[captainvicman]

I'm in agreement about the need for intellectual honesty. But that honesty requires all prior assumptions pertaining to statements of fact, brought to an argument to be revealed, and those assumptions' assumptions to be acknowledged, as well as honestly assessing the degree of confidence one can place on these assumptions' veracity, must to be discussed. In other words, objectivity is required. Just appealing to authority is dishonest, if you're after truth. Further, one must have a discussion of all potential conflicts of interest of those who are used as authoritative in the discussion. Such as, how strong is their interest in maintaining employment, getting tenure, and meeting requirements (holding to tradition) for obtaining funding for research, etc. Stating rather arrogantly/condescendingly "you mean University of Oxford?" without acknowledging what is really required for honesty, beyond what Institution they belong to; implying that belonging to said institution implies integrity, is bordering on dishonest manipulation of the discussion and mere sophistry. Are you willing to reveal your view regarding the existence of objective truth? If you don't hold to the need for objectivity, I could care less what your opinions are; they only amount to opinion. What metaphysics do you base your world view on? I would guess that it is that God does not exist, or, if He does exist He has not spoken clearly in history. An honest discussion will take some time, and can't exist in a cancel culture, or censorship. I believe that in the final analysis, with our limitations of rationality and experience, an appeal to authority is required; but what authority has the most historical proof and universal reach to back it up and earn our confidence and trust? It can't just apply to the intellectual or elite class, they have proven themselves unjust, corrupt, bankrupt and without clothes.

[btilly]

The most basic requirement of honesty, is having some.

You criticized me for only referring to Wikipedia, when I had also linked to the University of Oxford. The honest response on your part would be, "Oh, I see that you had references." It would have ALSO been to thank me for telling you how to find more references, including a link to a book written by the discoverer of the Wallace Line.

You did not do that. You launched into an argument about the analysis needed to decide whether to accept a particular piece of evidence. Ending with a criticism against any information given to you by elites.

In short, you behaved dishonestly.

If you behaved honestly, you'd have acknowledged your mistake. You could have also read the book that I offered. And proceeded to verify Wallace's claims about where you find placental mammals like tigers and monkeys versus marsupials like kangaroos and wombats. Which, depending on your energy, you could do with anything from National Geographic, to travel guides, to actually taking a vacation. A trip that I assure you is far easier to do today than it was 170 years ago back when Wallace was doing it.

Given that you didn't do that, I'll let other people make their own minds up about which of us has been more reasonable. If they doubt me, I've just told them how to question my references, and how to validate them with no need to believe intellectual elites.

If they doubt you, well, you've yet to provide anything that looks like a reference. Or show any sign that you're capable of even the basic integrity of being able to say, "I was wrong. You did provide references. And thank you for providing me with more."

Which means that if they doubt you, you've given them absolutely no reason to stop doubting you.

[captainvicman]

"what would it take to change your mind"? I launched into a misdirected diatribe that really was an attack on the concept that any historical evidence is sufficient in itself to change anyone's mind. That is, I thought to argue that one's view of these kinds of evidences amount to personal interpretations of the historical artifacts emerging from one's world-view, after we place them into an incomplete model of some sort, itself a product of one's world-view. I unfortunately (or fortunately as I appreciate your response), hijacked your contribution to vent on. Attempting to salvage some of what I clumsily said initially, I might better state as a question; Is merely engaging in "my references are better than your references" argumentation an entirely honest approach, in that it (imho intentionally) ignores the bigger, weightier, more personal foundation, rarely transparently discussed; Which is, what is our view/belief of the nature of reality? These views/beliefs, in my opinion, are the filter we all use in choosing our "references". Are any of us truly objective? Do we even believe we should be? Arguments that satisfy one person fail to satisfy another just as intelligent person. And what about persons not so intelligent, and whose minds are convinced by other considerations? Should they/we really be at the mercy of the prevailing pronouncements of the intelligentsia in vogue today? That's why I don't place my faith in the "science" or some worldly authority figure, who I know, put their pants on the same as I, and reside somewhere on a spectrum of non-objectivity, just as I. But then, why am I even butting in again (I drank too much coffee!)?? The original question wasn't directed at me, a believer, but to an unbeliever.

[btilly]

The problem for all people is this. We all suck at being objective and rational on that which is most important to us. This makes it hard to have conversations across divides of belief. Not impossible, but hard.

You may find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJX28l54YxE very enlightening on that. It shows Sean McDowell having a cordial conversation with an atheist about how to talk with people of different beliefs. How it is possible to have different beliefs, and still have a real conversation.

On this topic, I've worked hard at doing as well as I can in hard conversations. I've wound up on the science side of things. But with respect for those who believe otherwise. I, personally, have no choice but to believe the evidence that I have encountered. However I am also painfully aware that my views do not offer anything to replace major sources of emotional comfort that a lot of religious people have. I have no percentage in converting anyone else. But I do have a percentage in being very clear on what I believe, why I believe it, and what it would take for me to change my beliefs.

