sounds like post-hoc reasosning and confirmation bias.
I have studied faith healing at length within Australian fundamentalist churches. I am going to use the subject of faith healing to demonstrate confirmation bias.
I invite input from both theists, atheists and agnostics alike in relation to the following testimony:

I have a friend named Domenic, who is a born again Christian. Dom believes in faith healing.
I can personally verify the following has happened:
Dom was involved in a serious motorbike accident and suffered numerous injuries, including multiple broken bones in his shoulder. The doctors stated that Dom would not be able to even perform a single push-up for over six months.
I personally spotted Dom in a gym, benching the heaviest weight in his life, six months to the day after the accident.
Dom has also been twice diagnosed as suffering from cardiac arrest. Both times he was admitted into casualty, but within hours chose to leave the hospital and chose to never seek further medical attention for the condition.
He suffered no ill effects and he currently competes in triathlons.
I have many other testimonials like this. Is this undeniable proof of faith healing?
Your analysis is invited!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-07-2004 8:24 PM Gilgamesh has not replied
 Message 4 by sfs, posted 06-07-2004 11:02 PM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-07-2004 11:12 PM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 7 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-07-2004 11:27 PM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2004 5:46 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 253 (113396)
06-07-2004 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
06-07-2004 4:45 AM


Hmmm. No takers?
Perhaps the theists sense the danger.
Let me help your case by adding more detail to the anecdote above.
Remember that I can personally vouche for the validty of the facts in this story because I WAS PRESENT at each event.

I saw the x-rays of Dom's shoulder clearly showing shattered bone fragments. I was also present when doctors worked on his ghastly back wound. And, of course I was present 6 months later when his shoulder demonstrated phenomenal recovery.
Dom's symptons for his first cardiac event were pains in the chest and down the left arm, as well as breathing difficulties. He nevertheless discharged himself from casualty in a matter of hours with no further treatment.
The second cardiac event had similar syptoms, confirmed with a blood test that indicated heart muscle damage (the blood enzyme reading associated with a dying heart due to blodd flow restriction: it was because of this blood test Dom was admitted immediatly to emergency casualty at hospital). Dom also left the hospital within an hour and sought no further medical attention.
As a sceptic, I admit that these events, which I personally witnessed, establish compelling evidence for the efficacy of prayer and faith healing. Certainly much more compelling evidence than the Christians like Hangdawg13 (Message 23 of 31 Paradox of Prayer vs. Free Will) put forth in support of prayer.
No comments?
No explainations from the atheist/agnostic camp?
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-07-2004 08:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-07-2004 4:45 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-07-2004 11:07 PM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 06-08-2004 1:30 PM Gilgamesh has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 253 (113400)
06-07-2004 9:25 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 4 of 253 (113430)
06-07-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
06-07-2004 4:45 AM


In the "True Christian" thread, schrafinator, articulated two concepts: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
IMO, all theists use these techniques to maintain amd justify belief in a personal God who purportedly interacts in their life. Theists vehemently deny the charge. Nevertheless their attempts to deny that they utilise post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias, IMO they merely demonstrate that these techniques and their acceptance are institutionalised within religious belief itself.
It can be reduced to the following simple equation:
All good stuff = God's influence.
All bad stuff = Lack of faith/sin/evil/or a test by God.
Nothing ever = evidence that God doesn't interact/exist at all.
That's three equations. You seem to be confusing two rather different things. One is that theists view certain events as evidence for God's activity. The other is that theists interpret all events as God's activity. Each is true of some theists, and both are true of a subset, but neither is true of all theists. One involves purported evidence, and does (or need) not.
I am a theist. I have never suggested that good stuff is evidence for God's influence, and am intensely skeptical about faith healing and miracles. What exactly is your beef with me?
And, most definitely, God can never be subjected to a controlled test.
Well, yeah. Just as a novelist can never be subjected to a controlled test by his characters. You find this surprising?
As for your stories, the first is quite unimpressive. Doctors were a little off on their estimated healing time? Hardly unusual. The second one just sounds fishy. "Cardiac arrest" means no pulse; was that really what you meant? In any case, what's supposed to be miraculous about it?

