Atheists Casting Proof to the Wind, Picking out Confirmation Bias Alternatively

[ad_1]

I’ve been watching the Brett Kavanaugh circumstance and writing about it on The Stream for a though, but there’s one more side to it that is bound to be of interest to readers right here.

It begins with the robust correlation in between political liberalism and atheism. It is not 100 %, of course, but the connection has been noted by numerous researchers, and there’s no doubt it exists. The additional left a person’s politics, the additional most likely he or she is to be an atheist.

It continues with atheists’ frequent dismissals of faith as “belief without having proof.” Atheists insist on proof they will not think something without having it. And it had improved be additional than just someone’s opinion it has to be corroborated, generally scientifically.

It proceeds via noting how usually atheists have accused me and other Christians of confirmation bias: believing what we want to think about reality.

And ultimately, there is the clear observation that men and women on the left think what Christine Blasey Ford stated about Kavanaugh, in spite of the best lack of corroboration for her story. It is her word, and hers alone. The men and women she named on to help her story all say it didn’t take place. The ideal she has going for her is her personal statements to other people which includes her husband and therapist decades soon after the alleged occasion, and even her therapist can not help the story absolutely. However one particular Democratic senator soon after one more looked at her and stated “We think you.”

My point ought to be clear sufficient currently, but let’s throw in a couple other information points, for these who may well query no matter whether that hyperlink in between atheism and believing Ford’s testimony is genuine.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote a statement on the hearings, which includes:

 Rather than a complete and fair hearing that would have examined Kavanaugh’s record and the really serious charges against him, the nation saw a rushed, perfunctory procedure that had all the hallmarks of a sham. … As if his troubling stances had been not sufficient, the Senate’s failure to adequately address the really serious allegations of Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct is enraging.

Hemant Mehta, the “Friendly [?] Atheist,” echoed that, with emphasis. I’ve searched cautiously, and I haven’t discovered a single atheist web page difficult Democrats for believing her prematurely. Neither have I run across any who named down the protesters on the Supreme Court methods for chanting, “We think survivors!” (For the record, I think survivors also. No one particular has questioned that. The query has been no matter whether she is one particular. See additional in the midst of this write-up.)

So what’s going on right here? Could it be that atheists do not constantly insist on corroborated details prior to they’ll think?

So let’s return to this matter of confirmation bias. Every key atheist web page has raised deep issues about Kavanaugh’s nomination — employing terms like “how screwed are we?” and “alarm.” Atheists are operating scared. They totally can not stand the believed of him on that bench.

So that tends to make two principles they’re violating: requiring strong corroborated proof, and avoiding confirmation bias at all fees. Could it be they’re not so committed to these principles as they say they are?

(Note: Shadow to Light is asking related questions.)

Regarding comments: If you have a thing to say about the politics of the matter, I’m completely fine with that, but not right here, given that that is not my subject in this weblog post. You can decide on amongst 5 hyperlinks above exactly where that dialogue would be relevant. This is about the epistemology (requiring corroboration) and social psychology (confirmation bias) rather. So I’m asking us to concentrate our discussion on that.

[ad_2]

Latest posts