Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.

quote:

---

Well, I certainly don't think the 6 year old girl was edified during her life on earth.

---

Do you then think that sometimes bad things happen without God wanting to teach us anything?

quote:

---

But in eternity, she will understand God's justice better seeing her rapist in eternal judgement. KIND of like if my sister was raped and murdered, I would appreciate the justice system in America a whole lot more after her murderer was arrested convicted and executed.

---

But that doesn't seem like justice. That seems like revenge.

quote:

---

But who can fathom all the purposes God has for everything anyways???

---

Well, you do, apparently.I mean, you were the one who made the claims about what God's powers were and what God's purpose for suffering is in the first place.

quote:

---

It seems kind of pointless to guess why and when and what he's going to do next.

---

That seems like a copout to me.You say that God is benevolent and loving, all-powerful and all-knowing.When good things happen to us, we praise God and thank Him for His blessings. We seem to be able to understand what God has done in these cases, and we consider them consistent with our notion of a benevolent, loving God, right?However, when bad things happen that do not seem to be consistent with a God who is benevolent, loving, all-powerful God, er throw up our hands and conclude that we just don't understand God's ways, but that what we think is a really bad thing is somehow good in a way only God can understand.Seems kind of biased, doesn't it? Giving God credit for the good stuff but not holding Him responsible for the bad stuff, and also considering Him all-poweful at the same time.

quote:

---

Our human wisdom cannot comprehend the things God has in store for us.

---

Then you cannot ever claim that God ever bestows any blessings or any curses, right? You just can't know anything about what God does.

quote:

---

I understand this argument. It is similar to why the democrats want Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld out of office for the Abu-Ghreb Prison scandal. (of course Bush, etc. are not omnipotent) All this evil happens under His watch, so you think it's his fault.

---

But God isn't just a "watcher" according to you.He's the cause of everything.God has control of every single thing that happens in the Universe, right?If He has control of everything at all times, He is responsible. You cannot logically have a God that is in complete control of everything and also have free will.Free will in this case is an illusion, because a God that controls everything already knew what was going to happen in every instant in every corner of the Universe before it happened.If you'd like to back away from this idea, be my guest.

quote:

---

Atheists think that if God was perfect he could produce all the desired outcomes without any pain.

---

No, I don't think that the absence of all pain is the claim.It's obvious, though, that there is so much more horrific pain and suffering than necessary.

So, is God in cntrol of everything or not?Oh, and stop bashing doubters. Most of our greatest thinkers have been great doubters, as well.I'm reading a great book called Doubt--A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht right now, and here is one of my favorite bits so far: This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-19-2004 09:21 PM

quote:

---

It's not that I enjoy bashing doubters, the thing is though - they're full of doubt.

---

I didn't ask you to stop enjoying it, I asked you to stop doing it.

quote:

---

"Doubt - A History". ROFL, how fitting that is for you Schraff, as you're always here, doubting and fighting against God like a bull terrier.

---

Fighting against God?How can I fight against something if I can't tell if it exists or not?

quote:

---

Like "Clarice" says in Silence of the lambs, can you turn that philosphy onto yourself? Can you judge yourself and your own position with doubt?

---

Sure, I do it all the time, actually.

quote:

---

We gain wisdom as humans when we apply Bible doctrine in life.

---

I think that a lot of biblical doctrine has some very good applications to living a good life, which is why they are quite similar to the doctrines of many other reigions that predate and have come after Christianity.Many core Christian concepts about how to live and treat each other are the same as those of Humanism.Just because these concepts work doesn't mean God exists, and it certainly doesn't mean that God controls everything at all times.

quote:

---

Suffering in this life for the believer is either for edification and blessing or for discipline to bring the believer back to God if he has strayed.

---

So, what edification did the 6 year old child who was raped and murdered get?What could she have done that was so horrible as to need that kind do discipline from God?You have already admitted that that 6 year old didn't learn anything from God by getting raped and murdered, but now you still say that this is the reason for suffering.Doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

Nope. It's justice.

---

How is it not revenge?

quote:

---

At first I didn't understand why God allowed the things to happen to me that did, but now I do.

---

I thought you just said that we can't know God's reasons for why He does anything?Which is it?Can you know why God does things or can't you?

quote:

---

Why can't a God who's in complete control give us free will? Are you limiting God's power by saying he can't give us free will? That is dumb. If God could not give us free will he wouldn't be all powerful would He?