An opinion can be argued with; a conviction is best shot. T.E. Lawrence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-07-2004 4:45 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 12:21 AM sfs has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 5 of 253 (113432)
06-07-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Gilgamesh
06-07-2004 8:24 PM


Re: Hmmm. No takers?
Well, give me your humble scientific opinion of how he was healed. I know you have one. You're practically bursting at the seams ready to spring it on the first believer that comes along... so you might as well spring it on me.
Yes, I suppose my example in the other thread was not sufficient for you, but it was the least personal and the easiest to show that free will was not violated.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-07-2004 10:08 PM
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-07-2004 10:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-07-2004 8:24 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 12:32 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 6 of 253 (113438)
06-07-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
06-07-2004 4:45 AM


Gilgamesh:
So you believe your friend Domenic got healed by God ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-07-2004 4:45 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 12:42 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 7 of 253 (113449)
06-07-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
06-07-2004 4:45 AM


Nothing happens apart from God's will. Not even a sparrow falls from the sky without his knowledge. Why should we accept the good things and not the bad? The bad things are necessary for growth and increased capacity to enjoy the good things. God's grace is sufficient for us and his power is made perfect in weakness. Prayer is primarily for strengthening our relationship with God. It is not a mail order catologue form.
I am not sure what I think about faith healing. I am sometimes nauseated by the showy preachers on tv who worke the crowed into a huge emotional fury. I do believe without a doubt that God performs miracles on occasion. I also know that the Bible says that many on judgement day will say: I performed miracles and cast out demons in your name, and Christ will say: away from me you evil doers; I never knew you. I think people place far too much emphasis on faith healing and wrongly use it like the Corinthians were wrongly using tounges. God only works a miracle if it is edifying to the church. Most of the time however God works through the power of his Word and Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.
If God exists outside our dimensional reality, why do atheists insist on subjecting him to the bounds of our dimensional reality?
Like sfs said: can the characters of a novel test the author who wrote the novel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-07-2004 4:45 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 12:53 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 06-10-2004 4:12 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 253 (113472)
06-08-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by sfs
06-07-2004 11:02 PM


Hello sfs.
That's three equations. You seem to be confusing two rather different things. One is that theists view certain events as evidence for God's activity. The other is that theists interpret all events as God's activity. Each is true of some theists, and both are true of a subset, but neither is true of all theists. One involves purported evidence, and does (or need) not.
I am a theist. I have never suggested that good stuff is evidence for God's influence, and am intensely skeptical about faith healing and miracles. What exactly is your beef with me?
Sorry sfs: my written expression is and always has been atrocious. It is the bane of my professional life.
Your right: that is three equations. My beef is with any claim of God's influence. The method used by theists to demonstrate such influence excludes any explaination that might suggest that there is no such influence.
If you do not claim any material influence by God in your life, then I have no beef with you.
Well, yeah. Just as a novelist can never be subjected to a controlled test by his characters. You find this surprising?
As for your stories, the first is quite unimpressive. Doctors were a little off on their estimated healing time? Hardly unusual. The second one just sounds fishy. "Cardiac arrest" means no pulse; was that really what you meant? In any case, what's supposed to be miraculous about it?
I don't find this comparison illustrative of any point you might be trying to make. I do find it surprising that when you design a scenario to test the validity of prayer/faith healing claims, negating the effect of confirmation bias, Christians have a specific prohibition against entertaining the idea.
Cardiac arrest? Like most perpertuators of faith healing myths, I am no doctor. Is cardiac trauma a more applicable term?
Such stories as I recounted about Domenic, are the stuff that religious faith healing myths are made of. I'll list some more below.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sfs, posted 06-07-2004 11:02 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by sfs, posted 06-08-2004 7:48 AM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 15 by sfs, posted 06-08-2004 7:52 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 253 (113475)
06-08-2004 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hangdawg13
06-07-2004 11:07 PM


