What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[vulcanlogician]

What's your opinion on demonic possession or haunted houses? I've known folks who believed in ghosts and stuff like that. But otherwise they struck me as rational people.

I've also felt that, if they could see things the way I see things, they might reconsider their position on the existence of ghosts, possession etc. I feel like you perceive some haughtiness in Alan's sentiments that I don't see. But maybe that's just bias on my part because I agree with Alan's position. -shrug-

As I see it, Alan is an atheist for a reason. To him, he's concluded that God doesn't exist for a reason. If you have a reasonable belief (or lack thereof), it seems natural to think that others would agree with you if they were working with the same information that you're working with.

It goes both ways, I suppose. If someone thinks they have genuine information that suggests that God exists, it's only natural that they'd think that if an atheist had such information, they'd believe too. That's why I'm always listening to theists, to see if any can convince me. Compelling arguments have been made, but no convincing has been done. Less-than-compelling arguments have also been made. In fact, most arguments from theists are less than compelling. And I think that's what Alan had in mind when he wrote his post.

In the field of social psychology, illusory superiority is a condition of cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates their own qualities and abilities, in relation to the same qualities and abilities of other people. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits.

Wikipedia || Illusory Superiority

I just learned that there are around a half-dozen hypotheses for explaining this effect.  I'll need to investigate.

How do you think the phenomenon relates to the topic?

[Angrboda]

I just learned that there are around a half-dozen hypotheses for explaining this effect.  I'll need to investigate.

How do you think the phenomenon relates to the topic?

Illusory superiority leads to the belief that we possess traits, reasons, or knowledge that the other lacks, while it may be true that both have lack or neither have lack; the hypothesis of asymmetrical lack is the least parsimonious. One explanation for this is that we ascribe reasons for the behavior of others from the outside, without reference to their internal justifications and so we invent justifications that tend to discount that thought and reasoning was behind their actions. However, we infer our explanations of our own behavior from our internal mental content and reasons, rather than simply from our actions. This leads to an impoverished view of the other's cognitive content behind the actions observed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In the words of David Foster Wallace, however smart you think you are, you are probably way less smart than that. Also if your experiece of people with differing view comes from a debate forum then that also would skew one's perceptions. For the purpose of vigorous debate, I often present a degree of certainty I do not have. IMO Too many qualifiers distract from the main discussion points even if it comes off as smugness.

I do tire of hearing atheism being presented as the only rational position when in fact it is only as rational as the epistemic assumptions of the belief holder. I also do not accept the idea that atheism is the default, no burden of proof, position, since IMHO it is the couterintuitive one.

[Alan V]

Third, I did not say that “rational” equals “will agree with me.”  In fact, I said just the reverse.  Many theists are indeed rational.  I just see them as lacking the information which will naturally change their minds if they are indeed rational.

Let me see if I understand you here.

You seem to be saying that you have a crucial bit of information, which every rational religious person in the world lacks. But if they continue to learn they will eventually glean this bit of information, and then they, like you, will not believe in God. 

I am skeptical that you have information which every rational religious person in the world lacks.

Think of it in these terms: before evolutionary theory or the understanding that the sun works by nuclear fusion, theists were in much stronger positions in arguing for design and for the younger age of the universe respectively.  

Now as long as you keep adding more and more of such scientific discoveries, then any God-concept becomes more and more improbable. One example is our modern understanding that the mind is brain-dependent. That makes human immortality and any mind-without-a-brain (gods or God) highly unlikely. Not as many people are as informed about brain science as they are about evolutionary theory or nuclear fusion.

Finally, if you define "knowledge," as I do, in terms of probabilities rather than in the absolute terms of some philosophers (an impossibility in any case), you will see why I have no problem describing my hard atheist position as knowledge.

And of course, it's not just me who has access to such information.  I am rather a late-comer actually, since I only became an atheist at the age of 50, 15 years ago.

In those 15 years, I have consistently argued that many atheists seem to underestimate the amount of scientific information required to really justify their perspectives. I have concluded that most of them, unlike me, never seriously considered taking up the burden of proof. They realized, early on in many cases, that the burden of proof was with whoever asserted the extraordinary claim that God exists.

So all atheists really need to do is to offer more likely explanations for anything which theists think requires God as an explanation, at least to justify atheism as a reasonable position. Theists may still be reasonable, since they offer reasons for what they believe, but the question is whether those offered reasons are the best interpretations of the available information as a whole. We atheists don't think so.

