Everything Wrong with the Modal Ontological Argument Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-07-28 | 1) Things that exist, exist. (law of identity)2) Things that exist necessarily are a subset of things that exist. (definition)3) Therefore, things that exist necessarily, exist. (from 1 and 2)4) Maximally great beings are things that exist necessarily. (Definition)5) Therefore, maximally great beings exist. (from 3 and 4)6) God is a maximally great being. (definition)7) Therefore, God exists. (from 5 and 6)Gee, wasn't that easy?Here is the source material:youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
Two Plus Two Equals... God? | Re: God and Mathematics (Reasonable Faith) Philosophy: Engineered! 2022-10-16 | Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2021/03/two-plus-two-equals-god-response-to.htmlSee the original video from Reasonable Faith here:youtube.com/watch?v=QJBOiZXkKu8
Channel Updates (Philosophy: Engineered!) Philosophy: Engineered! 2022-10-14 | Follow me on Twitter: @Phil_EngineeredBlog Home: philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/p/helloworld.html
The Stagnation of Philosophy Philosophy: Engineered! 2021-09-26 | Academic philosophy has a serious problem: There are no official standards by which we can differentiate between "good" philosophy and "bad" philosophy. The result is an intellectual free-for-all that needlessly promotes misinformation and incompetence. Read the script here: philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-good-bad-and-philosophy.html
The Idolatry of the Bible—Why Biblical Inerrantism is Impossibly Wrong Philosophy: Engineered! 2020-12-28 | It is one thing to believe that God played an imperceptible hand in the creation of the Bible. It is another thing entirely to claim that the Bible is perfectly inerrant. Read the script here: philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-idolatry-of-bible_26.html
Psychology of Homophobia Philosophy: Engineered! 2020-12-13 | NOTE: This video is a re-upload. I accidentally deleted the original while toying around with the closed captions (oops!)Here is the original study to read for yourself:psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 11: The Holy Spirit Philosophy: Engineered! 2020-06-07 | The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is easily one of the most dangerous principles in Christian philosophy. It teaches believers to place subjective personal experiences above all evidence and argument to the contrary. Evidence and arguments thus lose all power to change minds, leaving us only with stubborn, bigoted fanatics. Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/01/part-xi-holy-spirit.html
The Language of Logic Philosophy: Engineered! 2019-07-10 | A comprehensive explanation of the nature and origins of logic.What is logic? Where does it come from and how does it work? Is logic a human construction? Or is logic an objective feature of the universe itself?Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-language-of-logic_26.htmlThank you to everyone who helped with the production of this video. If you enjoyed this video, please consider sharing it with all your like-minded friends who enjoy probing the deep questions of life.
The Problem of Free Will (And How To Solve It) Philosophy: Engineered! 2018-09-22 | Exploring the philosophical rabbit hole that is free will and offering some suggestions on how to fix it. Feel free to read the script below: philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-problem-of-free-will-and-how-to_26.html
The Problem of Omnipotence Philosophy: Engineered! 2018-02-22 | Exploring the philosophical rabbit hole of omnipotence. Feel free to read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-problem-of-omnipotence.htmlIt's kind of amazing to me how many bizarre subjects tend to pop up when having this discussion. It's a really fun exercise in analysis that takes you through all sorts of obscure twists and turns. It's also a great demonstration of how terrible Christian philosophers are at doing basic philosophy. Even when you're practically fixing their own problems for them, they still fight you on every level.
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 10: Other Religions Philosophy: Engineered! 2017-08-19 | Exploring the modern scientific understanding of where religion comes from and how it develops over time.Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2017/08/part-x-other-religions.html
Evolutionary Absurdity Against Naturalism Philosophy: Engineered! 2017-01-19 | Wherein a christian apologist shows us all how little he understands logic, science, epistemology, philosophy, and basic reading comprehension.Read the script here: http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/01/evolutionary-absurdity-against.htmlSource video: youtube.com/watch?v=vpQ1-AGPysM
Nothing Exists Necessarily Philosophy: Engineered! 2016-08-18 | Existence is not a predicate. Therefore, nothing exists necessarily.Errata:At 4:10, the first line should say "if and only if."