Re: Hmmm. No takers?
Hello Hangdawg13.
Well, give me your humble scientific opinion of how he was healed. I know you have one. You're practically bursting at the seams ready to spring it on the first believer that comes along... so you might as well spring it on me.
Practically bursting at the seems I am. But I can't resist bursting a little longer.
What about these faith healing anecdotes I have personally investigated:
- Teenage girl with severe liver failure. After faith healing is alive and well today 10 years on.
- Elderly man diagnosed with metastasized stomach cancer: life expectancy 3 months. Still alive after 6 months.
- Papua New Guinean tribesman brought back from the dead.
These anecdotes are the basis for establishing faith healing claims in some Australian fundamentalist churches.
Yes, I suppose my example in the other thread was not sufficient for you, but it was the least personal and the easiest to show that free will was not violated.
Ok, I understand the context of your example in the other thread. I sure that you understand that the fact that you had an oppportune chance to talk to your departing friends twice about God, does not strike the non-believer as anything particularly miraculous.
My story about Dom, is, prima facie, mighty miraculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-07-2004 11:07 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 253 (113477)
06-08-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object
06-07-2004 11:12 PM


Myabe, maybe not.
Willow wrote:
So you believe your friend Domenic got healed by God ?
When you investigate religion, you hear claims like this all of the time. Just skimming through this forum reveals a plethora of anecdotes about faith healing, miraculous occurances and answered prayer. And as you would note, Willow, these claims often come from "Christians" that you'd probably serverely disagree with on doctrinal issues or from Christains that you might claim were not spirit filled.
And they also come from people of non-Christian faiths.
How does one respond to such claims?
On the face of it, as an atheist, I presume such anecdotes a flawed in some way or another. Confirmation bias and post-hoc reasoning explains most.
In the case of faith healing, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the stories are likely to not evidence the miraculous.
I nevertheless take such stories on face value until I have further knowledge. The above scenario about Dom is very compelling and would play a significant role in establishing faith healing claims within a given church.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-07-2004 11:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-07-2004 11:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 253 (113483)
06-08-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hangdawg13
06-07-2004 11:27 PM


Hangdawg13 wrote:

Most of the time however God works through the power of his Word and Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.
If God exists outside our dimensional reality, why do atheists insist on subjecting him to the bounds of our dimensional reality?
Like sfs said: can the characters of a novel test the author who wrote the novel?
Many non-believers have no issue with claims about a God that merely resides outside of our dimensional reality and doesn't influence or interact with it. But this is not what many Christians claim, is it? The Christian God is a personal God, who, as you stated "works through the power of his Word and Holy Spirit in the lives of believers".
It is here where the claims enter the bounds of our dimensional reality. If you you make these claims, then you may be called to back them up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-07-2004 11:27 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-08-2004 1:38 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 12 of 253 (113496)
06-08-2004 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2004 12:53 AM


Just because God exists unbound by our realities does not mean he cannot interact with us. It just means He is not bound by the dimensions of our reality when He does interact, which means his METHODS of interaction are not scientifically observable; his interaction is proved experientially in the life of the individual believer and yes by miracles although miracles are largely un-needed today with the completed canon of scripture.
Take weather for example. We understand pretty well the physics involved in weather; however we cannot predict the precise manner or time or place in which it will occur. I believe the Bible tells us God is in control of the weather. This is like human history. We understand pretty well the principles involved in people and civilization, but we have no idea how it will all play out. God invented the laws by which nature and man are subject to and by means unknowable to us he influences both to create a huge story pointing to His glory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 12:53 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 2:27 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 253 (113513)
06-08-2004 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hangdawg13
06-08-2004 1:38 AM


