Confirmation Bias From Vogel'S New Article On The Witnesses

[robuchan]

In typical apologetic form, Anderson wants to exploit my public statement that “there is simply no reliable proof for the existence of the supernatural.” To him, this means that analysis of the witnesses is inherently flawed by bias. In his words, “Reading Vogel on the Book of Mormon witnesses, therefore, is tracking a conclusion in search of evidence.” He says this apparently oblivious to his own bias. Of course, such a statement is an attempt at distraction since the bias of the arguer says nothing about the validity of the argument. And there is an additional problem with Anderson’s accusation since it presupposes a chronology that is not supported by my biography. At what point in my journey from belief to disbelief did I become biased and my assessment of evidence infected by it?

This is a great question. I started my studies of LDS historical issues as a devout TBM. About as devout as you could be. RM, BYU grad, married in temple, ward mission leader, EQP, volunteering as temple worker, etc. As the internet made information more available, and I came across various difficult questions, I would research to find the right answer. The intent was to do this in order to combat other critics. Over a long period of time, the evidence (IMHO) stacked up to the point I realized I couldn't believe it anymore. Losing my testimony of the church has come with incredible social, emotional, and spiritual costs.

I understand the concept of confirmation bias, and I know logically that I'm not special, and that I suffer from the same confirmation bias issues everyone else suffers from. But this bolded question from Vogel really resonates for me.

edit to make the purpose of my point a little more clear:

When I looked at things ten years ago, I had confirmation bias on the faithful side of things--there was no option for me to allow that it might not be true. Now, I admit I have confirmation bias on the critical side of things--I try my best not to let it taint my analysis but i know I look at all new evidence from the perspective that it is most likely going to confirm my belief that the church is not true. When and how and why did that change? And I assume there was a point where the confirmation bias for me was somewhat neutral. Is it fair to label every opinion as biased?

Edited March 18, 2012 by robuchan

[Buzzard]

Funny, I spend way too much time researching LDS history, and the more I find, the more reasons I find to believe. Certainly confirmation bias exists, but I find the disease more prevelant amoung critics, since the option of the church's claims being true doesn't even exist, and they have eliminated that option before even starting their research. Sometimes I think if we found a road sign from a crossroads that said: Zarahemle this way, Bountiful that way, the would still insist it wasn't real evidence.

[LDSToronto]

Funny, I spend way too much time researching LDS history, and the more I find, the more reasons I find to believe. Certainly confirmation bias exists, but I find the disease more prevelant amoung critics, since the option of the church's claims being true doesn't even exist, and they have eliminated that option before even starting their research. Sometimes I think if we found a road sign from a crossroads that said: Zarahemle this way, Bountiful that way, the would still insist it wasn't real evidence.

We will find out when such evidence is found.

H.

PS. Buzzard, what you described concerning yourself, finding reasons to believe where others find reasons not to believe? That, too, is confirmation bias.

[wenglund]

To me, confirmation bias only becomes a problem when taken to the extreme, where minds become narrowed/closed and/or are limited in their progression.

From what I have seen, such extremes in matters of spiritual faith often occur for at least two reasons. First, they may occur because of a person's failure to develop beyond a fundamentalist, black/white, rigid way of thinking. These people may be inclined to only see things one way at any given point and time. If they experience a paradigm shift, it tends to be from one dogmatic position to another dogmatic position.

And, second, they may occur because a person radically shifts their trust away from God and towards man/oneself--i.e. because of pride and a lack of humility or teachability. They may be like teenagers who have gained a bit of knowledge as they suppose, and who think they have it all figured out and can manage best all on their own, and for the life of them they can't be told otherwise.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 18, 2012 by wenglund

[TAO]

To be quite honest, I think confirmation bias happens naturally, and so I am not too worried about it.

There are some things we are naturally confirmation biased towards (like the existence of reality), and to me, those are practical things to believe in, regardless of the confirmation bias =p.

[Dan Vogel]

Funny, I spend way too much time researching LDS history, and the more I find, the more reasons I find to believe. Certainly confirmation bias exists, but I find the disease more prevelant amoung critics, since the option of the church's claims being true doesn't even exist, and they have eliminated that option before even starting their research. Sometimes I think if we found a road sign from a crossroads that said: Zarahemle this way, Bountiful that way, the would still insist it wasn't real evidence.

You can say confidently knowing it will never be tested. It is pure ad hominem. Evidence for the BOM is not so clear and overwhelming as you seem to think, and rejection of apologetic evidence by critics is not an indication of a character flaw.