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 9: Unintelligent Design Philosophy: Engineered! 2016-05-16 | Exploring the "science" of intelligent design and Christianity's total disregard for objective reality.Read the script here:http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2015/11/part-9-unintelligent-design.htmlMusic: "Resting Point," by Michael "Skitch" Schiciano.
There is No Such Thing as Two Philosophy: Engineered! 2016-01-04 | Christian apologists often like to claim that the number 2 literally "exists" in an objective, universal sense. This is why they're wrong.Source video: youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
A Challenge for Christian Moral Realists Philosophy: Engineered! 2015-12-23 | Prove the objectivity of just one moral value or duty.Just one.Well...?
What is Truth? Philosophy: Engineered! 2015-11-15 | Truth is a label we assign to propositions. If we can't agree on what rules to apply when making that assignment, then there is no point in arguing over anything. My rules follow a rigorous system of pragmatic empirical rationalism. If your rules follow anything significantly different, then your entire sense of epistemology is irrelevant and worthless to me.Read the script here: http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2015/10/what-is-truth.htmlMusic: "Still Frame" - Michael "Skitch" SchicianoSound Cloud: soundcloud.com/skitchstudio/stillframeBand Camp: skitch.bandcamp.com/track/still-frame
No, Really. What is Free Will? Philosophy: Engineered! 2015-07-25 | Until I see a coherent answer to this challenge, I'm just going to assume that no one really knows what they're talking about.
Meditations on Essentialism (w/ Matt Dillahunty!) Philosophy: Engineered! 2015-07-18 | Discussing the the many problems with Essentialism - the idea that objects possess a distinct "essence" that makes them what they are.Special guest Matt Dillahunty!
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 8: Historical Jesus Philosophy: Engineered! 2015-02-08 | There are rules that must be followed in order to properly call something "historical." The Bible doesn't follow them.Read the script here: philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2014/09/part-viii-historical-jesus.htmlFor more information on source Criticism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticismThe unreliability of eye-witness testimony:http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.phphttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony#Reliability All 4 canonical gospels are written by anonymous Greek-speaking Christians living 40-70 years after the death of Jesus, not by eye-witnesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#Gospels_and_Actshttp://www.christianbiblereference.org/jintro.htmhttp://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works_and_none_are_eyewitness_accountsWe have no original copies of any book in the New Testament, and most of the copies we have come from many centuries after the originals were lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscriptsThe new testament contains many contradictions: http://www.errancy.com/ratings/overall-ratingshttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.htmlhttp://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
Logical Possibility - Where Do I Even Begin? (1) Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-11-18 | If you're going to puff yourself up as a "serious" philosopher, then the least you could do is provide an argument that wasn't already decisively proven false over 100 years ago.Source video from Philosophy Lines:youtube.com/watch?v=qeq0cvSmdIYFurther reading:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mathematical-Logic-Dover-Mathematics/dp/0486497852Further viewing material:"Midnight Mathematicians - Incompleteness and Gödel's incompleteness theorem"youtube.com/watch?v=fp-76zpes2oUndecidability Tangent (History of Undecidability) - Computerphile youtube.com/watch?v=nsZsd5qtbo4youtube.com/watch?v=FK3kifY-geMyoutube.com/watch?v=lLWnd6-vSGo
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 7: Morality Explained Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-09-22 | Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2014/09/part-vii-morality-explained.htmlIf I had to pick the absolute worst argument for God's existence, it would be the moral argument. Everything about this argument is flatly wrong. We know what human morality is, we know where it comes from, we know how to manipulate it, and we know that it doesn't require the intervention of any telepathic, transdimensional fairies. The only way this argument can possibly make any sense is if someone is desperately seeking rationalization for their malicious desires.Music: "Empathios" by Michael "Skitch" SchicianoBandcamp link: skitch.bandcamp.com/track/empathiosSoundcloud link: soundcloud.com/skitchstudio/empathios
Omnipotence Fails. Period. Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-06-26 | The logic has spoken. Honestly Christians, how wrong do you have to be before you'll just accept it?