---

It's not if He is all-powerful or not.It is if he controls every single thing that happens in every corner of the universe or not, which you said He did.If He controls everything that happens, free will cannot exist.If free will exists, He does not have control of everything that happens.That is only logical.

quote:

---

Human arguments about God are foolish.

---

Then all of your arguments that make specific claims about the nature of God and what He does are foolish, too.

quote:

---

Suppose I'm right and you're wrong. Suppose God is real and as great as I know He is. If He is infintely greater than you, infact only because of him are you alive, who are you to say what is necessary???

---

So, are you saying that the rapes and murders of many thousands of children over the centuries are considered by God to be necessary?That is one sick, immoral God you worship.

quote:

---

Yet again you reveal that you are against God, even though you claim to think objectively about the matter and "doubt your doubting".

---

I am a doubter.That also makes me a thinker and a searcher and a "trying to figure it out-er"If your claims about God don't pass the logic test, then I'm not likely to get your version of God.I can't be against something if I don't know if it exists or not.I am puzzled and disturbed by certain specificconcepts and notions of the nature of God that you have put forward as true, and these are what we are discussing.

quote:

---

I was explaining your question, not even attempting to PROVE God's existence, yet you turn it around to try to negate His existence. Shraf, you are incapable of having an objective thought about God since every fiber of your being is against him.

---

Unless I am quite mistaken, I have been entirely objective during our discussion.You have made specific claims about the nature of God, yet these claims seem to be contradicted by events which occur. I am merely asking how it is that you reconcile this view you have of God and what He does contrasted against how the world seems to work.So far, your explanations have not been very strong logically, and now you are getting frustrated with me for continuing to press my point.

quote:

---

With such impenatrable arrogance you can never know God.

---

Hey, you are the one who says he knows the nature of God....except that you also say that nobody can know why God does anything.What am I to believe when you send me such mixes messages?Isn't it me who should be frustrated with you?

quote:

---

I said the reason for BELIEVER's suffering is either blessing or discipline and ultimately edification in this life OR THE NEXT. The little girl didn't get that far IN THIS LIFE. HOWEVER, she will be blessed greatly in eternity.

---

OK, if you say so, but I still do not understand why God put her on the planet in the first place.

quote:

---

Nothing to do with God makes any sense to you because you have rejected him.

---

Nice attempted dodge, but please answer the question;Can you know the reasons for God's actions or can't you?You have claimed both, and that's what doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

A simple decision to accept him instead of fight him, and you will be amazed at how the pieces of the puzzle fall into place and things WILL make sense, even to your critical mind. But you could never do this. As long as you think you are something when you are nothing, you will remain as you are, arrogant and condemned.

---

Yes, the rhetoric of fear to gain converts, I know it well.Less preaching and threatening and more rational discussion would be much appreciated.

quote:

---

I said that we cannot know ((((ALL)))) of God's reasons. We know in part (what he has told us in His word) and after we are with God in heaven we will know fully.

---

How do you know you are right?I mean, how do you know you aren't just crediting God for all the good things that happen and then not crediting him for all the bad things that happen to you?

quote:

---

God is not bound by anything except his own character.

---

Interesting.I have not ever heard a Christian say that God is bound by anything, even His character.

quote:

---

If he wants to give us free-will so we can see for ourselves which is better, humility or arrogance, then so be it.

---

If God controlls everything at all times, He is causing me to doubt His existence.He must be causing it because He is the cause of everything.Right?

quote:

---

My claims about God's nature and character are founded on the principles from God's Word, therefore they are not human in origin.

---

The writers of the Bible weren't human?The Apostles weren't human?You aren't human?

quote:

---

Yes, you are right. And I am definately not offended! I almost erased that whole line after I wrote it, but went on with it anyways because I was late for work and didn't give it enough thought... my bad! My apologies Schraf.

---

Don't worry, I'm not that easily offended.Apology accepted.(Thanks mike!

quote:

---

Because YOU lean to the liberal left, you have shaped your Christian beliefs to fit your liberal ideals regardless of what the Christian scriptures say.

---

The Jesus depicted in the Bible was a completely radical liberal hippie-type.

quote:

---

I explained to you several posts ago how God's Justice is maintained. You have not pointed out to me any logical fallicies in my arguments, but only repeated your own.