[Storm Rider]

This is a great question. I started my studies of LDS historical issues as a devout TBM. About as devout as you could be. RM, BYU grad, married in temple, ward mission leader, EQP, volunteering as temple worker, etc. As the internet made information more available, and I came across various difficult questions, I would research to find the right answer. The intent was to do this in order to combat other critics. Over a long period of time, the evidence (IMHO) stacked up to the point I realized I couldn't believe it anymore. Losing my testimony of the church has come with incredible social, emotional, and spiritual costs.

I understand the concept of confirmation bias, and I know logically that I'm not special, and that I suffer from the same confirmation bias issues everyone else suffers from. But this bolded question from Vogel really resonates for me.

edit to make the purpose of my point a little more clear:

When I looked at things ten years ago, I had confirmation bias on the faithful side of things--there was no option for me to allow that it might not be true. Now, I admit I have confirmation bias on the critical side of things--I try my best not to let it taint my analysis but i know I look at all new evidence from the perspective that it is most likely going to confirm my belief that the church is not true. When and how and why did that change? And I assume there was a point where the confirmation bias for me was somewhat neutral. Is it fair to label every opinion as biased?

I appreciate your humble comments and questions. When does the Living Water live within us? Why does it live today and not tomorrow? Are we responsible for our faith in any way or is it a daily gift from a supernatural force?

The gift of faith, the strength of faith, imho, is truly a gift from the Holy Spirit. The strength of our faith is our responsibility. How does one strengthen their faith? By consistent interaction with the Holy Spirit; we commit our thoughts, our actions to living the gospel and comforming our lives to teachings of Jesus Christ.

The moment we turn fully from Jesus Christ is the moment our biases is turned from the holy to the unholy (in one degree or another).

Some of us read/study history and are affected by it in a very direct manner. For some it is found offensive that men of God are found to be just men. For others, the reading of history is faith promoting and feeds to spirit. I have always felt that we have nothing to fear from studying history. After some 30 years I still feel the same way. The vital step is to not study history exclusively. The most fundamental step is to maintain a spiritual relationship with our Father in Heaven and his Son. Will we rely on our own understanding or will we lean on the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

What I have learned is that the arm of flesh, all flesh, fails in one degree or another. It is unreliable while my belief and faith in God is always reliable. He leads me beside still waters and past the fiery darts of the Evil One. Never assume that our faith will exist from day to day without any feeding. Our faith/spirit needs to be fed just as much as we feed our bodies.

Also, understand that I speak as one that falls short in so many ways. I am not a TBM, but I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I am most definitely a sinner. I believe in the mantle of being a prophet and an apostle, but I have a weak faith in those who carry the mantle at times. I was not made for the Church of Jesus Christ but it was made for me. My faith is an organic presence that demands my care. Your faith demands your care and if you have lost it, then spend time nurturing your spirit with prayer, scripture study, and communion with God. This can be done anywhere and does not demand your presence in Church. I guess I would encourage you to let the Spirit guide rather than your own will. Let Him be the captain of your soul and he will lead you to those deep waters of peace that only the Holy One can offer.

[Buzzard]

You can say confidently knowing it will never be tested. It is pure ad hominem. Evidence for the BOM is not so clear and overwhelming as you seem to think, and rejection of apologetic evidence by critics is not an indication of a character flaw.

Character flaw, perhaps not. I'm sure most critics are doing the best they can, but to say that apologists are the only ones that bring their preexisting biases to the table is mistaken. With religion in general, and Mormonism in particular, confirmation bias afflicts both sides. Have you ever honestly been open to the possibility that the claims of the LDS church might be valid? If so, you would be the first critic I ever ran into that did. Every one I have ever encountered started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and so all their research was angled towards proving that conclusion that was reached in advance. Some, maybe most, but not all "defenders of the faith" from the LDS side started with a preconcieved notion, to be sure. At least some that I have known really were/are objective researchers. And it is a legitimate question to ask if we posess a character flaw simply because we have a positive bias from the get go as well, or does that blade have two edges?

[Buzzard]

PS. Buzzard, what you described concerning yourself, finding reasons to believe where others find reasons not to believe? That, too, is confirmation bias.

Well, of course it is. I'm delighted to not just admit, but proclaim it.

[Daniel Peterson]

You can say confidently knowing it will never be tested. It is pure ad hominem. Evidence for the BOM is not so clear and overwhelming as you seem to think, and rejection of apologetic evidence by critics is not an indication of a character flaw.