Hangdawg13 wrote
It just means He is not bound by the dimensions of our reality when He does interact, which means his METHODS of interaction are not scientifically observable; his interaction is proved experientially in the life of the individual believer and yes by miracles although miracles are largely un-needed today with the completed canon of scripture.
But the claims about the lives of the individual believer and claims about miracles we can scientifically observe. Obviously, I'm not interested in anything else.
I have observed or been involved personally with Christian churches for many years. I acknowledge that there is a degree of generally elevated happiness (particularly immediately after conversion and in churches where the congregation hasn't started to implode over doctinal issues) with the attendees of Christian churches. A lot of this is due to having an optimistic philosophy and the support gained from the strong church social structure. Some of it is an artificial facade.
But otherwise Christians lead normal lives. They experience suffering and joy in about the same ratio as the rest of us. What they claim as miraculous, is merely good fortune that we can all experience. What they claim is God's reward is often just plain hard work on their behalf. Waht they see as a test of God, or punishment for sin, is just bad luck for the rest of us.
They apply the equations I detailed above to ensure that whatever happens in their lives accords with their perception of a God interacting with it.
One of my colleagues is a devout born again Christian and this is her story: After working very long hours and coming into the office on weekends for four weeks, she finally had a chance to rest on the Saturday of a long weekend. She was relaxing at home, and in her words, was praising God for this well earned opportunity to relax and praying that she would be able to relax more. Half way through her prayer her phone rang and she was informed that a water main has burst on the 14th floor of our office and was flooding the floors below it. She is our office services manager and it is her job to deal with such emergencies.
The rest of her long weekend, that had only really just started, was spent dealing with water damage to 6 floors of an office building.
This story tells me: shit happens. It also demonstrates the most phenomenal and poignant example of a prayer unanswered.
To my colleague it was interpreted as a challenge from God, not an unanswered prayer.
If Christians are going to claim that God interacts with their lives (in order to convert others) then thay have to provide evidence that isn't merely examples of confirmation bias and post-hoc reasoning.
Take weather for example. We understand pretty well the physics involved in weather; however we cannot predict the precise manner or time or place in which it will occur. I believe the Bible tells us God is in control of the weather.
We stopped worshipping weather Gods hundreds of years ago. Believing that God controls the weather has no explanatory power whatsoever. Thankfully we disregarded that thesis and have developed meteorology to the level where we can predict the weather quite well using internationally linked databases and super computers.
Sure, we cannot 100% accurately predict the weather due to (someone help me out here) what I think it chaos theory and complexity. Are you suggesting that God resides there?
We used to believe that Lightning came directly from God. Now we know what causes lightning. Are you suggesting that God still causes lightning by manipulating the sub atomic particles that inclines the butterfly to flap it's wings in the Amazonian rainforest?
Sounds like the God of the gaps. Sounds indistinguishable from random chance that governs all of our lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-08-2004 1:38 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 14 of 253 (113549)
06-08-2004 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2004 12:21 AM


My beef is with any claim of God's influence. The method used by theists to demonstrate such influence excludes any explaination that might suggest that there is no such influence.
You are still conflating evidential and nonevidential claims. I claim that God not only influences the world, but that he creates it. What I am not doing is claiming to demonstrate that.
If you do not claim any material influence by God in your life, then I have no beef with you.
I don't know what you mean by "material influence". I am claiming that God creates and sustains my life, along with the life of my pet guinea pig and lots of other lives, not to mention the existence of all of the nonliving stuff out there. Does that count?
I don't find this comparison [novel/novelist] illustrative of any point you might be trying to make.
To spell it out more: you are treating God as if he were one agent among many, and talking about creating a test for the actions of that agent. If God is the creator of all agents and actions in the universe, however, such a test makes no sense, in the same way that a test for the actions of the novelist makes no sense within the world of the book. A character can't test for the existence of the author, because the character and the test itself are all created by the author. It's not that the author has no influence in the lives of the characters -- it's that he has too much influence to be detected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 12:21 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 8:08 PM sfs has not replied
 Message 23 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 12:47 AM sfs has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 15 of 253 (113550)
06-08-2004 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2004 12:21 AM


Cardiac arrest? Like most perpertuators of faith healing myths, I am no doctor. Is cardiac trauma a more applicable term?
The applicable term is the term that was actually given by a doctor as a diagnosis. My point is that third-hand accounts are highly unreliable; since I have no idea what actually happened to your friend, I see no reason to come up with a hypothesis to explain whatever it was that happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2004 12:21 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024