You are not so smart/Backfire effect

[Emower]

Per John Dehlin's suggestion I listened to a podcast series about the backfire effect from a podcast called "you are not so smart."
I cant recommend this enough. It was fascinating. Not only from a church standpoint, but from a current events standpoint.

[slavereeno]

DW actually brings this point up when we discuss my disaffection. She questions whether I have just moved from one bias to another bias and I'm no closer to the truth.

[Emower]

Well, she has a point. No one is without bias. And i often can feel the backfire effect when I read apologetic stuff. One just has to be sure that the info is as non biased as possible. For mormonism that is hard, but there are some primary sources we can read.

[slavereeno]

And i often can feel the backfire effect when I read apologetic stuff.

As do I, same with anything good the church may have done or be responsible for. This makes me nervous, I don't suppose it should, but I have been asked the question by the two TBMs I have disclosed to. "What if you are wrong?"

The church sets the stakes very high. I think the fact that they do set the stakes so high is a valid data point against them. I feel like I am on a roller coaster.

[deacon blues]

Per John Dehlin's suggestion I listened to a podcast series about the backfire effect from a podcast called "you are not so smart."
I cant recommend this enough. It was fascinating. Not only from a church standpoint, but from a current events standpoint.

Can I get a reference to this podcast? I found a couple of sites, but I'm not sure its the one you are talking about.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Per John Dehlin's suggestion I listened to a podcast series about the backfire effect from a podcast called "you are not so smart."
I cant recommend this enough. It was fascinating. Not only from a church standpoint, but from a current events standpoint.

Can I get a reference to this podcast? I found a couple of sites, but I'm not sure its the one you are talking about.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/

Episode 093

[Not Buying It]

DW actually brings this point up when we discuss my disaffection. She questions whether I have just moved from one bias to another bias and I'm no closer to the truth.

Well, she has a point. No one is without bias. And i often can feel the backfire effect when I read apologetic stuff. One just has to be sure that the info is as non biased as possible. For mormonism that is hard, but there are some primary sources we can read.

Bah. There is strong objective evidence against LDS truth claims. That isn't a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or bias - the LDS Church makes very specific claims that can be tested, and the lack of evidence for these claims isn't a matter of bias or opinion. For example, the absence of ancient steel swords and all kinds of other anachronisms throughout all of North and South American makes very clear there is no objective evidence for claims for truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That's not bias - bias is when you come up with ad hoc theories to try and maintain belief in the Book of Mormon despite the lack of objective evidence. The lack of objective evidence has nothing to do with bias.

One poster at NOM used to have a signature line that said something to the effect that I don't have to know what is true to know something is false. I think that applies here.

[slavereeno]

Bah. There is strong objective evidence against LDS truth claims. That isn't a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or bias - the LDS Church makes very specific claims that can be tested, and the lack of evidence for these claims isn't a matter of bias or opinion. For example, the absence of ancient steel swords and all kinds of other anachronisms throughout all of North and South American makes very clear there is no objective evidence for claims for truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That's not bias - bias is when you come up with ad hoc theories to try and maintain belief in the Book of Mormon despite the lack of objective evidence. The lack of objective evidence has nothing to do with bias.

One poster at NOM used to have a signature line that said something to the effect that I don't have to know what is true to know something is false. I think that applies here.

This is how I feel about it also, I feel like the evidence is pretty solid that I am basing my views on right now. (I never felt this solid when I was a believer). That being said, my son has been studying fallacies in his college English class, since I didn't remember them well from my college days I reviewed them quite a bit. What is evident to me, if I am being really objective, is that fallacies are used on both sides of the "Is the church true" argument. Those of us on the non-believer side are not above using them. The burden of proof is on the believers, they are making some pretty wild claims and asking for a lot based on those claims.

I would love to see a fallacy-proof debunking of Mormonism. The CES Letter for example presents several pieces of good evidence but includes several fallacies. To use the example above: We have found no steel swords, therefore no steel swords from Pre-Columbian America exist. This is a logical fallacy. While I can say that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, the above is still a fallacy.

So I personally am convinced, but when I start debating my TBMs its hard to feel like my position is 100% unassailable

[didyoumythme]

The logic doesn’t have to be - “we have found no steel swords, so no steel swords exist”, but rather an issue of probability. We have to go here because no one can “prove a negative”. We instead have to rely on drawing the most reasonable conclusion based on the information we have.

Here is a great post -

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ge_or_the/

I was at a meeting recently where the stake president brought up the idea that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. True, but absense of evidence certainly does not support the initial claim. Give me a reason to believe and I just might, but I won’t believe your story just because I can’t disprove it.

[slavereeno]

Here is a great post -

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ge_or_the/

I love the elephant analogy. I should read more Carl Sagan.

[Emower]

DW actually brings this point up when we discuss my disaffection. She questions whether I have just moved from one bias to another bias and I'm no closer to the truth.

Well, she has a point. No one is without bias. And i often can feel the backfire effect when I read apologetic stuff. One just has to be sure that the info is as non biased as possible. For mormonism that is hard, but there are some primary sources we can read.