I haven't yet read through your recent tome on the Witnesses, and don't know when I'll get a chance to do so -- what with three newspaper articles, a lengthy encyclopedia article, and a Review foreword due this week; an academic conference on Friday and Saturday for which my paper isn't yet ready; a lecture trip to Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Sunday; and the usual round of classes and meetings (with similar things continuing every week into the foreseeable future) -- but your post above tends to support one of the impressions that my hasty skim of your Witnesses article left behind: You misuse and overuse the accusation of ad hominem. Which is, curiously, itself a kind of fallacious ad hominem.

[Jeff K.]

Bias is simply impossible to avoid since it goes to what our own personal desires are, and when a single issue is approached where either road can use the same evidence, our bias is what drives us. Now as we enter down one road and more such questions arise we choose more and more the singular road until we are no longer on a path where evidence can exist and be used for either point, now it becomes only the biased which makes sense based on earlier positions. It is the natural course of things for both believers and those who do not believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert Frost (1874–1963). Mountain Interval. 1920. 1. The Road Not Taken TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Edited March 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

"Sometimes I think if we found a road sign from a crossroads that said: Zarahemle this way, Bountiful that way, the would still insist it wasn't real evidence."

We will find out when such evidence is found.

I would be suspicious -- the sign was not written in KJ English. :<)

Edited March 19, 2012 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

In California we have Speed Limited signs in both Standard and Metric.

[robuchan]

Character flaw, perhaps not. I'm sure most critics are doing the best they can, but to say that apologists are the only ones that bring their preexisting biases to the table is mistaken. With religion in general, and Mormonism in particular, confirmation bias afflicts both sides. Have you ever honestly been open to the possibility that the claims of the LDS church might be valid? If so, you would be the first critic I ever ran into that did. Every one I have ever encountered started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and so all their research was angled towards proving that conclusion that was reached in advance. Some, maybe most, but not all "defenders of the faith" from the LDS side started with a preconcieved notion, to be sure. At least some that I have known really were/are objective researchers. And it is a legitimate question to ask if we posess a character flaw simply because we have a positive bias from the get go as well, or does that blade have two edges?

You're missing the point of Vogel's question of my expansion of it in my OP. It seems most critics start out as believers. So how does that work? If you've never met a critic that doesn't start with the premise Joseph was a fraud, how do all these former believers ever become critics?

[wenglund]

You're missing the point of Vogel's question of my expansion of it in my OP. It seems most critics start out as believers. So how does that work? If you've never met a critic that doesn't start with the premise Joseph was a fraud, how do all these former believers ever become critics?

See my post above.

Also, Vogel may have started from a different premise than the one he currently favors, but it is clear from his most recent remarks in the other thread, that he is now operating in reverse--he has come to a conclusion and is going back and selectively interpreting and weighting evidence so as to comport with that conclusion, and he is unwarrantedly dismissing evidence to the contrary. This is confirmation bias at its worst.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

See my post above.

Also, Vogel may have started from a different premise than the one he currently favors, but it is clear from his most recent remarks in the other thread, that he is now operating in reverse--he has come to a conclusion and is going back and selectively interpreting and weighting evidence so as to comport with that conclusion, and he is unwarrantedly dismissing evidence to the contrary. This is confirmation bias at its worst.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your bias is of full display. Vogel doesn't dismiss contrary evidence out of hand. He employs a methodology for evaluating the evidence, which he sought to apply consistently to all the evidence.

Confirmation bias at it worse simply ignores contrary evidence.

Btw, when you say he "unwarrantedly" dismissed contrary evidence. That is your personal conclusion. If you want to offer an intelligent, rational criticism of Vogel's methodology, you need to explain why the methodology he employed when he dismissed evidence is flawed, and therefor unwarranted.

[Xander]

I started my studies of LDS historical issues as a devout TBM. About as devout as you could be. RM, BYU grad, married in temple, ward mission leader, EQP, volunteering as temple worker, etc. As the internet made information more available, and I came across various difficult questions, I would research to find the right answer. The intent was to do this in order to combat other critics. Over a long period of time, the evidence (IMHO) stacked up to the point I realized I couldn't believe it anymore. Losing my testimony of the church has come with incredible social, emotional, and spiritual costs.

This is a typical background explanation for most active critics, in my experience with them. It certainly applies to my case. But it simply doesn't do when talking to apologists because by insisting your motives are insincere, you're always going to be the bad guy. For them it can never be a simple matter of someone coming to a disagreement with what they've believed for so long. This implies an intellectual premise for a deconversion, and that just doesn't fly for them because it is difficult to make a villian out of such a person. Over oon the other board a critic was accused of being insincere and the evidence was nothing more than his history of posting criticism of the Church. An onlooker responded to the offending apologist with a rational explanation that should be framed and pinned to every apologist's door:

(The critic) is exasperated to find that the religious institution to which he devoted much of his life, money and energy until recently is (to put it kindly) all a big mistake or, (to put it less nicely) a huge act of self-deception or (to put it at its worst) a huge fraud.

