[Update: the “Christian” answers are now available, and voting is open.]
A few weeks ago, Paul Krugman set off a debate by claiming that liberal economists could do a very good job at explaining what conservative economists think, but the conservatives just don’t understand the liberals. Regardless of the empirical truth of that statement, the idea is an important one: when there is a respectable disagreement (as opposed to one where the other side are just obvious crackpots), and important skill is to be able to put yourself in the mind of those with whom you disagree. Conservative economist Bryan Caplan formalized the notion by invoking the idea of a Turing Test: could a liberal/conservative do such a good job at stating conservative/liberal beliefs that an outsider couldn’t tell they were the real thing? Ilya Somin, a libertarian, actually took up the challenge, and made a good-faith effort to simulate a liberal defending their core beliefs. I actually thought he did okay, but as he himself admitted, his “liberal” sometimes seemed to be more concerned with disputing libertarianism than making a positive case. Playing someone else is hard!
Obviously it would be fun to do this for religious belief, and Leah Libresco has taken up the challenge. She came up with a list of questions for atheists and Christians to explain their beliefs. She then recruited some actual atheists and Christians (they’re not hard to find) and had them answer both sets of questions. You can find the (purported) atheist answers here — I think the purported Christian answers are still forthcoming.
Now, of course, the fun begins: vote! Go here to take a short survey to judge whether you think each answer is written by a true atheist, or a Christian just fudging it. At a brief glance, it looks like there are a few answers where the respondent is clearly faking it — but it’s not always so easy. I’ll be curious to see the final results.
The Christians have had nearly two millennia to sort out their arguments
Organized atheism goes back at least 3000 years. See “Carvaka.”
I wonder where they found those pseudo-atheists. It appears to me they are probably all college-educated and have taken at least basic course work in philosophy. I don’t see any of the mega-stupid stereotypes which I routinely observe on Teh Interwebs, such as, “I am an atheist so I can commit immoral acts and not be punished by God.” Don’t tell me I’m exaggerating, you’ve all seen them too.
I wonder, if they check back in 10 years, how many of those Christians will still be Christian.
Post#1 was trolling; I have no doubt that Christians are as deluded as Atheists. I’m not arguing any position, just pointing out that genuinely religious people have gained knowledge in a way that can’t be transmitted in words, simply by experiencing something for themselves, and as soon as you concoct a theology and make them a target you’re back racing in the Special Olympics. I love this blog for the accessible particle physics, the atheism crap is an embarrassment.
There are mountains of evidence for the existence of God, the Christian faith, and the Catholic Church.
I have offered several new ones on my website. I invite all to click on my name and go to my web site to find several essays giving this evidence. Please viciously attack my arguments in the guest book, or elsewhere. If you chose to attack them somewhere else, please leave a not in the guestbook informing where.
“I’m not arguing any position, just pointing out that genuinely religious people have gained knowledge in a way that can’t be transmitted in words”
How convenient for you that it cannot be transmitted in words, so that you don’t have to rationally defend it. But how do you know it’s “knowledge”?
These arguments assume that Christians all believe the same thing and have the same concept of God. There are huge variances in Christian thought, which is why there was an explosion of sects after Martin Luther’s original rebellion. Not all Christians believe in an anthropomorphic deity. In fact not all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus.
The definition of atheist isn’t fixed, either. I call myself one because I don’t believe in the God of the Bible, but I can’t shake the feeling that there’s a unity to existence, and humans are not equipped to experience it.
Generalizing by saying Christians think this and atheist think that is to miss the huge variations in human religious thought.
keith: Yes, some people have experiences that convince them of the existence of God, correctness of a religion, etc. Personal experience isn’t strong evidence, though; people often have experiences which lead them to believe things that are not correct. The existence of God is an objective claim like any other, and legitimate belief in that claim requires real evidence. Personal experiences alone do not require postulating a new entity (God) to explain them. Brain malfunction (which can be induced with similar effects by pharmaceuticals, magnetic stimulation, or even simple sensory deprivation) explains the phenomenon much better, since there is no evidence in other areas lending independent support to God as a hypothesis, and many of these experiences are contradictory when taken together.
#25 is right. bryan is a libertarian judging by the fact that he tries to argue his social conservative friends out of their social conservatism (he is also against barriers to movement against borders, etc.).
Kudos to Jim Harrison and Slideguy. The inablity of cosmologists to explain creation neither includes, excludes, nor precludes the notion that “God” exists. Occam’s Razor could lend credence to either side of the debate but the idea of divine personal revelation is contrary to scientific thinking. This is an argument that has persisted for several thousand years and will doubtless continue for a while.
What I find interesting is how many more responses this blog entry has generated than the one about the E. coli outbreak in Europe (or other more definitively scientific discussions of late).
Shall we move on to more concrete matters?
The “atheism/religion” attribute in the blog entry title is a misnomer, since atheism is also a religion. Atheism is a religion based on the assumption that everything that exists is a consequence of the laws of motion of material constituents and the forces that act between them. However, if the laws of motion are separate entities from the matter and the space, then the natural laws must be a part of the platonic realm of ideas (i.e. the realm of mathematical ideas). Otherwise, one has to believe that the laws of motion are random periodic patterns, which implies that everything that we see is a consequence of a random fluctuation. That is why many of the scientists are platonists, although they may not be aware of this. In this case,
the idea of God exists by definition, and the question of atheism vs theism reduces to the belief
whether God is involved or not with our universe.
