How Do Theists Know That God Communicates With Them?

Recently I had a discussion with a religious friend and asked him what I consider to be a key defining question. I've tried to record the dialog here as accurately as I can, but obviously the following is not a transcript. During the course of the conversation the "relationship" topic came up.  Knowing that communication is an important part of a relationship I asked him "Does God talk to you?".

Does God talk to you?
He said "Yes".
I said "When?".
He said "Right now."
I said "Well, what's he saying?"
And he said "He wants you to know he loves you and he wants you to come back..." yada, yada, yada.

So I said "Harvey, my six foot rabbit friend standing here next to me says he doesn't believe you".
He laughed. So then I said "God, did you really say that?". Of course there was no answer.  Then I said to my friend, "That is exactly what I would expect to happen if he wasn't really there. You don't believe in Harvey, and if you ask him a question, he won't answer.  Either he's ignoring you, or he's not really there. You decide. But seriously though, how do you know the difference between the thoughts that normally occur to you and the ones that you think come from God?".
He said he didn't know, but he could tell the difference. 

What is the difference?
I told him that I thought he was just making stuff up, and that he didn't really know what was auto-generated by his brain and what came from God.  My point was that if there is no demarcation, no point of delineation then it should all be assumed to be auto-generated.  The reason why, and to draw a loose analogy, is that until a schizophrenic learns what schizophrenia is, they are quite certain they are interacting with voices and persons that are auto-generated by their brain.  And to a lesser degree, I know people that hear things that aren't there, I know I do, and I know that when I was in a band, under certain conditions I could hear a bass line that I would "copy" and use in our original songs. 

No one could hear the notes but me. That wasn't supernatural, I am sensitive to frequencies in a way that others aren't and I am quite sure that a spectrum analyzer would be able to detect them. Now that I'm older, when I'm in a noisy industrial environment, I can hear "beats", "partial melodies", "phones ringing", "voices", you name it. If it kicks off that portion of my brain that recognizes a sound, whether its the real sound or not, I hear it.

The Difference is Easy to See in Most Other Cases. It Can be Cross-checked.
This problem of differentiating between what is auto-generated and what is perceived is easy in all other cases.  When I communicate with people, I see it, or hear it.  It comes in through my eyes, ears etc. I know how I perceived it. The source of the information is known, and it is usually of a sort that is generally independently verifiable. It can be cross checked.  I don't have to resort to special pleading to get someone to believe that I have perceived the communication.  If I tell you that my friend told me something in the course of our dialog and if you knew who it was, you could ask him.  When I told my band mates that I heard the notes, then immediately played them, the possibility that hearing the notes might be supernatural never occurred to them.  We all understood feedback, resonance and harmonics so that was adequate to explain the way I could come up with the perfect bass line after listening to the song for a minute.  If it was from some spirit, let them take the bass out of my hands and show me like any other person would. A spirit appearing before my eyes and giving me a bass lesson would be incontrovertible evidence to me.

Not So With Gods.  
As I pointed out to my friend, if I ask God if he really said that to my friend, I don't get an answer, and other religious people are just as certain as he is that they have a relationship with their Gods, and when I ask those Gods to talk to me, they don't either. 

Special Pleading and Disconfirmation Bias
If God exists, and he talks to my friend, then my friend should be just as willing to accept that any other God exists, or that Harvey exists on the same grounds.  If not, then he's committing the fallacy of special pleading to support what he already believes and ignoring disconfirming evidence aka Disonfirmation Bias.

40% Of Scientists Have A Belief In A God? Okay, Which God?

If a believer says that "it is not unreasonable to believe there is intelligence behind our natural laws"
then they should agree that there must be an intelligence behind the intelligence of our natural laws. But isn't that absurd? Its got to stop somewhere, so why don't we stop before we get to Gods.  There is obviously no way to prove which God it is if they are not going to present themselves, so we might as well say, there is no God. If we ask a God to present itself unambiguously to us and it doesn't, isn't that exactly what we would expect if there really wasn't any God? What difference does a God that does not interact make anyway?

