There's nothing like reading a book every day for two weeks, so I'm a bit behind. I have a dozen half-finished blog posts that, for some reason, never seems to get past the initial stage into something half-finished (i.e. ready to post).
This series/collection I will start on now is a rethinking of how I blog. I will take one big issue and go with it for several months. I would very much like to be able to start with the beginning and just give a clear and concise presentation, but this is impossible as I don't know this stuff. What I will do is present my finding when researching the research and ideas on the subject.
My goal is to post at least once in
each calendar month. The purpose is to understand how we think, how
the processes of thinking works, what we do differently, and the
difference between intuitive and analytic processes.
Before we start this adventure we need
to agree on some things and some definitions of words.
I read an Internet-poll today that
asked "Do you believe in God" with alternatives "Yes"
and "No". I could write a book about how limited this model
of yes/no is, but let's instead look at what I will use as
definitions (with minimum time in parenthesis):
A Thought – A
stray thought, random combination of ideas or words (2 seconds)
An Idea – An
insight that you think may be fruitful to investigate (10 minutes)
Theory – An
understanding of the world that you consider to be important and
true, and from which you can draw conclusions about actions and
results (descriptive and/or normative) (1 hour)
Active Belief – Something
you, personally, use to decide what you do, which actions to take. A
theory where you follow the conclusions.
I
understand some natural progress between these four: Though ->
Idea -> Theory -> Active Belief.
So let me try to describe the
differences here. You are not allowed to believe in a though or an
idea, they are independent objects of study. You are allowed to 'have
faith in an idea', think it is a very good idea, when working with
it, but it is not something ready for a true/false discussion yet.
You can believe/unbelieve in a theory (and, of course, in an active
belief). I will use the word unbelieve when you believe the opposite
of the statement. This gives us 3 modes: belief, uncertainty,
unbelief.
What
should the possible answers to "Do you believe in God" be
using these words? (After any clarifications you may need; it is,
after all, a rather ambiguous question.)
- I
am uncertain (I think this was in the original poll)
- In Theory Yes
- In Theory No
- In Active Belief Yes
- In Active Belief No
I am uncertain is typical agnostic. In
Theory No is typical 'I don't see any reason to believe it', but
someone who is too lazy to withdraw from the state church; someone
who does nothing about it. In Active Belief No is a typical atheist,
someone who tries to remove the state church, someone who argues that
there should be no mandatory religion course in school (or if it is,
then it should contain humanism and other big religions equally).
These people are certain that there is no God, so why should we spend
time on Him/Her/They?
Most people I know who call themselves
christian are 'In Theory Yes', they say "we believe", go to
church, marries in church, and does everything religious that is
considered normal in the culture/society. If I am of this
group, and I think abortion is OK (within the set limits), and one
night God comes to me in a dream and says "Abortion is wrong"
(and I have a religious experience), what will I do? Nothing/Ask for
proof of His existence. So this belief is not active,
I do not take actions based on it. This group writes God with capital
G, and Him with capital H, no because they are afraid to be
disrespectful to God, but to other religious people. One of the
things that makes this group uncomfortably misunderstood by atheists
(Active Belief No) is that they tend to believe strongly things that
seem very contradictory. For example, they know that monotheism was
invented about 3000-5000 years ago, that there are a thousand
different gods (and it is improbable that you should choose the one
in your state religion as The God), that the earth is round and goes
around the sun, that the exodus from Egypt is more of a folk tale than
significant history, that life on earth is a million years old.
Last,
but not least, we have the 'In Active Belief Yes'. They can start an
argument by "The bible says ..." or "The pope said, ex
cathedra, that ...", they can spend resources converting others
to the faith, and they can feel bad when their children are not
properly religious because (in many religions) they will end up in
(some sort of) hell (eternally?).
First we make the decisions, then we
make the reasons. I don't know
what this is called, but it is a very strong fallacy. One of the
modes in which I think is deciding on an option, then writing down
any arguments I can come up with. Then deciding on the other
alternative, and writing down any arguments for that. Then I try to
read the arguments with an open mind. This method is a result of how
our brains (at least mine) work – it is a lot easier to come up
with arguments after taking a standpoint. I really need a good name
for this fallacy; the fact that the reasons you present are not the
reasons that made you decide.
Example: Let's say I drive at a speed of 110 on the highway with speed limit 100. Perhaps that is because it is unsafe to drive at a speed of 120? But more commonly it is because you get an expensive speeding-ticket.
The most important thing here is to stop lying to yourself. Later you can consider telling the truth (surprisingly often this is embarrassing, or you'll come across as very frank). I will do my best to note when I make this fallacy.
Other stuff:
- I will use a
numbering for later reference.
-
Note that I have allowed room for nonscientific theories with these
assumptions. You could make up untestable hypotheses, like "praying
only helps the faithful" etc. Even though you can't do a proper
double blind, there is usually some way to do a statistical test if
you allow for weaker conditions.
-
Surprise is a good thing when we search the scientific literature.