Responding to Objections, Part 5: Omnipotence Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-06-22 | Talking about some of the pitiful attempts by Christians to rescue God from His own logical absurdity. This also illustrates one of the primary reasons why I have no respect for Christian apologetics. They are not respectable thinkers seeking truth with sincerity - they are bullshit artists trying to rationalize an a priori conclusion.Here are some classic examples of the objections talked about in this video:youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68&t=7m1syoutube.com/watch?v=sDC4wroQyCcyoutube.com/watch?v=RcHz10xbc-cyoutube.com/watch?v=Ec4U-41Av_Ayoutube.com/watch?v=p7Q-nhuM5NE
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 6: Terrible Teleology Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-05-04 | Today we take a look at the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God, as based on the so-called "fine-tuning" of the physical constants of nature. The only good thing I can say about this argument is that at least apologists don't have to lie quite so badly to make their case. Agenticity is a powerful psychological bias that affects us all.Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/07/part-vi-terrible-teleology.htmlMusical Credit:"Watchmaker" by Mike "Skitch" Schiciano.Listen on Soundcloud...soundcloud.com/skitchstudio/watchmakerOr purchase on Bandcamp:skitch.bandcamp.com/track/watchmaker----------------------------------------------------------------Errata:1) 8:20 - The area of a triangle is b*h/2. But I wrote down the Pythagorean theorem instead.2) 8:40 - Surface area of a sphere is 4 pi R^2; not 4/3 pi R^2.
Top 5 Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-04-13 | Don't even bother debating God's existence unless you can fix the broken epistemology behind Christian beliefs.5) Failure to understand the analytic/synthetic distinction4) Obsessions with Platonism3) Endless struggles with consistency and coherence2) Constant inability to grasp the burden of proof1) Open rejection of basic fallibilismSteve Shives, eat your heart out! :D
Responding to Objections 4: Axioms Philosophy: Engineered! 2014-01-27 | UPDATE: After finally studying a decent reference in propositional logic, I can now confidently say that this video is shit. But I'm going to leave it up anyway for learning purposes, because it shows a fun stage of development in my study of epistemology. The biggest error in this video is my abuse of the word "axiom." An axiom is a proposition that we arbitrarily map to a value of "true." The correct term I was looking for was actually "truth assignment function." This is the operator that maps propositions to truth values. Another useful concept is the "rule of inference," which simply generates new true propositions out of old ones. This is a major part of propositional logic. Mental incorrigibility is a truth assignment that I find very useful. Definitional propositions seem to fall in this category as well. Axiomatic systems for mathematics and logic also serve as viable truth assignments when understood for what they are. Finally, the pragmatic maxim serves as the ultimate arbiter of truth when building viable models for objective reality.------------------------------------------------A discussion on the epistemic nature of axioms; where they come from, how we use them, and how people tend to misunderstand their purpose. Axioms of analytic propositions:1) All consistent axioms are TRUE.2) All incorrigible propositions are TRUE. *Corollary: All assignment declarations are TRUE.3) All assignment declarations are transitive.4) All incoherent propositions are FALSE.5) All epistemic evaluations are TRUE.Axiom of synthetic propositions:6) For every synthetic propositions P, there exists an action A and consequence C. If P is TRUE, then doing A will achieve C.If doing A fails to achieve C, then P is FALSE.UPDATE:It's been pointed out that Axiom #4 is not consistent with the law of negation. This is a good point. Two possible fixes may include1) Redefine negation to only operate on coherent propositions.2) Define an alternative, third category of epistemology. Call them TRUE, FALSE, and INCOHERENT. Incoherent propositions are therefore neither true nor false.Either of these fixes seem to address the issue to me. What do you think is more elegant and functional?