Committing to a hasty conclusion does not make one stupid.
I have read that 40% of American Scientists believe in God. It doesn't make them stupid or ignorant, it just means they've come to a hasty conclusion.

Stephen Jay Gould is reported to have said

"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs"

That is a fallacy. It is a false dilemma. Did Gould mention WHICH religious beliefs? The contra to that are that his peers are not stupid and religious cosmogonies are not compatible with evolution. Potentially, Gould has an 80% chance of believing in the wrong god among his peers that believe in a god when you consider the following.

I think the reported 40% is a little high, but I'll go with it. It depends on how the question is asked, and which god it is that they believe in.

I'm sure that some percentage of Hindu scientists believe in a Hindu God, some percentage of Christian scientists believe in a christian god and so on and so on.

So of that 40 percent, break it down by religion, and it must be divided by the number of faiths, so if there are 5 equally distributed competing faiths in that forty percent, then only 8% are right if a god exists.

So how can the remaining 32% of believing scientists be wrong if they are so smart and a god exists?
Potentially, that is 80% of the pool of 40%, and overall 92% of scientists that don't believe in the RIGHT god or any god at all.

The 32% of believing scientists have OBVIOUSLY come to a hasty conclusion haven't they?

Smart people are not immune from social and political pressure or their natural bias to confuse complexity with intelligence.

It just shows that they haven't thought about it critically enough to catch up with their unbelieving peers that make up the majority or they have determined that if it doesn't make a difference, then they are better off lying about their belief, or the survey question or results were misinterpreted.

Fraud and Religion

The tragedy at the "Sweatbox" resort highlights several problems with Religion.
'Sweatbox' victims were attending 'Spiritual Warrior' program, CNN, October 10, 2009 -- Updated 2202 GMT (0602 HKT)

"The use of sweat lodges for spiritual and physical cleansing is a part of several Native American tribes' cultures."

Since terms such as "spirit" are not defined, they are ambiguous. They can mean anything. Since they can mean anything, then there is no definition. When there is no definition, there is nothing to compare it to. Since there is nothing to comapare it to, the definition can change as needed to suit whatever purpose its being used for. There is no way to measure it.
So in the case of "spirit cleansing" some simple common sense questions come to mind.

• How does one know it works?
• If it doesn't work, what went wrong?
• What is the "spirit"
• Where does it reside?
• How can I cross-check any of these answers?

Now lets change the word "spirit" in "spiritual cleansing" with "carpet" and see how it plays out.
Acutally when you change "spirit" with "carpet" it makes more sense. All those questions can be answered unambiguously.

Tax Fraud

"The resort is on 70 secluded valley acres 20 minutes from Sedona, surrounded by thousands of acres of national forest, according to the Web site. It has Internal Revenue Service nonprofit status as a religious organization, its Web site says."

Why should religions get immunity from taxes? What is the justification? Can the justification be cross checked, for example, can we check if God exists?

If we can't check if God exists, then we can't tell which God is the real one. Since we can't tell which God is the real one, then we know that at least some of them are perpetrating tax fraud, maybe intentionally.

Third person dies in Arizona 'sweatbox' case, CNN, October 18, 2009 -- Updated 2132 GMT (0532 HKT)

People believe what they are told by friends, authorities and sometimes traditions

There were up to 65 visitors, ages 30 to 60, at the resort attending the "Spiritual Warrior" program by self-help expert James Arthur Ray, according to authorities.

People, by nature or by conditioning, believe authorities and tradition. Since that is the case, it is easy to see how so many people are easily defrauded.

Publicity, perceived authority and a trusted person

Ray is widely known for programs that claim to teach individuals how to create wealth from all aspects of their lives -- financially, mentally, physically and spiritually. He has appeared on various national programs, including CNN's "Larry King Live."

But, in my opinion, individuals like Oprah, and Larry King, before they put these kinds of things on display, thereby adding an element of credibility to them, have an obligation to cross-check and verify them. But they need definitive and measurable standards to do that don't they?