Bah. There is strong objective evidence against LDS truth claims. That isn't a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or bias - the LDS Church makes very specific claims that can be tested, and the lack of evidence for these claims isn't a matter of bias or opinion. For example, the absence of ancient steel swords and all kinds of other anachronisms throughout all of North and South American makes very clear there is no objective evidence for claims for truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That's not bias - bias is when you come up with ad hoc theories to try and maintain belief in the Book of Mormon despite the lack of objective evidence. The lack of objective evidence has nothing to do with bias.

One poster at NOM used to have a signature line that said something to the effect that I don't have to know what is true to know something is false. I think that applies here.

Oh I agree, totally. But, if there were some sort of evidence that was somehow compelling and made sense, (and that is an extremely unlikely "if") the fact that I feel the effect already makes me wonder if I would even be open to it. I am leaning towards the "I would probably not be very open to it" side of things right now.

[Linked]

DW actually brings this point up when we discuss my disaffection. She questions whether I have just moved from one bias to another bias and I'm no closer to the truth.

Well, she has a point. No one is without bias. And i often can feel the backfire effect when I read apologetic stuff. One just has to be sure that the info is as non biased as possible. For mormonism that is hard, but there are some primary sources we can read.

Bah. There is strong objective evidence against LDS truth claims. That isn't a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or bias - the LDS Church makes very specific claims that can be tested, and the lack of evidence for these claims isn't a matter of bias or opinion. For example, the absence of ancient steel swords and all kinds of other anachronisms throughout all of North and South American makes very clear there is no objective evidence for claims for truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That's not bias - bias is when you come up with ad hoc theories to try and maintain belief in the Book of Mormon despite the lack of objective evidence. The lack of objective evidence has nothing to do with bias.

One poster at NOM used to have a signature line that said something to the effect that I don't have to know what is true to know something is false. I think that applies here.

Oh I agree, totally. But, if there were some sort of evidence that was somehow compelling and made sense, (and that is an extremely unlikely "if") the fact that I feel the effect already makes me wonder if I would even be open to it. I am leaning towards the "I would probably not be very open to it" side of things right now.

I worry about this for myself too, but I feel confident that I would accept reality if it happened. Based on the things believers claim as evidence, however, my bar for compelling evidence is justifiably high.

[Reuben]

So I personally am convinced, but when I start debating my TBMs its hard to feel like my position is 100% unassailable

Maybe it shouldn't be 100% unassailable. IMO, the only circumstances under which we should be that certain are those in which we're dealing with deductive logic, where we can actually prove something. Otherwise, we're in the realm of induction, where trying to be that certain either can't work or leads to jumping about among hypotheses.

IMO, the best way to go about this is to have an uncertain position. I do this by recognizing a representative set of consistent hypotheses as valid and assigning each representative some level of certainty that's stable in the face of new evidence. Here's an idea of what mine look like w.r.t. the church's truth claims.

• It's all literally true, exactly as the church teaches. Nearly 0% certain. I reserve some nonzero probability for this only because I recognize that it's remotely possible.
• It's mostly literally true: maybe Satan isn't real and God is okay with disobeying the Q15 sometimes, according to individual circumstances. Still nearly 0% certain. (Maybe 0.00001%?) This is more consistent with the facts, but the missing BoM evidence and unmentioned veggies and animals in the text (and many other things) drive the probability way, way down.
• The truth claims are about allegorical events, but God wants us to believe them. Maybe 0.001% certain. This better matches the facts as we understand them, but I can't wrap my head around a god who wants grown adults to literally believe in Santa. Also, this appeals to my pride ("I know something those Stage 3 Mormons don't, ha ha") so I adjust downward for that bias.
• The church has truth like all others, and it comes from some deity that cares about us individually or in the aggregate. Maybe 5% certain. I fully recognize that this number is almost entirely due to bias.
• None of the above. Just a hair under 95% certain.

When I come across some new argument or fact, I adjust my certainty in the representative hypotheses. They haven't changed much for a while, so I've gotten comfortable with them.

[slavereeno]

Here is a list of the "evidences" I have heard from my TBMs:

1. The concrete thing from last conference. Concrete was mentioned in the BOM, yet pre-columbian concrete was not known in the 19th century, how could JS have known if not for truthness.

2. Chiasmus

3. Some random linguist reads the BoM and says the structure is defiantly Egyptian and could not have been written by a farmboy.

4. JS could not have written such a book because he was an uneducated dolt.

5. JS could not have organized the church so well because he was an uneducated dolt.

6. JS made a bunch of prophesies that came true

7. The church makes people happy and junk, so it has to be true. (example of a "true story" told by my BP, a couple were alcoholics and fought all the time so they get a divorce. The wife joins the church, then gets her husband to partake, they remarry in the temple and live happily ever after.)

8. Satan is real and the only reason people are unhappy in the church is cause of him, and that they are following him

9. steel bows were known in the Mediterranean at the time Lehi left Jerusalem, how could JS have known that unless he were a profit

10. the 17 miracles movie. Along with other witnessed miracles.

11. so many people have a testimony so there!

12. the church has withstood the test of time.