He has served his time. Now he feels like doing whatever he can to ensure that others don't waste their time the way he now believes he did.

That is all quite clear, and I don't think (this critic) has ever attempted to give us any other impression.

But time and time again we see apologists here and there constantly resort to ad hominem and psychoanalysis as a way to divert from the obvious fact explicated above. So many of these threads have deteriorated into "you're just an insincere minion of Satan who has no integrity because all you want to do is attack other's beliefs" rants that are only intended to energize the faithful to the point of rally, while pushing the critic to retort with a similiar emotional outburst, knowing perfectly well that it will be he, not the apologist, who is escorted off the premises by the mods.

For people like these, I simply agree that yes, we're all biased. But Mormon apologists are the only people I know who relish in that fact. They think that by claiming "everyone is biased" that this somehow liberates them from the obligation of shooting for objectivity, which is an expected attribute of all credible scholars. They also use this axiom as a way to imply that all biases are created equal, therefore we need not discuss the vested interest some apologists have when it comes to circumventing the truth.

When apologists come at me with this nonsense about how I have a bias towards killing the Church or whatever, I just point out the fact that they need the Church to be true much more than I need to prove my arguments that it isn't. I could love any given argument and the Church can still not be true, however they have to win every argument or else it isn't. Their superior bias is a demonstrable fact, which makes their accusations of bias something like the pot calling the cotton black.

In reality, I truly wish the Church were true at times, but I have a testimony that it isn't. So to say I have some vested anti-Mormon interest in seeing the Church disproved, is simply nonsensical. These are the kinds of things people say when they cannot come to grips with the fact that ours is a position that is far more grounded in reason and fact. Sorry, but that's just the way it is and I don't see how Mormons would want to even argue with this given the number of times the "reasoning of men" is attacked in LDS literature as the opposite of what God wants us to do.

People leave the Church every day because of new knowledge gained. And people join the Church everyday because of their subjective interpretation of a prayer. I didn't find out the Church wasn't true because I prayed about it (although I did pray and got the same kinds of feelings I received when I was praying about its truthfulness as a believer). For me it ultimately boiled down to a brainstorm of various inductive arguments dealing with probability. I would approach an argument that would strongly suggest the Church wasn't true, and if plausibility to any degree were shown to my satisfaction, then I'd dismiss the argument. But then that number of arguments grew the more I learned and my confirmation bias kept guiding me towards these apologetic explanations as they rested in plausibility. But this can only take you so far unless you completely abandon reason. I'd consider some arguments like flipping a coin, If there was a 50/50 chance that the critic was wrong, then that was good enough for me. But when you're dealing with a few dozen arguments, all of which cut to the truth claims of the Church, then what are the chances that you could flip a coin 36 times and it land heads every time? When I forced myself to step out of the box and look at the issue from an aerial view, I realized I was engaged in confirmation bias overload. I was dismissing each argument as an apologetic rebuttal was presented, and it didn't really matter how weak that rebuttal was. It was as if any counter-argument was good enough, so long as there was an argument. Because that way my confirmation bias would just say, OK, if this is being argued, then the point is moot and the Church can still be true.

To me, confirmation bias only becomes a problem when taken to the extreme, where minds become narrowed/closed and/or are limited in their progression

I agree. Kinda like a refusal to accept the possibility that the Church isn't really true as it claims. Or any number of truth claims the Church has made. I've seen a number of apologists, even on this very board, admit that they'd never believe this to be true no matter what evidence is presented. That's irrational

I'm sure most critics are doing the best they can, but to say that apologists are the only ones that bring their preexisting biases to the table is mistaken. With religion in general, and Mormonism in particular, confirmation bias afflicts both sides. Have you ever honestly been open to the possibility that the claims of the LDS church might be valid? If so, you would be the first critic I ever ran into that did. Every one I have ever encountered started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and so all their research was angled towards proving that conclusion that was reached in advance.

This makes no sense, and is a perfect example of how confirmation bias works with some believers because it isn't intended to make sense. It is only intended to reward you with good feelings in this perceived (rhetoric) war with the "spiritual" opposition. The vast majority of critics on these forums are former Mormons, which means that in reality, they "started" with the belief that the Church is true, but then were later persuaded (by the evidence, not testimony) that it isn't. As robuchan said, "Losing my testimony of the church has come with incredible social, emotional, and spiritual costs."

