Do We Choose To Not Believe?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote Spot On!, which was about Alise Wright's list of assumptions for Christians not to make about Atheists. I thought they were excellent.

There was one little thing that she said though, that has spurred a follow up post on her own blog, about Free Will and Faith. She said,

Most atheists who have “deconverted” from a religious background have studied it and other religions thoroughly before choosing not to believe.

Mikespeir, in the comments, called attention to this:

If I have any reservations at all about this, it’s that “choosing not to believe” hung off the end there. I never chose not to believe. Once I realized I didn’t believe anymore I chose not to keep practicing the Christian religion. That was the choice involved.

I agree with Mike. I never chose not to believe.

Of course, I agree with Alise that we seem to have some say in our actions. We choose to read certain books/information (the bible¹ and/or Dawkins), attend different events (either church or TAM²), and we choose the people we associate with.

I have to throw in here, that this assumes that we have free will. I have learned in the past year that we most likely don't. We are determined by a myriad of previous factors. But I won't get into that here. 

More Groovy Science 6

Big Bear Solar Observatory have the New Solar Telescope (NST) which took the picture you see of our sun. This is the most detailed picture of a sunspot ever taken in visible light. The resolution of the telescope is just 50 miles of the sun's surface. Science and technology are amazingly cool. The NST should help researchers better understand the complexities of solar weather and its impact on the space climate in our neighborhood of the solar system. Found Here.

• Generation X More Loyal to Religion


• Drink Water to Curb Weight Gain? Clinical Trial Confirms Effectiveness of Simple Appetite Control Method


• Capacity for Exercise Can Be Inherited: Finding Suggests Pharmaceutical Drugs  Can Be Used to Alter Activity Levels in Humans


• Do-Gooders Get Voted Off Island First: People Don't Really Like Unselfish Colleagues


• 'Charitable' Behavior Found in Bacteria


• Attention, Couch Potatoes! Walking Boosts Brain Connectivity, Function


• Starvation Keeps Sleep-Deprived Fly Brain Sharp


• Eating Berries May Activate the Brain's Natural Housekeeper for Healthy Aging


• Roots of Gamblers' Fallacies and Other Superstitions: Causes of Seemingly Irrational Human Decision-Making

Occam's Razor: Part 1 of Our Critical Thinking Toolkit

The other day I wrote about Critical Thinking and how important it is. But knowing it's good for you and actually using it in your daily life are two very different things. I want to put together a Critical Thinking Toolkit.

One important tool is going to be Occam's Razor: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). That's it in a nutshell right from William of Ockham, a Franciscan monk and English philosopher, theologian and logician in the 14th century.
Another way to put it is: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But don't get confused by the term, simple. It means: The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don't posit more than is necessary. Or, don't make any more assumptions than you have to.


So let's say you have 2 competing hypotheses that are basically equal in most respects. Then this principle would suggest that you choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions while still sufficiently answering the question. In science Occam's Razor is used as a rule of thumb (a heuristic) to help researchers develop good models.

In your life it can help you make decisions and choose what to think and what to believe (or not believe). You can use it as a heuristic as well, a great rule of thumb in your Critical Thinking Toolkit.

Sometimes atheists use Occam's Razor to argue against the existence of god since everything can be explained through natural means without complicating it with the supernatural.

Another example: Crop circles. There used to be 2 competing ideas for where crop circles came from. One was that flying saucers from an alien world made them. Another was that a person  (or people) used some type of instrument to make the designs in the grass. Since there is no evidence for the flying saucers from outer space, and given how complicated and how many assumptions need to be made to make that argument work, Occam's Razor would suggest that the simpler explanation would be that humans did it with instruments. That is the argument that makes less assumptions.

Of course, the second argument could be wrong, but until there was more information, it was the preferable hypothesis. Then 2 guys admitted to the crop circle hoax in the 1990's. So that ended that debate for most people.

A quote by Carl Sagan is appropriate here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When it comes to the supernatural, Occam's Razor is a very valuable tool indeed.

Sources:

• The Skeptic's Dictionary


• Wikipedia


• 2Think.org

Updates: A New Study and Obama's Faith Council

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about Sheeple: Studies About Social Conformity. I focused on 3 studies that show how people are easily influenced and manipulated, mostly by the authority figures in their lives. The other day a new study was published that added to this and I wanted to share it with you.

Financial Advice Causes "Off-loading" In The Brain shows that expert advice may shut down areas of the brain responsible for decision making processes, particularly when individuals are trying to evaluate a situation where risk is involved. This study focused on financial advice given by an "expert" to participants in an fMRI machine who were told to make a decision on how to spend money. I have a feeling that this is also the case in other areas of decision making as well. Hopefully it will be investigated and tested.

It makes sense though, when you look at how easily people are led by those in positions of authority. If someone is an "expert" this study shows that the brain offloads the decision making process. It trusts the expert and gives up responsibility for that choice.

"This study indicates that the brain relinquishes responsibility when a trusted authority provides expertise, says Berns, the study's lead researcher. "The problem with this tendency is that it can work to a person's detriment if the trusted source turns out to be incompetent or corrupt."