Responding to Objections 3: Pragmatism Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-12-29 | Today we elaborate on what it takes to differentiate between a "true" proposition and a "false" proposition. The answer is philosophical pragmatism. A synthetic proposition (some claim about the external world) is only as "true" as its ability to inform my actions toward predictable outcomes. This is the guiding principle that universally appeals to all human interests. If you agree (even in part), then GREAT! We can finally have a discussion with the potential to objectively settle disputes.If you disagree entirely, then GREAT! Nobody cares what you think anymore. I could concede everything you believe and not a single decision in my entire life needs to change as a result. So fine. I believe whatever you say. But until you can give me some tangible reason to commit my actions toward some outcome, then I'm not going to do anything differently.
Responding to Objections 2: Truthiness Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-12-17 | Some basic definitions in epistemology. We can't have a discussion over what is true when we can't even agree on what that word means. So today, I'm going to offer some definitions that help clarify what truth is and what truth is not. If you agree, then great. We can have a discussion. If you think you have something better, then great. We can have a discussion. Otherwise, I literally don't know and don't care what you're talking about.
Responding to Objections 1: Platonism Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-12-02 | Laying mathematical Platonism to rest. Anyone who thinks numbers "exist" in a real, literal sense has no idea how math works.Mathematical Platonism defined:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 5: Cosmological Closure Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-11-19 | Everything wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. This is what happens when Christians attempt to use science in support of their faith. The amount of willful deception and brazen manipulation that goes into this argument is astonishing. It simply cannot be exercised with sincere honesty. Yet this is probably the most popular go-to argument that Christians have to offer. It speaks volumes about the intellectual integrity of Christian philosophers.Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2012/08/part-v-cosmological-closure.htmlMusical Credit:"Origins" by Mike "Skitch" Schiciano.This guy is amazing! Show him some love and check out his music.Soundcloud: soundcloud.com/skitchstudio/originsBandcamp ($1.00): http://skitch.bandcamp.com/track/originsFurther viewing:Why substance dualism fails. See Qualia Soup's excellent two-part series.Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 4: Word Games Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-08-25 | Tackling the philosophical mess of the ontological argument and clarifying the nature of logic and mathematics. Read the script here: philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2012/08/post-iv-word-games.htmlERRATA:9:25 - It turns out that these laws are not axioms. Rather, they are TAUTOLOGIES. That means they are formulas with a consistent truth values under all possible truth assignment functions. We can derive tautologies from the definitions of the logical connectives, which are fundamentally arbitrary. Musical Credit: Michael "Skitch" Schiciano, http://bio.skitchmusic.com"Dissociation" - https://soundcloud.com/skitchstudio/d...Also thanks to Charkopolis and Bunnyfarmhophop for help with the cartoons.
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 3: The Null Hypothesis Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-06-30 | How many times have you heard the claim "You can't prove God does NOT exist!" Well, we can. It's called the null hypothesis.It utterly baffles me how so many hack philosophers can't seem to wrap their brains around this concept. When a guy comes to you with a fantastic claim of incredible nonsense, you don't have to take him completely at his word! It is okay to demand evidence, and it is okay to declare his claims "false" when he fails to provide any. The reason we get to say that "God does not exist" is the exact same reason we get to say "Bigfoot does not exist." It's the *default assumption* until proven otherwise.But what's worse is how Christians can't even define a God concept with remotely coherent properties. The very idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent deity is about as meaningful as a frustrated green that sleeps furiously inside of a square circle. I don't have to disprove the existence of things that can't even coalesce into meaningful concepts.Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2020/07/part-iii-null-hypothesis.html
Mathematical Proof that Absence of Evidence *IS* Evidence of Absence Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-05-13 | I am sick to death of Christians failing to grasp the idea that a lack of evidence really is sufficient grounds for rejecting an unlikely claim. So in frustration, I went ahead and proved it mathematically using basic probability theory. Perhaps this will be enough to end the discussion once and for all.I think we should give this proof a name. I propose we all it the "Anticitizen Theorem." :DExercises for the viewer:(1) Let's suppose that evidence can be a union of multiple events:E = A and B.Start with the assumption that more evidence of X makes X more likely to be true. Then prove that less evidence makes X less likely.(2) Change assumption 1 to the following:Assumption 1: Let P(E|X) be some number greater than zero. In other words, the probability of E does not even have to be greater than NOT-E. It just has to be nonzero.Under what conditions will the absence of evidence still qualify as evidence of absence?