I was lucky because I had it much easier since I didn't have a strong social or familial tie to the Church. But it was still difficult for me to let go of all the soteriological and theological beliefs that pretty much made me the person I was and determined my outlook on life. I hated it when I found out the Church wasn't true. It really bothered me for quite some time, and I spent a good year or two on the forums as an apologist and did everything short of begging, to get someone to come up with some miracle apologetic "theory of everything" that would show me that the evidence really didn't point to the conclusion that the Church wasn't true.

But a lot of people do have strong social ties to the Church. Many even work for the Church do that is just another important inroad they have with the Church that is difficult to risk losing. I mean if you're a BYU professor and suddenly come to the realization that the Church isn't true, you better keep that information to yourself or else you lose your job. That's no small thing. especially if you need that job to support your family. But for these people, to let go of the Church they have to willingly suffer the negative social, financial and political which they already know to be inevitable.

Confirmation bias doesn't lead people to make decisions that will naturally induce negative consequences, and by extension, negative feelings. The way confirmation bias works is opposite to this. Confirmation bias happens when someone hears information that conflicts with their existing beliefs, but reject those statements and immediately shoot back with comments that are designed to replace those negative feelings with good ones. The study done a few years ago on this subject involved political activists whose brains were hooked up to a machine while they were asked specific questions. For example, a Democrat would be told factual information that made his Democratic candidate look bad, and instead of responding to the fact presented to him, that person would immediately deflect and start talking about the good things that candidate has done. The machine indicated that the portion of the brain dealing with emotions would light up like the fourth of july when these responses were being conjured up and spoken, whereas the corner of the brain involved with reasoning, went completely dark. As teh wiki article explains, "The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs." Yes, such as Mormonism, where it is not just a belief system, but also a way of life.

So it makes no sense to say the critics are exhibiting confirmation bias when they post critical responses to LDS claims. Now this may be the case for some Evangelicals who have a vested interest in some theological claims that require Mormonism to be false, but it certainly doesn't apply to atheist critics or former members who frequent these forums. The problem Mormonism has is that it is not based on evidence, and requires emotion to be interpreted as a valid means for determining truth. As such, they have little to zero chance of converting or reconverting someone who has a decent grasp of the issues the Church prefers not to be disclosed during missionary discussions. Confirmation bias is what helps keep people in the Church despite being presented evidence to the contrary. These folks respond in the same exact ways as those political activists did when they were presented information that ran contrary to their beliefs. They do not only deflect like mad, but they immediately shoot back with some comment that isn't intended to convince the other person of anything. Instead, it is designed to offer emotional support for the person who is under the threat of dissuasion; via the "arm of the flesh" and the "reasoning of men."

Those who have learned to confront their biases and become more objective are those who are capable of being dissuaded of things they originally believed; not just religiously, but socially and politically too. This makes them reasonable. Most critics here are critics because they have demonstrated the capacity for reason, otherwise their minds never would have been changed from believer to non-believer. But most apologists I know have never believed anything but the premise that the Mormon Church is the one true Church, etc. And to even discuss this issue with them makes them visibly uncomfortable, even before the discussion begins. The reasoning dept in their brains shut down completely as they're preparing to reward themselves with pure emotion, which is self-induced and based on their deflective responses to the data.

A perfect example of this is happening on another forum where one apologist responded to Utah's porn problem by saying that internet porn is highest in Utah only because the non-LDS folks in Utah do not have "porn shops" to attend because they are illegal. Never-mind the fact that virtually all porn is purchased via the internet and not from these mysterious "porn shops" he presumes exists on every corner outside Utah. His response was designed to support his beliefs emotionally. It is not based on objective data. He made it up because it made him feel good to say something that slapped down critics. Whether it is true didn't seem to really matter to him.

In my experience, truth is more of a nuisance than anything else when it comes to apologetic engineering of arguments.

[wenglund]

Your bias is of full display. Vogel doesn't dismiss contrary evidence out of hand. He employs a methodology for evaluating the evidence, which he sought to apply consistently to all the evidence.

Confirmation bias at it worse simply ignores contrary evidence.

Btw, when you say he "unwarrantedly" dismissed contrary evidence. That is your personal conclusion. If you want to offer an intelligent, rational criticism of Vogel's methodology, you need to explain why the methodology he employed when he dismissed evidence is flawed, and therefor unwarranted.