Until people get over the tendency to believe what they see and hear without cross-checking it, even casually, there will be casualties from fraud, mortal and financial.

Giving God The Glory By Misinterpreting Intent and Purpose In Inaminate Objects

I was watching Animal Cops (a "reality" TV show) the other night and a Veterinarian was working on a potentially lifeless dog (bear with me, this story does have a happy ending).

The medical team didn't want to give up on the dog even though there was no discernible heartbeat. The indication that they focused on was that the chest was perceptively moving occasionally like it was trying to take a breath. The doctor said that the chest movement could be caused by postmortem reflex.

THE DOG EXHIBITED NO SIGNS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Though its eyes were open they were not blinking. The doctor said at one point
"Right now we don't know if we're working on an animal that is alive or dead".
So from the doctors perspective an animal can be dead and still have a weakly and irregularly contracting and expanding chest.

Over time, the dog blinked, and they interpreted this as another sign of life. They persevered saying to each other that the "Animal has a will to live".

LET'S STOP FOR A MINUTE AND INVENTORY WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
- It was unknown whether the dog was dead or not
- the dog was not conscious
- the "signs of life" at one point could be mechanical reflex actions
So HOW can it have "a WILL to live?"
It doesn't seem to me that it can possibly have a "will" to do anything if it doesn't have the energy or oxygen to be conscious. And taking it one step further, we know that brain damage occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen, so the possibility exists for brain damage to be occurring.

SO WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
I am sure that if these people were interviewed in another time and place and asked
"can an animal without consciousness that can barely breath and blink its eyes want or will anything?"
they would say
"No, its not likely that it can want or will anything because its unconscious and in such a weakened state"

LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT
Yet while they are working on a dog that they admittedly didn't know was alive or not, in effect, they are saying that even though the dogs mind is not functioning it had the will to live. So then we can say that at least at this one time, when these people were under stress and very emotional, they had two logically inconsistent beliefs existing in parallel in their mind and did not realize it.

Okay, that's probably no surprise to anyone since we can't possibly realize all the logical implications of all our beliefs, but why did they do that in this case?

LET'S PUT THE QUESTION ON HOLD FOR A MOMENT AND LOOK AT COMPLEX SYSTEMS.
Complex systems are collections of diverse components which are connected that are interdependent, and adapt. The components collectively exhibit one or more properties that CAN NOT be reduced to the sum or difference of its components. The interaction of the components creates a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Examples of complex systems are color, convection, swarming, proteins, cells, organs, systems of organs, bodies, life and consciousness.
Complex Systems
Emergence

THE DOG'S BODY IS A COMPLEX SYSTEM DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY.
The brain at its most fundamental level was converting energy chemically to generate the signals that were being automatically sent to the muscles of the lungs and the muscles of the lungs were relaxing when those signals weren't present. The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting and losing energy and input, they were doing what they developed to do which is the only thing that they can do. The medical team interpreted the mechanical and chemical operations of the body burning energy as THE DOG not wanting to die instead of the THE DOGS BODY doing the only thing it can do when there is energy available.

INTERPRETING "OTHER MINDS" MUST BE A COGNITIVE BIAS
Even scientists can't speak about inanimate objects without falling into using language that describes intent and purpose in inanimate objects. Its just a habit of speaking. If I had not purposely avoided using language that suggested intent and purpose in one of the sentences above I could have used more common terminology and wrote
"The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting energy and input, they were doing what they WERE DESIGNED to do which is the only thing they can do".

Even though the dog is in "auto-pilot" the medical team are thinking about the dogs body as if the dog has intent and purpose. It seems the reason they are doing that is because they are being fooled by the emergent properties of the components of the body of the dog.

SERENDIPITY MUST BE THE KEY TO LIFE
Lets take another inventory of what we know.
- We know that chemicals interact.
- We know that since chemicals interact, that over time they will interact for however long they will interact for.
- We know that mistakes and accidents happen which generates diversity.
- We know that mistakes will happen while every unregulated combination will occur.
So serendipity causes change. Random events cause change.