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 2: Absolute Truth Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-04-27 | .Please read before commenting:This is a conversation that needs to be had. Nearly every debate I've seen on God's existence always looks like two people playing a board game. The atheist is trying to play by the rules of chess while the Christian is playing by the rules of checkers (and creationists are just pigeons who famously shit on the board and knock over the pieces). You cannot have a rational conversation with someone whose very idea of reason is completely misguided and incoherent. So in order for the God debate to go anywhere, we need to establish what the rules are. And if Christians don't want to play by the rules of rational discourse, then everything they have to say on the matter is already wrong before it even begins.I do not pretend that everything outlined in this video is the perfect, end-all be-all authority on epistemology. But I will contend that what you see here is far more rigorous and functional than anything Christians have ever come up with. I've read several books on theory of knowledge, and it absolutely baffles me how so many "professional philosophers" throughout history have abjectly failed to see the obvious in front of their faces. The reason we "believe" anything at all is so that we can eventually use that information to guide our decisions. If your epistemic system cannot, in some capacity or another, help me to make real decisions in the real world, then it is irrelevant and worthless. Read the script here:youtube.com/watch?v=_jLJczkOU44Music:http://www.beatpick.com/artists/SAP/mode_iiiERRATA:1:45 - This is actually more of a colloquial use of the word tautology. In propositional logic, a tautology is any formula that is always true for any arbitrary combination of truth assignments.2:33 - This phrasing here is a little misleading. A mapping function between propositions and truth values is called a "truth assignment function." Technically, the word "epistemology" simply means the study of knowledge. However, I've seen people use that word to imply a more active process, like "what epistemology are you using?" In that sense, you can think of your own personal epistemology as the set of truth assignment functions that you operate with.2:43 - I realize now that the traffic signal analogy used here is kind of terrible. "Stop on red" is not really a proposition, but an order. It therefore has no truth-value. I also butchered the meaning of axiom. Axioms are propositions that we declare to be true by rote fiat (like "A = A"). We then derive other true statements through the use of rules of inference. These usually take the form of IF-THEN statements, like "if A = B and B = C, then A = C". The result of this process is called a theorem.3:22 - It's actually possible to derive these axioms from the rote definitions of the logical operators themselves. So they're not really "axioms" in the strictest sense, but tautological consequences of the operators involved. But that's kind of getting technical.10:32 - Apparently the banana tree is not really a "tree," but a "herbaceous flowering plant." Who knew?
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 1: Why God Matters Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-04-21 | Part 1: Why God MattersHere, we introduce the importance of the God debate in our culture and set the tone for the rest of the series. The debate on God's existence is more than just a casual philosophical nuance. It's a battle over the rules by which we measure our beliefs and actions. How we arrive at our decision about God's existence will also determine how we make decisions in daily life and the political arena. Vast amounts of American political capital is constantly being wasted on the fight against pointless, dogmatic superstitions - resources that could be spent advancing science and improving our collective lives. My hope is that this video series will contribute some heavy philosophical ammo to the the discussion that is sorely lacking in many regards.Read the script here:philosophyengineered.blogspot.com/2012/08/part-i-why-god-matters.htmlSpecial thanks to Charkopolis and BunnyFarm HopHop for their help with making this video.