---

...except that you have never addressed the logical contradictions at all.You just say things like "no, it isn't revenge" without explaining how it isn't, even though I specifically asked you to explain.You just say things like "I understand the reasons God does what He does", and then you turn around and say "...except when he does things we don't understand."How is this explaining anything?Surely you must admit that this looks an awful lot like post hoc reasoning.

quote:

---

Can you not understand how we can know PART of something, but not all?
I know some things about how and why God works, but not all.

---

Of course I understand that ide.The problem is, you have not explained to me HOW it is you know what you know.Another problem is you have not explained to me is how do you tell what God does and what is random or non-supernatural in origin occurrence without setting up some experimental controls?It seems to me like you are attributing the things you want to to God's doing when it is something good, but shrugging your shoulders when something bad happens.It certainly looks like you have set up an unbeatable system in which you accept only the evidence that reinforces what you already believe is true, and rationalize away any inconsistencies with "We cannot know the ways of God".Can't you see that this looks exactly like confirmation bias and post hoc reasoning?

quote:

---

AGAIN you have ignored that I said we cannot know ((((((ALL)))))) of the whys. God tells us a great deal in his WORD. "Now we know IN PART, then we shall know FULLY even as we are fully known." I most certainly did not say nobody can know why God does anything. This is a lie.

---

It is most certainly not a lie.From your message #156 in this thread: I'd just like to point out that to talk about a God that is the cause of all things "doing something next" is kind of silly, since he is the cause off everything at all times, right? There is no "next thing" beccause he does all things.Anyway, the passage above certainly seems to be saying that humans cannot understand God's purposes. We cannot fathom, we cannot comprehend.You modify this statement somewhat in a later message after I bring up thae above point, and then you say that we can know God's purposes some of the time but not all of the time.But then you go on to say this in a discussion of free will: This seems to mean that we are back to your claim of humans not being able to understand anything at all about God, so it's pointless to discuss it.Sorry, but you have seriously waffled on this issue, and your waffleing has been in direct response to coming up against a sticky moral or logical problem in your theology.Can you not see how this looks very, very much like post hoc reasoning and confimation bias?post hoc fallacy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com confirmation bias - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

You have not pointed out to me any logical fallicies in my arguments,

---

Excuse me, but...bullshit.I have quite frequently pointed out your use of post hoc reasoning and confimation bias in nearly every message I've posted to you.Just because you are ignoring these points doesn't make them disappear.I'd be happy to have one of the admins judge this issue if you want a second opinion. It can even be Admin TL if you want a Christian.

quote:

---

but only repeated your own.

---

I am forced to repeat myself because you have yet to substantively address the points I have raised.For example, I asked you specifically how your example of "justice" for the attacker of the 6 year old isn't really revenge, and you ignored that question.

---

Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety--Karla McLaren

I don't have a lot of time right this second, so this will be short...

quote:

---

In short, I know what I know from the Bible.

---

You know that the Bible is true because you believe the Bible is true?

quote:

---

Well, a miracle is obviously supernatural in origin, but you will probably not get anywhere trying to set up experimental controls and asking God for a miracle to validate himself.

---

That's not the kind of experimental controls I am talking about.I am talking about experimental controls upon you, the claimant, to control for confimation bias and post hoc reasoning.I'm not even talking about miracles, but just everyday interventions that you claim God is making in your life.If you pray for something and it happens, you give god the credit, right?The controls would just keep track of the specifics and make sure you didn't cheat and give God credit for something that was close to a hit but not quite, or something that wasn't a hit but you wanted to cheat and explain after the fact how it "really" was, even though it did not fulfill the parameters set up beforehand.The idea isn't to disprove God's answering your prayers.The idea is to determine if praying to God makes your success rate greater than chance would predict.

quote:

---

Haha.. I didn't set it up. Yes, God's is an unbeatable system.

---

You misunderstand.An "unbeatable system" is a reference to constructing an unfalsifiable system that is not amenable to rational inquiry. Since it is unfalsifiable; i.e. there is no situation in which you will ever admit that you could be wrong, the system is unbeatable and therefore irrational and fallacious.Of course, religious faith is, by nature, irrational.

quote:

---

Science practiced without those having belief in God or by those who largely ignore God has no faith except in the abilities of the humans themselves and therefore has subjectivity built into it. In this case the scientist's objectivity is dependent on his integrity which is dependent on moral truth which he may or may not believe in.

