How do people believe what they believe?

This is intended to be kinds sorta an independant post. It will, to some extent, maybe address some of the things that you have been saying from my perspective.

People formulate their beliefs based on their past experiences. It's a sort of strange loop that is very pro survival. I have an experience, and respond in a particular way, and that stimulus and response is either successful on my part or not, or may have varying degrees of success. I formulate a particular viewpoint, or belief, to use the term of our discussion, about the situation, and use that mental notion to influence my decisions in future actions. Here's where it gets weird for me. That belief doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate or inaccurate reflection of reality to be useful in helping me as an organism formulate a response that is pro-survival. A viking warrior might be utterly convinced that the lightning strike was caused by Thor striking his hammer in the heavens. It doesn't matter that that belief relates to reality or not if it helps him stay in a safe spot during a lightning storm.

The problem comes when our choices for explanations of natural events or occurrences lead us to make wrong or incorrect decisions. In the case of the viking warrior in my example, if his belief leads him to go stand on a large deposit of iron during a lightning storm, his belief will not help him survive any. But usually, it isn't such a stark message of failure. Usually is more of something like "I thought such-and-such, and it didn't work so well. I wonder what went wrong." and we update and revise.

I'm happy for you to believe in the god of the bible if it leads you to correct action in some fashion or other, regardless of whether or not there is any reality in that god. What is correct action? Simply put, in the sense I'm using it here, I mean actions that cause you and/or those in your environment to flourish and prosper. And if believing in the god of the bible does that for you, it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not that god is real.

That's all i have to say for now, friend. sorry it took so long for me to say anything.

New Thoughts

So I have recently been doing more work on an article on Christian Mathematics. The other day a co-worker approached me (at break time) and asked what I was working on. When I told him he responded first with a puzzled look, and then had a thought come to him. "Oh, I see!" he said, "You are trying to prove that God exists by math and science!" I responded, "Actually, no. Its 180 degrees the other way. I am justifying the existence of math and science by God." I then proceeded to explain to him why mathematics and science are reliable guides to truth.

This raises a good new question for our discussions. We have talked about "evidential inquiry", about science, about numerous other ideas. Yet all of these concepts rely upon basic axioms, axioms like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the sense perceptions, the accurate correspondence of the mind of man to his senses, of the senses of man to nature, the rationality of man in making logical connections, etc etc.

My question is this: How does our worldview account for these axioms? How does our worlview account for science? How does it account for math? How does it account for logic and rationality? In other words, how do we account for counting? How do we justify justifying? How do we validate the idea that evidential inquiry is a valid inquiry into truth? These questions I raise for both of us. I guess it goes back to a previous blog where I said, "The question is not does science account for creation/evolution, but how does creation/evolution account for science?" (I think thats what I asked anyway).

Well, this should spark some good new discussion. I look forward to hearing from you.

Evidence part tres

“What if we make pre-evidential assumptions because of our specific worldview that are shown to be invalid by the evidence.” – The assumption is pre-evidential, it is a belief that, by definition, the evidence relies upon. I think we can again go to what I was saying before that evidence is itself not sufficient. Evidence is subject to the interpreter, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser. Let us leave some extreme examples and come to more relevant ones. Either there is a supernatural God that sustains nature or there is not.

Let me put this into another frame of reference for the sake of our conversation. I, Jason, firmly hold that every single fact of this universe declares the glory of God. Whether it be the mountains we look upon when we walk out the door, the peanuts that I am eating as I type this blog, or a baby being born (and everything in between), it all points directly to the Creator. You would say (correct me if I am wrong) that we can only look at it from a purely physical perspective and not draw any conclusions or ideas that extend beyond the physical data. You are more than entitled to do so, but can you see how such a belief, such a worldview, determines once again how you look at the evidence? If the glory of God is in all of it, then you are refusing to see it no matter how clear it is. And vice versa. These are our interpretive frameworks which we cannot escape, and they color everything that we see.

“The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.” – I think your words are profound here, for even these scientists are taking ‘a metaphysical approach’. Their approach is as deeply entrenched in a metaphysical belief as the Christian, Buddhist or Naturalist. You see, they still have a metaphysical belief in ideas like “existence” and the limits and boundaries of what lies within existence. These are all their framework, their metaphysic. So I think the way you put it is great, for it demonstrates that no matter what approach anyone has, it is still a metaphysical approach, a philosophy of science, a metaphysical belief that they cannot escape from.

Let me finish with a statement…
If I am correct in asserting that God exists and all of nature was created by Him and for Him, then all of nature finds its true meaning and understanding only in light of this basic fundamental fact. Therefore, anyone who does not begin with this assumption will automatically misunderstand all of the facts of nature. They might have a basic understanding of the way in which things operate and yet they will still not fully or rightly understand the data because the data finds its meaning in the One Who created it for a purpose. So if they do not look at nature under this presupposition (they nature exists by God and for God) then they cannot rightly understand it.