13. JS is sincere in his writings from the JS papers and if he were not, his deception would be revealed there.

I think FAIR and FARMS have other items, but I don't seem to hear a lot of those being regurgitated.

[Reuben]

The church sets the stakes very high. I think the fact that they do set the stakes so high is a valid data point against them. I feel like I am on a roller coaster.

This is a problem in any decision framework. If one outcome has infinite (or even high enough) utility, you must act to maximize its probability. Anything else is irrational. If two outcomes that require mutually exclusive actions have infinite utility, you're screwed because you have no way to act rationally. Does making Pascal's Wager require you to be Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah's Witness, or something else?

Early on in my faith transition, I decided I needed two axioms (i.e. things I take to be true, with no possibility of being convinced otherwise).

First, no god I want to worship, obey, follow, etc., would set up a system where I could incur an infinite cost by making the wrong choice based on such ridiculously incomplete data as a human being is capable of collecting and making sense of. That's not a god, it's a demon.

Second, no god I want to worship, obey, follow, etc., would reward or punish anyone on the basis of belief. Too many people would have to choose contrary to what their personal evidence can support. Again, that's not a god, it's a demon.

[slavereeno]

• It's all literally true, exactly as the church teaches. Nearly 0% certain. I reserve some nonzero probability for this only because I recognize that it's remotely possible.
• It's mostly literally true: maybe Satan isn't real and God is okay with disobeying the Q15 sometimes, according to individual circumstances. Still nearly 0% certain. (Maybe 0.00001%?) This is more consistent with the facts, but the missing BoM evidence and unmentioned veggies and animals in the text (and many other things) drive the probability way, way down.
• The truth claims are about allegorical events, but God wants us to believe them. Maybe 0.001% certain. This better matches the facts as we understand them, but I can't wrap my head around a god who wants grown adults to literally believe in Santa. Also, this appeals to my pride ("I know something those Stage 3 Mormons don't, ha ha") so I adjust downward for that bias.
• The church has truth like all others, and it comes from some deity that cares about us individually or in the aggregate. Maybe 5% certain. I fully recognize that this number is almost entirely due to bias.
• None of the above. Just a hair under 95% certain.

This is a great list, and my probabilities are similar. I have reduced this to probabilities, since I cannot state anything with 100 percent certainty. I find solace, actually in NOT claiming I know anything with 100% certainty.

The follow up question is if its one of the top 3 in your list, what is God playing at? Why cultivate a mind that believes against the rational? I am told by my TBMs so that we can learn faith, trust and be tested. But it seems to me to be a bit of a cruel trick to punish based on this, like entrapment.

[slavereeno]

First, no god I want to worship, obey, follow, etc., would set up a system where I could incur an infinite cost by making the wrong choice based on such ridiculously incomplete data as a human being is capable of collecting and making sense of. That's not a god, it's a demon.

Second, no god I want to worship, obey, follow, etc., would reward or punish anyone on the basis of belief. Too many people would have to choose contrary to what their personal evidence can support. Again, that's not a god, it's a demon.

Yes! this!

[Reuben]

The follow up question is if its one of the top 3 in your list, what is God playing at? Why cultivate a mind that believes against the rational? I am told by my TBMs so that we can learn faith, trust and be tested. But it seems to me to be a bit of a cruel trick to punish based on this, like entrapment.

It could be we're missing some important fact or perspective. I don't know what they could be, but it's possible.

Outside of that possibility, I agree with you that it would be cruel, with the probabilities I'm comfortable with, anyway. If I were looking at a 50/50 split and thought that people are generally better off in the church, I'd probably choose faith. But as it is, I'm looking at a 0.001/99.999 split and activity in the church being a wash for most and incredibly toxic for some. No god I can believe in would expect me to choose faith under these circumstances.

[Emower]

First, no god I want to worship, obey, follow, etc., would set up a system where I could incur an infinite cost by making the wrong choice based on such ridiculously incomplete data as a human being is capable of collecting and making sense of. That's not a god, it's a demon.

So, this really is not the only thing that Mormonism offers. To be sure, it does offer that, but not exclusively (which is 95% of the problem). You can ignore the demon God, and focus on the good one. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just dont like it when we assume that to be Mormon you must believe in that God because many dont.

Second, no god I want to worship, obey, follow, etc., would reward or punish anyone on the basis of belief. Too many people would have to choose contrary to what their personal evidence can support. Again, that's not a god, it's a demon.

Agree with you there.

[Reuben]

First, no god I want to worship, obey, follow, etc., would set up a system where I could incur an infinite cost by making the wrong choice based on such ridiculously incomplete data as a human being is capable of collecting and making sense of. That's not a god, it's a demon.

So, this really is not the only thing that Mormonism offers. To be sure, it does offer that, but not exclusively (which is 95% of the problem). You can ignore the demon God, and focus on the good one. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just dont like it when we assume that to be Mormon you must believe in that God because many dont.

Good point. I didn't believe in that sort of god before my faith transition, either.

I don't think I decided on those axioms in order to judge Mormonism (though the second especially can be used that way). I did it so I could decide whether to let go.