---

So, let's say a scientist who is an athiest comes up with an idea which seems to explain some natural phenomena.He does some experiments which seem to confim his hypothesis.He submits his results in a professional, peer-reviewed journal and it is accepted.Later, three other scientists; a Hindu, a Christian, and a Buddhist, attempt to repeat the athiest scientist's experiments to see if they get similar results. They do, which strengthens the hypothesis that the athiest scientist made.Can you explain how the ideas and experimental results of the Christian scientist are objective while all the others' are not?Also, can you explain to me how a belief in "moral truth" has anything to do with science?

quote:

---

Also, lets get our terms straight: Omnipotent means God is all powerful and can do anything but what violates his own character. Sovereign is what gives God CONTROL over everything.

​

I would like to know why you do not think God being omnipotent cannot delegate some of his sovereignty to his creations so that they may have some sovereignty in the form of free-will for the purpose of blessing those who choose to love him, letting us experience life without him (to weed out any arrogance when perfection comes), and to make his glorious character fully known.

---

OK, if you say so, but this seems to result in a great deal of horrific, uneccessary suffering that is pretty inconsistent with the idea of an all-loving, compassionate God.If God is all-powerful and His character is one of pure love and compassion, it is inconsistent with his character that he let so many millions of people suffer pointlessly over the millenia.Either God is all-powerful and really not compassionate nor loving, or he is compassionate and loving and of limited power to ease suffering.Before you say anything about me trying to use my puny human brain to understand the ways of God, let me just point out that you are also using your puny human brain to describe God's character in exceedingly human terms; compassionate, loving, etc.If you are allowed to say you understand God's character in human terms, why am I not allowed to point out in equally human terms where God's human-described character has been shown to be lacking?If you simply say "who can understand why God does some things" THAT is when you engage in confirmation bias.When presented with evidence that God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving, you discount and explain away this evidence instead of dealing with it.You fall back upon the "we can't understand the ways of God" when these inconsistencies pop up, but you seem to understand the ways of God just fine when someone's life is saved, or when someone is converted to your beliefs, or when a person is healed from an illness, etc.

quote:

---

Faith is every bit as legitimate a method of learning as rationalism or empiricism.

---

Not if you are trying to learn about the natural world, and not if you expect anyone else to accept what you believe.There are hundereds and hundreds of Christian denominations alone, and thousands of religions in the world.What makes your very particular sect of Christianity correct and the hundreds of others wrong?All faith/religion is revelation-based, not evidence-based.Faith doesn't need evidence to support it; you believe in spite of evidence if need be, in fact.

quote:

---

And just because the foundational principles of Christianity are accepted by faith does not mean the rest does not make sense. Christianity is rational if you accept on faith the founding concepts...

---

Ehhh, I don't think so.That's kind of like saying "Belief in the existence of alien abductions is rational if you accept on faith the founding concepts..."Of course, I have said in a previous post that the core Christian ideas, which are also those of Humanism, of "do unto others" proscriptions for treating one's fellow humans and for living a good life are pretty universal to all religions and philosophies for a reason; they work to promote certain behaviors among groups of humans so that they live in relative harmony.It's the practical proscriptions that are rational; they can be widely demonstrated to work, regardless of one's religious beliefs.The rest of the faith-based beliefs are not, however, rational.

quote:

---

God's perfect righteousness demands that the objects of his love also have perfect righteousness. This is why when we have faith God credits his righteousness to us, so that we can have a personal love relationship with him. While we are yet in sin and suffering apart from God, God is under no obligation of his justice and righteousness to help us.

---

Yet there have been, and are, many people around the world whom have had faith and a personal love relationship with God, yet God hasn't helped them.They died of the disease, they were killed by the stray bullet, they were molested by the relative.There have also been, and are, many people around the world who are not what you would describe as Christian, or even believers in any diety, who are mysteriously healed from their illness, avoid the stray bullet, and manage to avoid the pedophile uncle.

quote:

---

God is exceedingly gracious and compassionate, but he is not obligated by his justice or righteousness to be compassionate, so there may be those whom he choses not to have compassion.

---

So, God isn't all loving, then?God is becoming more and more human the more you describe him.

quote:

---

Purely my speculation here:

---

Obviously.

quote:

---

perhaps since God enjoys being compassionate, he will offer another opportunity for those who have gone to hell to accept him. He certainly is not obliged to, but I wouldn't put it past Him.