Ode to Quantum Mechanics Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-01-26 | I thought you guys would like this one. Be sure to watch in high definition!Special thanks to Charkopolis for all his hard work on this project.Lyrics:Oh, it starts with James Clerk Maxwell and his laws we know so wellFrom lines of flux to waves of light and everything is swellThen along comes guys like Schrodiner, Dirac and Fermi, tooAnd say goodbye to every thing you might have thought was trueQuantum Mechanics!It might have several quirksbut no one can deny the fact that quantum theory worksWell quantum really ain't so tough as long as one can chewon a second-order, complex-valued partial diff-e.q.The secret to an understanding of dualityIs to know the thing that's "waving" is the probabilityQuantum Mechanics!It ain't so tough you'll seeIt's just a bunch of particles acting stochastic-lyUncertainty is not so odd as long as we're awareposition and momentum are a Fourier transform pairSo anything that tightens our precision on the onemeans certainty about the other value gets undoneQuantum Mechanics!It's strange and we agreebut at least it's much simpler to learn than relativity!Quantum Mechanics!It might have several quirksbut no one can deny the fact that quantum theory works
Psychology of Belief: Self-serving Bias Philosophy: Engineered! 2013-01-01 | Have you ever noticed that religion is more than just a bunch of stuff people believe, but a defining feature of personal identity? What happens when those beliefs are threatened by empirical evidence? Are people going to casually bow to the dictates of reason and fact? Or will they resist the truth when it presents itself?Flow chart:http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2012/12/updated-flow-chart.htmlReferences:1) http://psp.sagepub.com/content/26/9/1046.abstract2) http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/53/4/6363) http://psp.sagepub.com/content/23/6/636.abstract4) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00221031070006865) http://psp.sagepub.com/content/26/9/1151.abstract6) http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/11/4/119.abstract
Cognitive Dissonance with Philip Zimbardo Philosophy: Engineered! 2012-05-24 | Taken from the PBS documentary "Discovering Psychology" (1990). Since it is a PBS program, I am assuming that this is public domain. Think back to Psychology of Belief, Part 2, where we learned about the Insufficient Justification effect. This program is a nice supplement for that material.
Psychology of Belief, Part 10: Summary and Conclusions Philosophy: Engineered! 2011-12-16 | Let's face it. We could make 10 hours worth of this stuff, but hopefully the point has been made. All religious faiths, without exception, are empirically unjustified. They exist only because human beings are prone to psychological manipulation and cognitive bias. Not only have we conclusively debunked every serious argument for God's existence from a rational standpoint, but we are reaching the point where we can experimentally model the very reasons why people find these arguments compelling in the first place. Let's hurry up and ditch this religious nonsense before some Jesus-freak gets his hands on nuclear weapons. Flow chart: http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2011/12/flow-chart-part-10.html
Psychology of Belief Part 9: Agenticity Philosophy: Engineered! 2011-07-15 | Answering the question of why people keep seeing "God" in perfectly natural phenomena. Note that the second experiment was intended to be given to children. The bit with the pencil and the tiger is even verbatim with the actual experimental procedure. So if it seems a little condescending, then understand that it was designed for a five-year-old. Flow Chart Link: http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2011/07/flow-chart-part-9.html References: [1] Barnes, G. L., "Origins of the Japanese islands: the new 'big picture,'" Japan Review, Vol 15, pp. 3-50 (2003) [2] Heider, F. and Simmel, M., "An experimental study of apparent behavior," The American Journal of Psychology, Vol 57, No 2, pp 243 -- 259 (1944) [3] Bowler D. M., and Thommen, E., "Attribution of mechanical and social causality to animated displays by children with autism," Autism, Vol 4, No 2, 147-171 (2000) [4] Heberlein, A. S. and Adolphs, R. "Impaired spontaneous anthropomorphizing despite intact perception and social knowledge," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol 101, No 19, pp 7487 - 7491 (2004) [5] Shermer, M. "Agenticity: Why people believe that invisible agents control the world," Scientific American, Vol 300, No 6, pp 36 (2009) [6] Harnik, R., Kribs, G. D., and Perez, G., "A universe without weak interactions," Physical Review D, Vol 74, 035006 (2006) [7] Kelemen, D., "The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children," Cognition, Vol 70, No 3, pp. 241 - 272 (1999)
The Black Box of Empirical Falsification Philosophy: Engineered! 2011-01-30 | A nice metaphor for how empiricism and falsification work to build knowledge. It is also a nice explanation of the fundamental reasons why William Lane Craig is an idiot. I may not be a professional philosopher, but I am a professional scientist. I do not claim that this metaphor is perfect, but it does illustrate the problem of claiming certainty about things you cannot even subject to testing.
