You have to realize that “evidence or tests” does not mean the same thing to them as it does to you. They have been conditioned against these words.
I use different language if I’m talking to a theist. Usually I ask something like, “Do you think prayer works?” They say, “Yes.” I say, “So if there was a group of people with some disease, we should expect those who were prayed for to be more likely to get better, right?” The conversation branches here. Either they say, “No” because they know about the studies that have been done, or they say, “Yes,” I mention the studies, and they say something about how you can’t put God to the test.
This is completely different than the dragon-in-the-garage example.
No it is not. Their reaction is more emotionally charged than in the dragon example. The theists have a belief but anticipations guided by not-belief.
Another example: One of my friends is studying to be a Catholic priest. He believes in evolution. Of course I couldn’t help but ask him if he thought (non-human) animals went to heaven. He said no. “Ah-ha!” I thought, “The trap is set!”
Me: “So there had to be some point in evolution where two hairy proto-humans gave birth to a slightly less hairy human. Even though they only differed from each other as much as we differ from our parents, the proto-human parents didn’t have souls and the child did. If the child went to heaven, he would ask God where his parents went.
Friend: “Yes.”
Me: o_O
Well at least he was consistent. Later I asked him about the efficacy of prayer and he said it worked as long as you weren’t doing a test to see if it worked. How convenient.
ETA: Oh and he doesn’t think cryonics will work since the soul leaves the body at death. Also he believes strong AI is impossible.
Later I asked him about the efficacy of prayer and he said it worked as long as you weren’t doing a test to see if it worked. How convenient.
This is the best example I have seen yet, but I am still not convinced that the problem is with anticipations not being guided by beliefs. He still anticipates something but is willing to amend the wrong side of the experiment when something goes weird.
But yeah, this is a much clearer example. I can think of a bunch of people I know who act like this.
The rest of this comment is nitpicking over something only slightly related.
I say, “So if there was a group of people with some disease, we should expect those who were prayed for to be more likely to get better, right?”
This sentence will trigger the conditioning I was talking about. This is the exact wrong way to talk to someone about the subject.
Either they say, “No” because they know about the studies that have been done, or they say, “Yes,” I mention the studies, and they say something about how you can’t put God to the test.
No it is not [different from the dragon example]. Their reaction is more emotionally charged than in the dragon example. The theists have a belief but anticipations guided by not-belief.
Those who say “No” because they know about the studies are not like the dragon example. They would have to say no before they knew about the studies. And, included in “studies,” this means every single failed prayer from their own life.
If you found someone who had absolutely no good reason to doubt prayer they would expect the studies to show prayer works. A pre-dodge of the experiment is much more likely to point to previous encounters with experiments than anticipations hooked up to not-beliefs.
Those who say “Yes” are now amending their belief to fit the facts. This is not like the dragon example.
Another example: One of my friends is studying to be a Catholic priest. He believes in evolution. Of course I couldn’t help but ask him if he thought (non-human) animals went to heaven. He said no. “Ah-ha!” I thought, “The trap is set!”
Stop trying to trap people. It is petty, rude, and just makes the world worse. Most people, even theists, are willing to talk about their beliefs if they don’t feel defensive. People can smell a trap coming as soon as they see someone’s face. As soon as they get defensive, the conversation becomes a war. This is bad.
Me: “So there had to be some point in evolution where two hairy proto-humans gave birth to a slightly less hairy human. Even though they only differed from each other as much as we differ from our parents, the proto-human parents didn’t have souls and the child did. If the child went to heaven, he would ask God where his parents went.
Friend: “Yes.”
Me: o_O
Really, the fact that you seem so surprised by this answer makes me think you have no idea what your friend believes. When your predictors to answers about technical questions are off enough to make you go o_O you may want to start looking at your predictors.
Sigh. I am sorry for jumping at you. I don’t really have a good excuse, but I am sorry anyway.
Stop trying to trap people. It is petty, rude, and just makes the world worse.