Then a question…
Was the previous statement logically consistent, and if so then does this further establish the idea that data is subject to the interpreter and never, in and of itself, sufficient for true knowledge?

Absolute and Invariant?

Sorry this has been so long in responding. I have been transferred to Vail where I have no computer. (Do you know of any good cheap laptops you might be able to get your hands on???) This plus a flooded basement last week. To top it all off our internet stopped working. I finally got that figured out yesterday. So we are back up and running.

There is much to respond to. I will begin with our discussion on morality…
“You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is… So you are subjectively following some things and not other things. You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish…You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.”

You are right in saying that I do choose to follow it or not, and that is my choice. You are also correct in saying that if I accept some ideas and reject others that those choices are subjective. But I am not saying that what I have chosen is the absolute standard. I am saying that there is an absolute invariant moral standard by which we will both be judged, not based on whether I accept it or not. My acceptance of it has nothing to do with whether or not it exists and is real. Neither does my choice to follow it or my knowledge of it. It is simply because it is. I do not change it or alter it. It is not subject to me or to you. I have no influence on it. I do not determine any aspect of it. It is already determined and is beyond any influence. It is absolute and invariant because it comes from the absolute invariant nature of the eternal God.

You said, “It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.”

I do agree that this will be a much shorter discussion because we are looking for logical consistency in my view, and it is logically consistent to say that if there is an absolute eternal unchanging God that there is an absolute unchanging moral code that flows from His nature. This is really all I am saying. It might even be self-evident.

Hopefully this clarifies things a little. Let me know.

Jason's Morality 2

You said,

I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???

Ok. But it seems to me that we will then shortly be at an impasse. It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.

Anyway, I"m enjoying this discussion. I'm sorry that it has so much been in fits and spurts from my perspective.

I wish you well, friend.

Jason's Morality

You said:

I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???

That'd be fine.

But I don't see how it's a defensible position. You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is. All of this is decisions based on your judgements of right and wrong. In fact, you're determining which pieces and parts of the bible you follow. There are pieces you obey and pieces you don't. In being selective, you are making a judgement or decision on how you will abide by what you read in the bible. So you are subjectively following some things and not other things.

You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish; again, all personal choice. You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.

I see nothing wrong with that, mind you. I'm not criticizing you in having what seems to me to be a subjective application of what you call an objective standard. I'm just not seeing the 'objective' part of it.

So this would probably be a good place to continue discussions.

Response to "Evidence and Truth, Part Deux

What if we make pre-evidential assumptions because of our specific worldview that are shown to be invalid by the evidence. Lets say that we have a pre-evidential assumption that the god Atlas holds the world up on his shoulders, and the earth that he is holding up is a flat round table.

Lots of things can happen here we can see things that seem to confirm to us that this is so. We see pieces of evidence that seem to us to support this perspective or viewpoint, that seem to validate our pre-evidential assumptions. It typically doesn't seem to occur to people that it seems to validate our beliefs(which is what pre-evidential assumptions really are) because we naturally assume those beliefs are correct, that in fact the seeming correlation may be purely, utterly incidental. This tendency can be referred to as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to interpret new information in the terms of prior existing beliefs, whether or not they fit.

Sometimes, though, we run into events or evidence that is contradictory to our prior existing beliefs. What do we do when that happens? Religion and faith demands that we force it into the mold, that we come up with a way to interpret the evidence to make it fit the prior existing beliefs regardless. Since those beliefs are unchallengeable, it must be the evidence that needs re-interpreting, right??

But it gets even more complicated than that, of course. Sometimes, different people have different dogmatic belief structures that contradict each other, so you can't just say we need to interpret things in light of Christianity, or Buddhism, or Naturalism for example. The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.

To say this differently, I don't want to interpret things in the light of naturalism because that's what I believe or know so much as I want to do that if and only if naturalism is the stance that best matches the evidence. In other words, figuring out ways to change the worldview in light of the evidence rather than interpreting the evidence in context of worldview.

Ever wonder why it's important to scientists for multiple researchers to come up with the same results in independant labs and with independant configurations? It's because of this type of thing. We tend to make the evidence conform to our preconceived notions rather than adjust our notions to match the evidence. If I see what the evidence says and 5 others see it and come to the same conclusions, I have a stronger reason to believe it. But what if #6 comes along and interprets everything differently, because he has different basic beliefs? And what if he can explain what the first 5 said and did in light of his new theory? Then it becomes the responsibility of the first 5 to amend their understand, and even to adjust their preconceptions, if you will, to match the evidence. That is the way science ought to work and it is the way it often does.

I have more to say and no time right now, hehe. And I've gone on long enough for this post, for now. I don't have to say it all at once. I'll answer your other post later.