You are unwittingly manifesting your ignorance of the situation. Please read the other thread, particularly where Vogel as much as admits to letting his theory control his view of the evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This is a typical background explanation for most active critics, in my experience with them. It certainly applies to my case. But it simply doesn't do when talking to apologists because by insisting your motives are insincere, you're always going to be the bad guy. For them it can never be a simple matter of someone coming to a disagreement with what they've believed for so long. This implies an intellectual premise for a deconversion, and that just doesn't fly for them because it is difficult to make a villian out of such a person. Over oon the other board a critic was accused of being insincere and the evidence was nothing more than his history of posting criticism of the Church. An onlooker responded to the offending apologist with a rational explanation that should be framed and pinned to every apologist's door:

But time and time again we see apologists here and there constantly resort to ad hominem and psychoanalysis as a way to divert from the obvious fact explicated above. So many of these threads have deteriorated into "you're just an insincere minion of Satan who has no integrity because all you want to do is attack other's beliefs" rants that are only intended to energize the faithful to the point of rally, while pushing the critic to retort with a similiar emotional outburst, knowing perfectly well that it will be he, not the apologist, who is escorted off the premises by the mods.

For people like these, I simply agree that yes, we're all biased. But Mormon apologists are the only people I know who relish in that fact. They think that by claiming "everyone is biased" that this somehow liberates them from the obligation of shooting for objectivity, which is an expected attribute of all credible scholars. They also use this axiom as a way to imply that all biases are created equal, therefore we need not discuss the vested interest some apologists have when it comes to circumventing the truth.

When apologists come at me with this nonsense about how I have a bias towards killing the Church or whatever, I just point out the fact that they need the Church to be true much more than I need to prove my arguments that it isn't. I could love any given argument and the Church can still not be true, however they have to win every argument or else it isn't. Their superior bias is a demonstrable fact, which makes their accusations of bias something like the pot calling the cotton black.

In reality, I truly wish the Church were true at times, but I have a testimony that it isn't. So to say I have some vested anti-Mormon interest in seeing the Church disproved, is simply nonsensical. These are the kinds of things people say when they cannot come to grips with the fact that ours is a position that is far more grounded in reason and fact. Sorry, but that's just the way it is and I don't see how Mormons would want to even argue with this given the number of times the "reasoning of men" is attacked in LDS literature as the opposite of what God wants us to do.

People leave the Church every day because of new knowledge gained. And people join the Church everyday because of their subjective interpretation of a prayer. I didn't find out the Church wasn't true because I prayed about it (although I did pray and got the same kinds of feelings I received when I was praying about its truthfulness as a believer). For me it ultimately boiled down to a brainstorm of various inductive arguments dealing with probability. I would approach an argument that would strongly suggest the Church wasn't true, and if plausibility to any degree were shown to my satisfaction, then I'd dismiss the argument. But then that number of arguments grew the more I learned and my confirmation bias kept guiding me towards these apologetic explanations as they rested in plausibility. But this can only take you so far unless you completely abandon reason. I'd consider some arguments like flipping a coin, If there was a 50/50 chance that the critic was wrong, then that was good enough for me. But when you're dealing with a few dozen arguments, all of which cut to the truth claims of the Church, then what are the chances that you could flip a coin 36 times and it land heads every time? When I forced myself to step out of the box and look at the issue from an aerial view, I realized I was engaged in confirmation bias overload. I was dismissing each argument as an apologetic rebuttal was presented, and it didn't really matter how weak that rebuttal was. It was as if any counter-argument was good enough, so long as there was an argument. Because that way my confirmation bias would just say, OK, if this is being argued, then the point is moot and the Church can still be true.

I agree. Kinda like a refusal to accept the possibility that the Church isn't really true as it claims. Or any number of truth claims the Church has made. I've seen a number of apologists, even on this very board, admit that they'd never believe this to be true no matter what evidence is presented. That's irrational

This makes no sense, and is a perfect example of how confirmation bias works with some believers because it isn't intended to make sense. It is only intended to reward you with good feelings in this perceived (rhetoric) war with the "spiritual" opposition. The vast majority of critics on these forums are former Mormons, which means that in reality, they "started" with the belief that the Church is true, but then were later persuaded (by the evidence, not testimony) that it isn't. As robuchan said, "Losing my testimony of the church has come with incredible social, emotional, and spiritual costs."

I was lucky because I had it much easier since I didn't have a strong social or familial tie to the Church. But it was still difficult for me to let go of all the soteriological and theological beliefs that pretty much made me the person I was and determined my outlook on life. I hated it when I found out the Church wasn't true. It really bothered me for quite some time, and I spent a good year or two on the forums as an apologist and did everything short of begging, to get someone to come up with some miracle apologetic "theory of everything" that would show me that the evidence really didn't point to the conclusion that the Church wasn't true.