So people can be both reasonable and wrong, depending on their available information.

[vulcanlogician]

In the words of David Foster Wallace, however smart you think you are, you are probably way less smart than that. Also if your experiece of people with differing view comes from a debate forum then that also would skew one's perceptions. For the purpose of vigorous debate, I often present a degree of certainty I do not have. IMO Too many qualifiers distract from the main discussion points even if it comes off as smugness.

I do tire of hearing atheism being presented as the only rational position when in fact it is only as rational as the epistemic assumptions of the belief holder. I also do not accept the idea that atheism is the default, no burden of proof, position, since IMHO it is the couterintuitive one.

I think theism is a rational position. I am swayed by John Hick, who in an essay lays out a rational basis for theism. That basis? Direct experience. If I have direct experience that William Johnson exists (I see him every day at work, for example), then I don't need to pay any heed to skeptics about William Johnson.

The thing about that is, it only applies to mystics. If someone hasn't had direct experience of God, they have no rational basis.

[The Grand Nudger]

God believer thinks atheism is the counterintuitive position, and so declares that a person who doesn’t believe something ought to explain not believing a thing.

It’s easy. I don’t believe in gods. Atheism proved.

[Belacqua]

Now as long as you keep adding more and more of such scientific discoveries, then any God-concept becomes more and more improbable.  

I find it odd that in your view, Christians think of God primarily as an explanation for various aspects of the physical universe. This is how atheists discuss the existence of God on the Internet -- on forums like this one, and on Reddit, for example. This is what it's like in our little world. But I don't think it forms a significant part of most Christians' belief.

Have you ever read I Promessi Sposi by Alessandro Manzoni? It's a splendid novel that every Italian person knows though, oddly, it's not famous in the US. (I heard Umberto Eco recommend it in a speech at the 92nd Street Y.) It describes the lived experience of a large number of people in a culture entirely soaked in Catholic Christianity -- both the good and the bad results. It doesn't include any discussion of how God can serve as an explanation for scientific aspects of the world. The ontological argument plays no role in their lives. 

So why you think rational Christians would lose their faith upon hearing that (for example) evolution can occur without the active intervention of a deity is a mystery to me. 

Perhaps you think that anyone who continues to believe in God when science advances as it does is just irrational.

[Alan V]

Now as long as you keep adding more and more of such scientific discoveries, then any God-concept becomes more and more improbable.  

I find it odd that in your view, Christians think of God primarily as an explanation for various aspects of the physical universe. This is how atheists discuss the existence of God on the Internet -- on forums like this one, and on Reddit, for example. This is what it's like in our little world. But I don't think it forms a significant part of most Christians' belief.

Have you ever read I Promessi Sposi by Alessandro Manzoni? It's a splendid novel that every Italian person knows though, oddly, it's not famous in the US. (I heard Umberto Eco recommend it in a speech at the 92nd Street Y.) It describes the lived experience of a large number of people in a culture entirely soaked in Catholic Christianity -- both the good and the bad results. It doesn't include any discussion of how God can serve as an explanation for scientific aspects of the world. The ontological argument plays no role in their lives. 

So why you think rational Christians would lose their faith upon hearing that (for example) evolution can occur without the active intervention of a deity is a mystery to me. 

Perhaps you think that anyone who continues to believe in God when science advances as it does is just irrational.

It is exactly the framing of the belief in God in terms of verifiable realities which can, on occasion, make the religious question their fantasy constructs.  Not all, but some.  It certainly helped me.

Hearing about evolution did not change my beliefs.  I just assumed God created evolution.  However, learning that minds are dependent on brains certainly changed my thinking about religious matters over a period of years.

So I just assume that at least some believers are like I was. This really isn't that complicated.

[Belacqua]

verifiable realities

In your opinion.

their fantasy constructs

In your opinion.

But again, if it does turn out that mind is always and only dependent on the existence of a physical brain, I am skeptical that this would bring any significant change to Christianity.

[AFTT47]

Just from a standpoint of practicality, I cannot do anything but tolerate a liberal theist. I cannot treat someone as an enemy just because we have an academic difference in opinion. That is not a practical way to live.

When someone has an irrational or non-rational belief and wants to interfere in my life or the life of others because of it, NOW I have a problem.