CHILDREN, INTENT AND PURPOSE AND SERENDIPITY
How many times have we seen children presume intent and purpose in inanimate objects? How many times did we do it as a child, and how many times do we still do it on a daily basis at the office and at home? When things are going particularly bad and misfortune seems to beat the odds it seems like SOMETHING is trying to teach us a lesson or is out to get us. Its seems to be quite a natural thing for humans to do, as evidenced by religions in all parts of the world throughout the ages making sacrifices to appease the Gods.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS WORK VIA FEEDBACK LOOPS
Feedback loops depend on amplifying, regenerative, and degenerative information.
In our complex system known as our "life", events are judged to be either bad, neither bad-or-good or good. Very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance that there will be no degenerative feedback, in other words, very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance nothing bad is going to happen. There is no intent or purpose behind it. Just complex interaction of components and some measure of chance events.

THAT'S JUST HUMAN NATURE FOR YOU! MISINTERPRETING INTENT AND PURPOSE IN INANIMATE OBJECTS
Since the medical team was providing what the body of the dog needed, it survived the night, regained consciousness and lived happily ever after. Everything went as it should since there were no degenerative random chance events.

But regardless of the facts, in the minds of the medical team (and I'm sure most of the audience), when the dog was unconscious it had [ANGEL CHORUS] "THE WILL TO LIVE", and even though nothing bad happened during the recovery (of which there was a roughly 66% chance), it was a "miracle".

A Christian That Gets That Christians Don't Get God

RichD is one of our Christian commenters. No matter how much we disagree, we can always find a way to inject a little good humor into the dialog. He's smart, he expresses himself clearly, he doesn't seem to take it personally, he keeps his goal in view and he keeps a positive and humorous outlook which, in my view, exemplifies a "good Christian", adds tremendous value to the dialog, and to this blog in general. In my view RichD is one of the commenters that sets the standard.

In this comment from my article Heuristics and When Ones Values Are Out Of Sync With Ones Thinking, he's teasing me by using my name as a suffix. He's a pleasure to have around and I want to feature one of his comments where (for once) we do agree!

I say that Christians are Agnostic with a Bias for God and RichD seems to agree with me. He disagreed with a comment that another Christian named Logismous made and was providing a rebuttal to it. At the end of his comment he asks rhetorically if its not possible for Christians to come to an agreement on the Primary Tenet of Salvation. See what you think.

Hello Lee, Logismous,
I think I'll jump in, and most likely surprise you once again.

I think a key thing that comes up in all of this, and never really takes off, is as follows.



You, Lee, say you were once a Christian and lost your faith, so you obviously understand Christian doctrine. I think we could rule that part out of further discussions, even though I don't recall ever claiming this about you. Logis also claims to understand christian doctrine but not the same as lee, apparently (maybe that's apparentLee).

Logis added [the following bold italicized comment] that should clear everything up
If Christians disagree about things, it's not because we're not all listening to the same Holy Spirit, but because we each misunderstand Him in different ways. We actually claim that none of us understands Him well enough.



So obviousLee, no-one knows anything about God. Or did I miss something, because Logis also said she/he knows God because of the spirit that is always misunderstood differently by everyone. There that ought to clear things up.



So in reality we have a bunch of denominations of Christianity because they all have a different misunderstanding of the doctrine of Christ and they form their own groups based on these misunderstandings. Once saved always saved, saved by faith, saved by grace, saved by works, saved by faith and works, and so on. Which is exactLee what Lee, and others, are confused about.

How can anyone say they understand the doctrine of Christ if all Christendom claims to not understand it "well enough"? 

I agree that we don't understand everything about doctrine, but can't we get enough understanding to come to a consensus about the PRIMARY tenant of the gospel, Salvation?

Thank you RichD for agreeing with me for once, for constantly keeping me on my toes, and making me smile! Keep that BS detector calibrated and ever vigilant! I'll try not to set it off!