Psychology of Belief Part 8: Need for Closure Philosophy: Engineered! 2010-11-11 | Have you ever wondered why people are so prone to "God of the Gaps" thinking? Here's how it works: Religious belief is highly correlated with need for cognitive closure. Need for closure is then highly correlated with a propensity for primacy. This means whenever a question comes up that begs for an answer, the natural tendency for such people is to latch on to whatever answer comes along first to fill in the ambiguity. Since "God did it" is such a classic answer to so many deep questions about the universe itself, many people cannot help but use this answer to fill in their questions. So what's the solution? Unless you are an expert in whatever cosmic issue is being questioned, learn to feel happy with telling people "I don't know, and neither do you." Even this response can fill the need for closure, but now we're at least being honest. We also leave ourselves much more open to learning the real answer when it is finally presented with honest, academic discipline.
Psychology of Belief, Part 7: Projection Philosophy: Engineered! 2010-08-09 | Have you ever wondered why creationist Christians love to call atheism and evolution "faith-based religions?" Well, as it turns out, Sigmund Freud was right. Classical psychological projection is a defense mechanism whereby people deny their own faults by perceiving them in other people. Projecting their own blind faith onto critics is therefore just a tool believers use to avoid recognizing those very same faults within themselves. Special thanks to AronRa for the final audio clip!
God Versus the Neutrino Philosophy: Engineered! 2010-07-04 | My recent submission for Episode 17 of the Bad Psychics podcast, which can be found at www.badcast.co.uk.This video compares God with neutrinos. Interestingly, these two concepts share a significant number of unusually counter-intuitive properties. Yet worldwide, the neutrino is regarded as a matter of undisputed fact, while the very existence of God is hotly contested. Understanding the differences between these two ideas is therefore a good illustration of the rules an idea must follow if people are going to accept it as fact.
Psychology of Belief, Part 6: Hallucinations Philosophy: Engineered! 2010-04-27 | Hearing voices: It's not just for schizophrenics any more! Hallucination is a relatively common phenomenon. Virtually all of us will, at one point or another, experience sensory perceptions generated entirely out of our own minds. Sadly, some people are more prone to this than others, and it is entirely within reason that every spiritual experience in human history is attributable to auditory, visual, and tactile hallucinations. Anywhere between 1-2 % of the human population hears voices on a regular basis. Sometimes the voices say encouraging things. Sometimes the voices are derogatory and vicious. Other times they speak nonsense. Occasionally they are even capable of full conversations. Sometimes the voices are audible. Sometimes they are like loud thoughts. Other times they are like severe, intrusive urges. Sometimes the voices are a blessing in the life of the hearer. Other times the voices are a nuisance. Some people cope by taking drugs. Others cope by asserting dominance with the voices. Some have even developed bizarre coping mechanisms like having "voice time" or simply repeating everything the voices say back at them. In short, if you think you have heard the voice of God. You probably have not.
Psychology of Belief, Part 5: Compliance Techniques Philosophy: Engineered! 2010-03-31 | Which is more likely? That missionaries generate converts through the power of holy inspiration? Or that missionaries are really clever marketers? EDIT: Ray's method here is probably more than just a foot-in-the-door effect. You will also notice a few "door-in-the-face" questions as well. These are designed to elicit an immediate rejection, followed by a lesser concession. See reference #4 at the end for an experimental demonstration of this effect.
Psychology of Belief, Part 4: Misinformation Effect Philosophy: Engineered! 2009-12-29 | In this episode, we learn why personal testimony is universally regarded as the weakest form of evidence. Yet despite this fact, personal testimonies are heavily emphasized among religious circles anyway. That says a lot about the value of truth among religious circles, doesn't it?
Psychology of Belief, Part 3: Confirmation Bias Philosophy: Engineered! 2009-09-26 | Presentation of the principles of confirmation bias and belief perseverance. The natural human tendency is to seek out only the evidence that supports what we already believe, and to ignore evidence that may debunk our beliefs. We also tend to cling to beliefs even after the original evidence which put it there has been debunked. This is the essence of belief perseverance.