---

That's pretty extra-Biblical.

quote:

---

Apparently, arrogance or evil comes from the allotment of sovereignty to creatures that are not omnipotent, omniscient, etc... as God is.

---

Maybe it comes from the devil, or demons or something.Just thought I'd put that out there, as long as are speculating.Gee, theological speculation is fun! No pesky real world evidence to deal with...you can just make things up as you go along. This is fun!

quote:

---

When creatures, with the sovereignty God has allowed them, reject God as the all in all, they choose to separate themselves from him. This ultimately produces suffering.

---

So, all of those slaves in the South who paryed and prayed to God but died in slavery anyway, were separated from God?

quote:

---

God has the power to end all suffering at this moment, but we know he will not yet do this because he has told us what must happen first and He is under no obligation of His character to end suffering at this moment as I have shown above.

---

Yes, you have shown me that God is not all-loving and all-compassionate, and is also vain and capricious.You have also shown me post hoc reasonng.You have the premise that God is all-loving and all-powerful.It is shown to you that God does not behave in an all-loving or all-compassionate way.You then make a new reason for why God seems to appear less than all-loving and all-compassionate; it's our fault.You are working hard to explain away any idea that might show God in a bad or not all-powerful light.

quote:

---

I have now presented to you three arguments based on God's character and our eternal life how the existence of suffering does not negate his character.

---

Well, sure, but it's all just apologetics. I mean, you are really just making stuff up to make God's inaction, and the logical inconsistencies, a bit more palatable.But I'm not a Christian nor am I a believer, so it is merely so many words to me. It just seems like excuses and a lot of blaming the victim.

You keep asking me to point out confimation bias in your arguments, yet when I do just that, you ignore it.Please address this. Please give special attention to the last paragraph:

quote:

---

If you simply say "who can understand why God does some things" THAT is when you engage in confirmation bias.

​

When presented with evidence that God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving, you discount and explain away this evidence instead of dealing with it.

​

You fall back upon the "we can't understand the ways of God" when these inconsistencies pop up, but you seem to understand the ways of God just fine when someone's life is saved, or when someone is converted to your beliefs, or when a person is healed from an illness, etc.

---

It seems you forgot to address these points...

quote:

---

Not if you are trying to learn about the natural world, and not if you expect anyone else to accept what you believe.

​

There are hundereds and hundreds of Christian denominations alone, and thousands of religions in the world.

​

What makes your very particular sect of Christianity correct and the hundreds of others wrong?

​

All faith/religion is revelation-based, not evidence-based.

​

Faith doesn't need evidence to support it; you believe in spite of evidence if need be, in fact.

---

You omitted most of this in your reply except for:"and not if you expect anyone else to accept what you believe."...to which you replied:

quote:

---

I go to a Christian college. I have LOTS of friends from all over the nation who accept what I believe. Our beliefs are practically identical. I have heard many writers, poloticians, educators, theologians, and others speak in support of my beliefs.

---

By "anyone else" I meant "anyone who doesn't share your beliefs." Religious faith is individual. You can't have the same faith experience as anyone else on the planet, because it happens entirely inside yourself.When I say that you cannot expect other people to believe you, I mean that in order to believe you, a disinterested observer would just have to take your word for it that what you believe is true.There is no objective test nor emperical evidence to support your beliefs. You have faith, so you do not need these things.However, a disinterested observer does need these things to determine reality.I'd like you to address the rest of the point, please.Oh, and it's too bad you are surrounded only by people who think exactly as you do. Not a very fertile ground for intellectual stimulation or challenge.

quote:

---

Ehhh, I don't think so.

---

You snipped the quote here in your reply, but I went on to explain;

quote:

---

That's kind of like saying "Belief in the existence of alien abductions is rational if you accept on faith the founding concepts..."

​

Of course, I have said in a previous post that the core Christian ideas, which are also those of Humanism, of "do unto others" proscriptions for treating one's fellow humans and for living a good life are pretty universal to all religions and philosophies for a reason; they work to promote certain behaviors among groups of humans so that they live in relative harmony.

​

It's the practical proscriptions that are rational; they can be widely demonstrated to work, regardless of one's religious beliefs.

​

The rest of the faith-based beliefs are not, however, rational.

---

---

Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety--Karla McLaren