The Role of Persuasion and Cognitive Bias in Your Church

This article discusses one of my typical Sundays at church and identifies elements of Principles of Persuasion and Cognitive Bias in it. It is intended to show that Religious Belief is induced and supported by common psychological devices of principles of persuasion and cognitive bias of the type that are used in Politics, Advertising and Marketing. The discussion of Politics, Advertising and Marketing is kept to a minimum because I believe that in those categories, the devices are self-evident. Any book on critical thinking will discuss the use of principles of persuasion in Politics, Advertising and Marketing but will skirt the issue with regard to Religion. To sustain a belief in something for which no evidence exists requires some type of reinforcement. These principles provide reinforcement. They can get you through your "Dark Night of the Soul".

As I moved around I chose my churches carefully. I picked a church that was closest to the kind I grew up with, the kind where the preacher said the kind of things I was used to hearing, and where the people believed the same way I did. I'd get up early on Sunday, eager to get to Bible Study (before I started teaching it). It was the same story I'd heard a hundred times before, but I was hearing it from someone else's perspective. The service followed and I led the singing. I'd stand up there waiting for the preachers cue as he told his formally educated version of a story I'd heard a hundred times before. He would speak with a range of emotion and used powerful imagery. People would be injecting the random "Amen" here and there as he made his points. Then the preacher would give me the cue and we'd sing the same songs we'd been singing in previous years, and people would be waving their hands in the air. Singing those songs loud and strong evoked such good feelings. We'd stop and bow our heads together and the preacher would lead us in a prayer.

He was always dressed professionally and had good hair cut. He was the nicest most likable guy you'd ever want to meet. He was so un-intimidating, so comforting. In fact everyone looked nice (some dressed to kill) and most were a pillar in the community.

We had a stained glass window, pictures of bible stories all over the church and a big Jesus on the cross. After the service we'd get together and talk about things such as how blessed we were. When we talked about things, there was a lot of speculation as we tried to understand how this or that must have come about. I guess you could say it was a little like gossip. That was fellowship, and fellowship was a very important part of the church experience. I miss it now. I always marveled at the loyalty, faith and sacrifice of my fellow church members. The lady that played the piano never stopped serving the community and was an inspiration to me. I wanted that kind of faith, and I strove to get it.

I am assuming my experience was typical of the average protestant Sunday. It was filled with elements of persuasion to keep the faith alive with a lack of evidence. Lets see how many elements of persuasion we can identify in the story above.

First, lets see what "factors of persuasion" and "Cognitive Bias" are. Some of them are in the list that follows.
- People "remember the hits and forget the misses". People are naturally terrible at perceiving and interpreting probabilistic data.
- People are naturally terrible at estimating probability.
- People like stories and are willing to give the teller of the story the benefit of the doubt about the truth of it.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from someone they like.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from an authority.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it fits with what they already believe or want to believe.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it is believed by the larger group.
- People are more likely to believe a story that is accompanied by symbols or imagery to include music.
- People will come to believe what they hear the more it is repeated to them.
- People will change their evidence based viewpoint if it contradicts the viewpoint of the group.
- People overestimate the degree of belief in others.
- People look for confirmation of what they already believe and disregard things that contradict.
- People are likely to use the precautionary principle as illustrated by Pascals Wager in minimizing risk.
- People fill in the gaps in information naturally. We fill in the missing details in stories, with the blind spot in the eye, movies, music etc.

So now, how does the list above relate to the story above it? I'm sure better examples can be found but this is the best I could do with the time I had.

- When thinking about prayer, they focus on the prayer that was answered rather than un-answered. There are more un-answered prayers than answered. (People "remember the hits and forget the misses”. People are naturally terrible at perceiving and interpreting probabilistic data.)

- Attributing coincidences to Divine Manipulation, for example, a woman in the news who was convinced that she was spared by God when a racing car went into the crowd and killed the people next to her. (People are naturally terrible at estimating probability)

- Jesus supposedly taught in parables and people make up analogies to explain religious concepts and scripture. When hearing a story that would normally be hard to believe, in the context of a sermon or being told by a fellow church member, the estimation of the likelihood of exaggeration is low. (People like stories and are willing to give the teller of the story the benefit of the doubt about the truth of it.)