But it’s fun! At least it’s fun between friends. Remember that my friend got the last laugh in my trap example. We both know we’re not going to convince each other, but it’s still fun to play argument chess.
Just to balance things out, I’ll give you an example of a trap my friend set for me.
Me: (Starts to explain transhumanism. Quotes EY saying, “Life is good, death is bad. Health is good, sickness is bad.” etc)
Friend: “If life is good and death is bad, then isn’t suicide wrong in your view?”
Me: “Umm… I guess that’s a bit of an edge case.”
On reflection, I do now wonder if it’s better to modify someone’s mind so that they are no longer suicidal than let them kill themselves. After all, death is a much bigger change than a few erased memories.
I use different language if I’m talking to a theist. Usually I ask something like, “Do you think prayer works?” They say, “Yes.” I say, “So if there was a group of people with some disease, we should expect those who were prayed for to be more likely to get better, right?” The conversation branches here. Either they say, “No” because they know about the studies that have been done, or they say, “Yes,” I mention the studies, and they say something about how you can’t put God to the test.
No it is not. Their reaction is more emotionally charged than in the dragon example. The theists have a belief but anticipations guided by not-belief.
Another example: One of my friends is studying to be a Catholic priest. He believes in evolution. Of course I couldn’t help but ask him if he thought (non-human) animals went to heaven. He said no. “Ah-ha!” I thought, “The trap is set!”
Me: “So there had to be some point in evolution where two hairy proto-humans gave birth to a slightly less hairy human. Even though they only differed from each other as much as we differ from our parents, the proto-human parents didn’t have souls and the child did. If the child went to heaven, he would ask God where his parents went.
Friend: “Yes.”
Me: o_O
Well at least he was consistent. Later I asked him about the efficacy of prayer and he said it worked as long as you weren’t doing a test to see if it worked. How convenient.
ETA: Oh and he doesn’t think cryonics will work since the soul leaves the body at death. Also he believes strong AI is impossible.
This is the best example I have seen yet, but I am still not convinced that the problem is with anticipations not being guided by beliefs. He still anticipates something but is willing to amend the wrong side of the experiment when something goes weird.
But yeah, this is a much clearer example. I can think of a bunch of people I know who act like this.
The rest of this comment is nitpicking over something only slightly related.
This sentence will trigger the conditioning I was talking about. This is the exact wrong way to talk to someone about the subject.
Those who say “No” because they know about the studies are not like the dragon example. They would have to say no before they knew about the studies. And, included in “studies,” this means every single failed prayer from their own life.
If you found someone who had absolutely no good reason to doubt prayer they would expect the studies to show prayer works. A pre-dodge of the experiment is much more likely to point to previous encounters with experiments than anticipations hooked up to not-beliefs.
Those who say “Yes” are now amending their belief to fit the facts. This is not like the dragon example.
Stop trying to trap people. It is petty, rude, and just makes the world worse. Most people, even theists, are willing to talk about their beliefs if they don’t feel defensive. People can smell a trap coming as soon as they see someone’s face. As soon as they get defensive, the conversation becomes a war. This is bad.
Really, the fact that you seem so surprised by this answer makes me think you have no idea what your friend believes. When your predictors to answers about technical questions are off enough to make you go o_O you may want to start looking at your predictors.
Sigh. I am sorry for jumping at you. I don’t really have a good excuse, but I am sorry anyway.
But it’s fun! At least it’s fun between friends. Remember that my friend got the last laugh in my trap example. We both know we’re not going to convince each other, but it’s still fun to play argument chess.
Just to balance things out, I’ll give you an example of a trap my friend set for me.
Me: (Starts to explain transhumanism. Quotes EY saying, “Life is good, death is bad. Health is good, sickness is bad.” etc)
Friend: “If life is good and death is bad, then isn’t suicide wrong in your view?”
Me: “Umm… I guess that’s a bit of an edge case.”
On reflection, I do now wonder if it’s better to modify someone’s mind so that they are no longer suicidal than let them kill themselves. After all, death is a much bigger change than a few erased memories.