But a lot of people do have strong social ties to the Church. Many even work for the Church do that is just another important inroad they have with the Church that is difficult to risk losing. I mean if you're a BYU professor and suddenly come to the realization that the Church isn't true, you better keep that information to yourself or else you lose your job. That's no small thing. especially if you need that job to support your family. But for these people, to let go of the Church they have to willingly suffer the negative social, financial and political which they already know to be inevitable.

Confirmation bias doesn't lead people to make decisions that will naturally induce negative consequences, and by extension, negative feelings. The way confirmation bias works is opposite to this. Confirmation bias happens when someone hears information that conflicts with their existing beliefs, but reject those statements and immediately shoot back with comments that are designed to replace those negative feelings with good ones. The study done a few years ago on this subject involved political activists whose brains were hooked up to a machine while they were asked specific questions. For example, a Democrat would be told factual information that made his Democratic candidate look bad, and instead of responding to the fact presented to him, that person would immediately deflect and start talking about the good things that candidate has done. The machine indicated that the portion of the brain dealing with emotions would light up like the fourth of july when these responses were being conjured up and spoken, whereas the corner of the brain involved with reasoning, went completely dark. As teh wiki article explains, "The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs." Yes, such as Mormonism, where it is not just a belief system, but also a way of life.

So it makes no sense to say the critics are exhibiting confirmation bias when they post critical responses to LDS claims. Now this may be the case for some Evangelicals who have a vested interest in some theological claims that require Mormonism to be false, but it certainly doesn't apply to atheist critics or former members who frequent these forums. The problem Mormonism has is that it is not based on evidence, and requires emotion to be interpreted as a valid means for determining truth. As such, they have little to zero chance of converting or reconverting someone who has a decent grasp of the issues the Church prefers not to be disclosed during missionary discussions. Confirmation bias is what helps keep people in the Church despite being presented evidence to the contrary. These folks respond in the same exact ways as those political activists did when they were presented information that ran contrary to their beliefs. They do not only deflect like mad, but they immediately shoot back with some comment that isn't intended to convince the other person of anything. Instead, it is designed to offer emotional support for the person who is under the threat of dissuasion; via the "arm of the flesh" and the "reasoning of men."

Those who have learned to confront their biases and become more objective are those who are capable of being dissuaded of things they originally believed; not just religiously, but socially and politically too. This makes them reasonable. Most critics here are critics because they have demonstrated the capacity for reason, otherwise their minds never would have been changed from believer to non-believer. But most apologists I know have never believed anything but the premise that the Mormon Church is the one true Church, etc. And to even discuss this issue with them makes them visibly uncomfortable, even before the discussion begins. The reasoning dept in their brains shut down completely as they're preparing to reward themselves with pure emotion, which is self-induced and based on their deflective responses to the data.

A perfect example of this is happening on another forum where one apologist responded to Utah's porn problem by saying that internet porn is highest in Utah only because the non-LDS folks in Utah do not have "porn shops" to attend because they are illegal. Never-mind the fact that virtually all porn is purchased via the internet and not from these mysterious "porn shops" he presumes exists on every corner outside Utah. His response was designed to support his beliefs emotionally. It is not based on objective data. He made it up because it made him feel good to say something that slapped down critics. Whether it is true didn't seem to really matter to him.

In my experience, truth is more of a nuisance than anything else when it comes to apologetic engineering of arguments.

And here once again we find Graham continuing his quixotic quest tilting straw men. He evidently can't help himself, but seems pathologically compelled to ironically stereotype apologists with the broad brush and paint of his own personal prejudices. It is what makes him such a charming, witty, and endearing person.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

You are unwittingly manifesting your ignorance of the situation. Please read the other thread, particularly where Vogel as much as admits to letting his theory control his view of the evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I read and participated in the thread. Vogel did not admit to letting his theory control his view of the evidence.

The assertion that he did so was and is a blatant, and deceptive mischaracterization of the discussion.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that here on this thread, you made a conclusory statement that Vogel "unwarrantedly" dismissed contrary evidence, and here on this thread you are not willing to offer any rational, intelligent, cogent explanation for this conclusion.

Given that you have failed to do so, when requested and instead retreated to your standard refrain of calling others ignorant, I have no choice but to conclude that your assertion was entirely baseless.

You seem quite intelligent. Let me know when your are ready to use that intelligence to engage is a substantive discussion, without resorting to rhetoric and petty insults.

[wenglund]

I read and participated in the thread. Vogel did not admit to letting his theory control his view of the evidence.