- People don't expect that people they like, especially Christians, would lie to them. People don't suspect the story is being exaggerated. One reason is the belief that the teller is accountable to God and God knows everything. (People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from someone they like.)

- People don't expect their religious leader to try to lie to them or exaggerate. (People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from an authority.)

- When the preacher tells a story or uses an analogy, its going to fit what the listeners already believe. The Preacher wouldn’t use it if it didn’t. (People are more likely to believe a story if it fits with what they already believe or want to believe.)

- People are likely to believe that all these people can’t be wrong and since the belief has survived thousands of years, it is not likely to be false. The bandwagon fallacy. They assume they must be mistaken. Especially since it is a tenant of Christianity to blame people in any case there is a conflict with doctrine. (People are more likely to believe a story if it is believed by the larger group.)

- Christianity relies on powerful imagery. Politicians and the Advertising and Marketing industry rely heavily on this as well. In the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, the use of emotive language and imagery in general (known as the peripheral route in the ELM) is the easiest to use to persuade people. (People are more likely to believe a story that is accompanied by symbols or imagery to include music. )

- After a while, since it is repeated to you so much, you know the bible by heart. Think "sound bite". WWJD. (People will come to believe what they hear the more it is repeated to them.)

- If people start to question their beliefs, they are likely to believe they must be wrong. If they perceive things that contradict the bible, they will bend over backwards to reconcile it in their minds to mitigate the cognitive dissonance that results. This is called self-justification. (People will change their evidence based viewpoint if it contradicts the viewpoint of the group.)

- People are more likely to believe that other members of the church are more devout than they are. (People overestimate the degree of belief in others.)

- If the preacher started to preach from the perspective of another denomination it would make them uncomfortable. For example, Protestants would disregard a lot of what a Catholic priest taught. In another example, think about all those religious leaders that have been found genuinely guilty of abuse but are being defended by their congregation and the Church. They don’t want to believe the religious leader is guilty. (People look for confirmation of what they already believe and disregard things that contradict.)

- The Bible has a cryptic warning about the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Talk about a conversation killer. Be careful what you say about God. Make sure you do the right thing and get baptized and such so you can get into heaven. Why else would you believe the events in the bible except to avoid going to hell? Because you love God? How can you love something you can't comprehend, or touch, or see or hear? Precautionary principle, Cognitive Bias and Principles of Persuasion. (People are likely to use the precautionary principle as illustrated by Pascals Wager in minimizing risk.)

- In relaying stories that support belief or creating analogies to help explain how to view scripture or a religious concept, exaggeration is inevitable. (The listener and the teller fill in the gaps in information naturally and automatically, for example in stories, the blind spot in the eye, watching movies, listening to music, etc)


When there are good arguments on both sides and you don't have any evidence to make an inference based on Logic, then you always have your friends, family, church and culture to give you a feeling about the truth of an issue. This is the how the industry of marketing and advertising works as well as politics.

Does anyone just pick a church at random and make it their church home? No, they shop around and visit other churches till they find one that 'feels' right. Why does it feel right? The Holy Spirit, Satan or self? How do they know? They decide from the factors listed above. The decide based on the persuasive influences in their environment. Those persuasive influences reinforce their belief in things unseen, un-testable, un-detectable, and things that rely on "internal knowing".


REFERENCES

- Cialdini, Robert. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice. Boston. Allyn and Bacon.
- Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So. New York. The Free Press: A division of Macmillan, Inc.
- Okeefe, Daniel J. 1990. Persuasion Theory and Research. Newbury Park, California. Sage Publications.
- Social Judgment Theory
- Information-Integration Models of Attitude
- Cognitive Dissonance Theory
- Theory of Reasoned Action
- Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion.
- Cialdini's Six weapons of influence
- List of Cognitive Biases
- DC Article: Why Do Christians Believe?
- DC Article: From an Atheists Perspective
- ChangingMinds.org

Persuasion Videos from Debate Central.
- Speaking to Persuade
- Objects of Persusion
- Theories of Persuasion
- Strategies of Persuasion