I feel that clarity on this is part of the ideals that make science possible. Richard Feynman did a pretty good job of stating the ideals of science in http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/. The pithy version of it says, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Therefore it is important not to quote what the experts said. But rather how the experts reasoned, so that you can check it for yourself and not trust what they said.

Feynman did an even better job of stating the ideals of science in https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm. Again, he stressed how knowing what was said is less important than knowing how to check it for yourself. Furthermore, it is important to know that it has been checked.

Nothing should be believed simply because some authority claimed it. Rather, we should know by what reasoning we ourselves are currently convinced. And we should stand ready to change our minds upon encountering the right evidence. Even if we think it extremely unlikely that we ever will encounter such evidence.

[captainvicman]

Thanks; what triggered my initial response was your fine use of the word honesty, and I guess that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, with regard to how we approach evidence or facts. I'm not really intending be argumentative; here are my thoughts about what you wrote, if you're interested. 1.) IMO Rationality and objectivity are necessary but insufficient for having fruitful, conversations across divides of belief. Honesty is also necessary, vulnerability too, humility, and respect (cordiality) which you mention. 2.) You say you wind up on the science side of things. No finger pointing intended, but Are you an experimental scientist grappling with the data? How do you judge between differing claims of science? Does being a scientist in one field qualify you to judge scientific claims in other fields (or even your own)? If as you say, "nothing should be believed simply because some authority claimed it" then how should we form our beliefs? How comfortable/cozy are we with ambiguity and uncertainty? Do we acknowledge it honestly, quantify it in terms of how it's effects propagate? It seems obvious that expertise and authority is extremely important, but should/have we "put the foxes in charge of the hen house"? I agree the same things apply to religious authorities. That's why I'm so attracted to Jesus and how he interacted with the prevailing authorities (Religious, intellectual and military), and his personal claim of authority. These are substantive hard things I like to discuss. From what I read, "science" is in a state of crisis, i.e. that trust in "science" is declining. This is vague, imprecise and controversial admittedly, but I for one am a "modern science" skeptic. (btw, I'm an engineer by training, if that counts for anything). Here's an interesting HN link: https://aeon.co/essays/should-academic-disciplines-have-both.... I disagree with the author's premise and starting point, he points out the worries, without (IMO) acknowledging "science" itself is partially to blame. (I didn't read the whole article, I should, now that I'm commenting on it). 3.) When you talk about hard conversions you have, and conversions or converting someone, I doubt that that's what your intention is, I would guess you're wanting test your own beliefs by putting them up against others. But I don't think actual beliefs are typically discussed, just what and how strong our differing interpretations of *evidences" are (i.e. Noah's Ark; I may be wrong assuming this in your case). It's exciting and rewarding, in my experience, to drop down a little deeper, but that takes vulnerability, humility and respect (none of which are easy). I don't know if you want to carry on a conversation or not, but I wanted to respond to some of what you wrote, and to thank you for an interesting conversation.

[btilly]

This is a giant set of topics. Concisely.

1. Yes, rationality and objectivity are insufficient. It is easy to find fault in others, and difficult to find it in ourselves. Therefore it is important to remind ourselves of our own cognitive biases - with examples - and have humility for our level of certainty.

2. My scientific training includes graduate level courses, but I am not a scientists. I have, however, friends who are. And have participated in scientific research.

3. As for how to judge, that's a whole can of worms. I don't recommend believing in science. I recommend tagging each belief with where it comes from, why you believe it, and how strongly you believe it. It is absolutely fine to say, "I provisionally accept X as true because I believe Y to be an expert and here is what Y said about it." But it is not fine to then certainly tell others that X is true. We do not just need to think well for ourselves. We want to encourage others to as well, so that they may return the favor.

3. No qualifications are needed to judge science. For example Feynman's Cargo Cult Science speech judged psychology to be pseudoscience. Not because Feynman was qualified in psychology. But because he identified specific reasons to think them such. Psychologists largely dismissed his criticism "because what does a physicist know about psychology". But about 40 years later his claim that lack of replication threw psychology into doubt was put to the test, and the result is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis.

4. Scientists in general do not live up to their professed ideals. One major problem is a tendency to take sides, and then irrationally defend our side more strongly than the data suggests. So scientists take sides on the ideas that they have come to believe, and reject contrary evidence. The result is that new ideas only get a chance when existing scientists die. Thus the saying, "Science progresses one funeral at a time." Which https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20161574 shows quantitative evidence for.

5. This is, sadly, not a small effect. To give two well-known examples, read https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science.... And separately do your own research into how many billions have been put into the Amyloid Hypothesis in Alzheimer's research, on insufficient evidence.

6. This goes doubly for scientific organizations set up by the government. In addition to normal scientific biases, they suffer from political biases and corruption. For example the FDA contributed greatly to the opioid crisis. See https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failure... for more. From other reports, one of the prime causes is a revolving door where compliant regulators approved questionable treatments in return for walking through the revolving door into high paying jobs at pharmaceutical companies. This form of bribery is both legal and sadly common.