To claim that information received into the auditory or visual areas of the brain and then rationalised is somehow more valid that information received in other areas of the brain and then rationalised is just informational fascism. It *isn’t* convenient that knowledge of God cannot be transmitted in words. It is, however, true. Why do you need something to fight?
Interesting idea, will follow results with interest.
@ keith:
That you would hitchhike the test was obvious, No intelligence on the Turing scale for you! =D
Well, clearly you haven’t read Carroll here, who is an empirical atheist (physicalist).
Another fail.
It is an empirical result. And the test of empiricism is that it works. What have you got? A clumsy attempt at solipsism, clumsy because that doesn’t support theism.
Adding another Turing fail. I didn’t know it was possible to score negative on that test, but obviously anything is possible for magical thinking! =D
Yes – I agree with contemplationist and Razib Khan – Bryan Caplan is no conservative.
The major difference between liberals and conservatives that probably explains this – is that liberals have higher openness (see results at http://www.yourmorals.org). Libertarians, however, also have very high openness. Bryan Caplan, in particular, has views so outside the mainstream (he’s even *very* unusual for a libertarian) that he has to be an extremely independent thinker who doesn’t have the echo chamber that many people have when they split into liberal/conservative factions
Torb, argue with theism all you like. They have a skydaddy who wants to smack you down with his giant hammer and lightning bolts. I’m sure the fight will be epic. Good luck, brave soldier!
Regardless of the empirical truth of that statement, the idea is an important one: when there is a respectable disagreement (as opposed to one where the other side are just obvious crackpots), and important skill is to be able to put yourself in the mind of those with whom you disagree. Conservative economist Bryan Caplan formalized the notion by invoking the idea of a Turing Test: could a liberal/conservative do such a good job at stating conservative/liberal beliefs that an outsider couldn’t tell they were the real thing?
The ancient technique that in India was called “purva paksha”. E.g., R.Malhotra (“We have an ancient Indian tradition of engaging the ‘other’ using a technique called purva-paksha. This means you must first study the other’s viewpoint very seriously and become an expert in it. Only then can you debate against it. “).
Where one conducts such a survey may make a huge difference. In the USA, Christian religiosity, if not belief, is the overwhelming norm, and having been raised in that environment, most of us are steeped in the culture. I went to CCD, I did the church-every-Sunday thing for years. I don’t believe a word of it, but unless I was sleeping through the first 15 years of my life, how could I NOT be able to explain a mainstream Christian point-of-view fairly competently? Hell, I could sound like a priest if you want me to. What would it demonstrate? That I have special higher cognitive powers, or that I’m a typically good mimic?
I know very few professed atheists who lack extensive exposure to religious worship; and since many have honed their rhetorical skills considerably to debate with the religious (something an atheist often finds him or herself having to do the moment they out themselves), the requisite training and exposure for convincing mimicry seems to come with the territory, at least on this side of the pond.
Take a person in post-Christian Europe, however, or in a Communist country. How would they fare in this variant of the Turing test? I think that would be a necessary control to validate the methodology. If you can’t eliminate the powerful cultural influences on thought and rhetoric, you’re going to do a piss-poor job of saying something definitive about religious or atheistic cognitive dimorphisms. Really, it would probably be impossible to say anything useful at all.
You know what’s hilarious? I have almost an equal amount of Liberal and Conservative friends and they both claim, with equal fervor, that the other side can’t engage in a logical debate.
I see both sides as overpopulated with hypocritical idiots. Liberals want to socially engineer the perfect world (whatever that is) but they could give a damn if the rest of us don’t want to participate. Conservatives cling to the notion that the US Constitution guarantees each citizen’s individual freedoms… as long as you’re a Christian.
In reality, we should all have a healthy distrust of any group of people who believe so deeply that they have all the answers. Liberals/Conservatives are all brain dead morons who buy into the “group thought” and do and believe whatever they are told by the hive mind.
How about we put our trust in “free thinkers” for a while?
Links provided are Dead, survey is useless.
Pingback: Christian Book Barn » The Atheism/Religion Turing Test
I’m a small-a atheist. I don’t have much time to devote to the the capital-A version.
If a god wants me to be a capital-A, it’d damn well have to materialize before me and give me a real reason.
Pingback: Confessions of a God Believing Man | Why I Hate The Joneses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523
Pingback: The Atheism/Religion Turing Test | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine « Feeds « Church Leadership
Although I find that every religion is filled with misconceptions, half-truths, lies, and errors, I believe in God…….My personal definition of God is everything eternally evolving…..It meets the qualifications that man cannot know God. We only know that which is within our limited perceptions…….But this evolving energy, matter, and stuff of stars, has evolved into us…..so we too are extensions of God with limited quantum powers of God because we are such a tiny part of everything. Our powers are limited to showing love, and helping each other, etc. Free will leads to errors and evil. I don’t pretend to understand how that is resolved. That which led to me is my Creator.
Think of the number of things which had to happen for me to be here now. Then think of the additional number of things which had to happen for all of you to be here now. The odds of us all existing are very unlikely. And yet we are all here. Who’d a thunk an explosion would make me happen? I’d like to know how David Copperfield accomplished this?
I waited 16 billion years to get here and they put me in the wrong body….I was supposed to be Bill Gates.