The assertion that he did so was and is a blatant, and deceptive mischaracterization of the discussion.

I hope you will forgive me if I don't accept your warped perception of the discussion.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that here on this thread, you made a conclusory statement that Vogel "unwarrantedly" dismissed contrary evidence, and here on this thread you are not willing to offer any rational, intelligent, cogent explanation for this conclusion.

Again, I hope you will forgive me if I don't accept your warped perception of what I have or haven't done in this thread.

Given that you have failed to do so, when requested and instead retreated to your standard refrain of calling others ignorant, I have no choice but to conclude that your assertion was entirely baseless.

I appreciate you providing this unwitting example of your own confirmation bias.

You seem quite intelligent. Let me know when your are ready to use that intelligence to engage is a substantive discussion, without resorting to rhetoric and petty insults.

Please keep the colossal irony coming. It takes the edge off your otherwise mind-numbed remarks.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

And here again we see Wade Englund there to prove my point about confirmation bias. His responses are almost entirely fueled by it.

The fact is no one outside LDS scholarship would ever read LDS history they way they do. This proves point blank that theirs is a strictly biased perspective that is aimed at people who think like they do: other LDS members. For example, no non-Mormon in a million years would ever buy into the plethora of apologetic riff raff that folks like John Gee come up with. Or most of the stuff published by FAIR/FARMS for that matter. The goal to achieve some sense of plausibility isn't going to work for non-LDS critical thinkers.

When the more objective historians like Vogel draw a different picture for them it scares them to death and so naturally confirmation bias hits a new level because they desperately feel they have to compete with that perspective, which of course isn't "faith promoting." And the fact is, "faith promoting" is all that matters in LDS circles. Remember, not all history and truth is "useful" especially if it isn't faith promoting. That's what LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer taught when encouraging members to close their minds to non-Church approved materials. It is why Robert Millet though taught Mormons that when they are asked tough questions, then they should change the question. It is why David Bokovoy said we should "change your paradigm" when confronted with uncomfortable facts that seem to suggest the Church isn't true, and mfbukowski is constantly telling the Mormon fence-straddler that he needs to make up his own truth when he feels like he's uncomfortable with what the evidence suggests.

That's confirmation bias on a silver platter.

[wenglund]

And here again we see Wade Englund there to prove my point about confirmation bias. His responses are almost entirely fueled by it.

The fact is no one outside LDS scholarship would ever read LDS history they way they do. This proves point blank that theirs is a strictly biased perspective that is aimed at people who think like they do: other LDS members. For example, no non-Mormon in a million years would ever buy into the plethora of apologetic riff raff that folks like John Gee come up with. Or most of the stuff published by FAIR/FARMS for that matter. The goal to achieve some sense of plausibility isn't going to work for non-LDS critical thinkers.

When the more objective historians like Vogel draw a different picture for them it scares them to death and so naturally confirmation bias hits a new level because they desperately feel they have to compete with that perspective, which of course isn't "faith promoting." And the fact is, "faith promoting" is all that matters in LDS circles. Remember, not all history and truth is "useful" especially if it isn't faith promoting. That's what LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer taught when encouraging members to close their minds to non-Church approved materials. It is why Robert Millet though taught Mormons that when they are asked tough questions, then they should change the question. It is why David Bokovoy said we should "change your paradigm" when confronted with uncomfortable facts that seem to suggest the Church isn't true, and mfbukowski is constantly telling the Mormon fence-straddler that he needs to make up his own truth when he feels like he's uncomfortable with what the evidence suggests.

That's confirmation bias on a silver platter.

Sadly, Emperor Graham's passion-pink colored glasses are preventing him from seeing that he has no real argumentational clothes, and they have apparently and ironically deluded him into believing that his anti-Mormon-Apologertics fantasy cruise will sail out-side of Never Never Land.

So, for his sake, and this is something I could learn to do better from others here, it is probably best to just ignore Kevin's insipid antics and treat him as though everything is all right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

I hope you will forgive me if I don't accept your warped perception of the discussion.

Again, I hope you will forgive me if I don't accept your warped perception of what I have or haven't done in this thread.

I appreciate you providing this unwitting example of your own confirmation bias.

Please keep the colossal irony coming. It takes the edge off your otherwise mind-numbed remarks.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sigh. Another pointless exchange.

Regrettably, our inability to have a meaningful and substantive discussion, will only serve to confirm:

My underlying perception that your are unwilling to engage in a civil, substantive, and rational discussion; and

Your underlying perception that I am an anti-Mormon who is incapable of grasping reality.