7. In addition, both science and scientists suffer from other cognitive biases. For example I believe that our over the top COVID policies are a direct result of overreaction against everything Trump says. It is worth comparing US policies with much more balanced German policies, that have produced substantially better results with less cost to, for instance, children's education.

Sorry, went on a rant.

Now to religion.

You are right that my desire is to test my own beliefs, and not challenge the others. You're also right that evidence is what gets discussed more than belief. However the point of discussing evidence is that by laying out why I believe what I believe, I make it easy to challenge weak spots in my reasoning.

But when I analyze beliefs that others hold, I tend to apply similar standards.

For example you brought up Jesus. We know about Jesus from the Bible. I do not pretend to expertise in the Bible. But the following is fairly widely accepted as probably true.

There are 4 Gospels. They are not independent. Matt and Luke copied from Mark, and probably a missing text known as Q. John is separate, and conflicts with the first three. All were written down from oral traditions some decades later. Within early Christianity there were many conflicting versions of these and others. About 300 years later, at the First Council of Nicaea, definitive versions of these were chosen. And that has become the modern Bible.

Now your point of view is that of a believer. But try to put yourself in the viewpoint of a nonbeliever, and consider that information as follows.

By all accounts, early Christianity was a cult. The world has had many cults. Some, like Islam, have grown into great religions. Most have not. Cults have not stopped being created. For example see Hare Krishnas and Scientologists for well-known cults that formed recently.

Modern cults demonstrate that the weirdest of ideas, on pretty flimsy evidence, can attract people from a wide swathe of society. I also put little evidentiary weight on their religious text. If this is how I treat the claims of modern cults, how should I treat the claims of early Christianity? If I treat them the same way, I'm left with not much confidence that Jesus actually did the things claimed in the Bible.

And on this weak evidence I am supposed to accept very strong claims. That he was the son of God. That people can be healed by casting out demons. That he could turn water into wine. And so on.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this does not strike me as extraordinary evidence. It seems dubious to me that religious people truly are rationally accepting these claims on this evidence.

Indeed, the religious people that I know, do not belief for such flimsy reasons. They believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. That everyone is offered that. And that is the true source of their belief. There can be contradictions in the Bible and it does not matter, because you experience Jesus.

It is both trite, and true, to say that I have no such personal relationship. What is more interesting is that I'm aware of how to create a state where I would feel otherwise. But the techniques that I would use to do so could just as easily lead me to having a personal relationship with the Muslim version of God, Krishna, or a pagan Jupiter of the form described by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations.

Therefore, as a non-believer, I see the strongest evidence that motivates religious people as a self-created mental state. On what evidence can I tell that apart from a genuine relationship with God?

The first is what I just said. That I could create similar mental states for a wide variety of beliefs. The second is that different Christians throughout history have found that their personal relationship with God tells them very contradictory things about doctrine. It gets complicated because it got intertwined with politics, but for example in the 30 Year War, an estimated 30% of Germans got slaughtered over disagreements about things like how exclusive the Pope's access to the keys to the kingdom is.

And what people believe, changes. For over 1400 years, Christians universally believed that the commandment against usury applied to them. After all, didn't Jesus reinforce it by throwing the moneylenders out of the Temple? This is the historical reason why Jews are associated with moneylending. Jews interpreted the commandment as only applying to other Jews, so they could lend to Christians. While Christians couldn't lend to Christians.

But then...the commandment disappeared from Christianity. Few Christians today are particularly aware that Christianity once had such a commandment. Fewer still could tell you why Christianity no longer does.

As an outsider, I take this as evidence that a Christian's personal relationship with Jesus is an invented experience. Christians are only told by Jesus what they already think should be true. Which doesn't fit with what I would expect if they actually had personal relationships with an actual external entity.

I therefore find myself not compelled to acceptance of Christianity. And, likewise, I do not find religious accounts of the Flood to be evidence on an equivalent level with, say, sediment cores in lakes.

Incidentally I have personally known people who analyze such sediment cores. Though theirs were much less impressive than the Japanese example. In particular the limited history of the sediment cores were consistent with other evidence of the area having been covered with glaciers just a few thousand years before.

[captainvicman]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond. It will take me awhile to think about the points you're making. I'm not sure if you're wanting me to respond or not, but I think I would like to respond after thinking about what you've written.

[captainvicman]

The book you referenced (Gutenberg) appears fascinating and engagingly written. I think it would be very interesting to read and discuss his theories, and also discuss how the Noah's Ark account in the Bible, and other scriptural "truth claims" would relate to these topics. Thanks for providing this reference.

[captainvicman]

You are right. I was insincere in asking for references, not really intending to read any. My response was a rant, and misdirected. I should have read what you graciously provided, and then responded thankfully, honestly and sincerely. Thanks for not letting that slide and calling me out on that (really). I'm truly sorry for being disingenuous and making false accusations about your honesty, when my own was lacking. (I guess I'm my own bad example). I (now) intend (thanks to your rebuke) to read the references you kindly provided, and I hope to respond more sincerely in this thread after doing so.