A Call for Confirmation Bias

Sometimes I like to read what some of these so-called "new atheists" have to say. As a result, I've been plodding my way through Peter Boghossian's  A Manual for Creating Atheists. It's a rather dull read, quite repetitive and odd in that he (out of one side of his mouth) informs the reader that religion is all wrong because there is no scientific evidence to prove God exists, nothing factual to point to God, but then clearly (out of the other side of his mouth) instructs the would-be-atheist-creator not to use facts to convince people to stop believing in God. He also tells us that the hard sciences are the only way to truth and then tells his reader to use philosophical methods (not hard science) to talk their subjects out of their beliefs. I couldn't blame someone for wanting to point out that his "manual" is as full of inconsistencies as the Bible is (but unlike the Bible, it was written by one man over a very short period of time, relatively speaking and is not a written record of stories handed down for generations). I also sometimes like to check in at John Loftus's blog "Debunking Christianity". And, of course, I have read works by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. My overall impression is that, if these are the "new atheists", please bring back the "old atheists", like Pavlov, Freud, Hepburn, who were not so full of evangelical zeal, determined to convert others to their unbelief.

John Loftus recently asked readers of his blog to provide him with examples of confirmation bias.  I decided I'd respond to his challenge here. He said:

Let's say you're into football as a Cowboy fan. You don't care much at all how other teams do. You just root for the Cowboys. Come Super Bowl time this past year you could care less who won. But someone challenges you to predict the winner. So you study it out. You have no biases that would directly affect a clear-headed judgement. But if your Cowboys were in the Super Bowl it would affect a clear-headed judgment.

There are biases that get in the way of a clear-headed judgement and there are biases that don't. It depends on such things as the issue, how important it is to you, how much of your social network depends on your having the same belief, how long of a prior commitment you have had to your belief, and what the punishments and rewards are for maintaining said belief.

That was his example, and he asked for others. This is my response:

Let’s say there is a former-Christian-turned-atheist, who, based on his or her experience as a child, as well as degrees earned at Christian schools, has a certain definition of what a Christian is. This definition is reinforced by the general way Christians are typically portrayed in the mainstream media.

Those who call themselves Christians study and refer to the Bible, the main text of their religion. The book is really nothing more than a collection of various writings (one could call them primary documents), written over a period of a millenium and a half or so, compiled long after they were written, and put together as one source. It’s quite fascinating to read as a history of the evolution of a civilization, as well as the evolution of how humans have perceived and related to a supernatural being they call “God”. Of course, it is full of inconsistencies and barbarism, but like so much literature that has survived the test of time, it is also full of wisdom. A section of the book describes a figure called Christ whom most Christians believe really existed, although like many other characters in the Bible, he could have been fictional (the atheist is sure he is, but it’s sort of a moot point when talking about literature, really. Many historical figures have been mythologized throughout time — George Washington existed, but did he cut down a cherry tree? — and one doesn’t read To Killing a Mockingbird and say, “Atticus Finch wasn’t real, therefore, I have nothing to learn from him,” but humans allow themselves to be divided over such points — and always have, one can learn by reading ancient texts like those found in the Bible).  

At some point, this former-Christian-turned-atheist realized how inconsistent the Bible was. He or she also began to read and learn about other religions and realized how absurd it is for people to think their religion is the one and only true way to know God. This person decided that all this inconsistency and absurdity, combined with what science has now proven as far as how our planet came into existence, was proof that God can’t exist. This person somehow came to confuse human religions and the ancient stories that have become their holy scripture with God. This person is now determined to prove how wrong all Christians are. 

Because some who call themselves Christians literally believe that Jesus was the son of God who died on a cross to save all us human sinners from an eternity in a place called hell, this atheist, who was raised to believe this, believes that all who call themselves Christians believe this. This atheist also believes that all Christians believe God’s existence is proved by reading the Bible. This atheist decides to keep cleverly proving, over and over again with similar arguments, that God doesn’t exist (also, for some reason, insisting on referring to God as “he” as if the God defined by ancient people in ancient texts who lived in patriarchal societies is God, even though this god "doesn’t exist"). This atheist argues against what’s in the Bible and chooses only to debate those Christians who seem to be as intent on proving God exists using ancient texts as the atheist is on proving God doesn’t exist using the same texts (“I must prove I am right about this” is the overlap in  the Venn diagram that denotes this atheist and the Christians he/she debates). This atheist has no room in his/her definition of “Christian” for someone who doesn’t read the Bible as a book that proves God’s existence, someone who is not anti-gay marriage, anti-a-woman's-right-to-choose, not pro-prayer-in-school, someone who believes there are multiple paths to God rather than one path, someone who does not believe all atheists are immoral or bad people, someone who knows this, maybe, because he or she once described him or herself as an atheist. When the former-Christian-turned-atheist encounters such a person, he or she is pretty dismissive.

This former-Christian-turned-atheist misses the wisdom of Christ’s teachings and all the evidence being produced through psychological studies today that prove that wisdom. For instance, people are happier when they are less focused on themselves and more focused on helping others, helping the marginalized in our society. People are happier when they let go of grudges, learn to forgive. People are happier when they work to change their own imperfections instead of judging others and/or trying to change them. People are happier when they live in connection with each other. People are happier when they put more emphasis on connection with each other and less emphasis on material things. Jesus, of course, was not the first to teach all these things, but the four canonical Gospels stress them over and over. 

This atheist seems blinded to the fact that all world religions are nothing more than human inventions, attempts to understand and connect with something humans have always referred to as “gods” or “god”. Religions, like all too many other human inventions, can be and have been used for great good as well as great harm. The existence of God, like other concepts such as love or imagination, is impossible to prove or to disprove. Thus, it’s pretty senseless to spend one’s life arguing over God’s existence or nonexistence, which does nothing but divide humans from each other, leading to mere discontent and unhappiness, in best-case scenarios and to war and destruction (of both humans as well as numerous other species), in worst-case scenarios. 

One could say this atheist’s biases have gotten in the way of clear-headed judgment about how to find a kinder, more peaceful, and more just existence in this world.