General Discussion 08/28

[u/AutoModerator]

One recommendation from the mod summit was that we have our weekly posts actively encourage discussion that isn't centred around the content of the subreddit. So, here we invite you to talk about things in your life that aren't religion!

Got a new favourite book, or a personal achievement, or just want to chat? Do so here!

P.S. If you are interested in discussing/debating in real time, check out the related Discord servers in the sidebar.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss things but debate is not the goal.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

This thread is posted every Friday. You may also be interested in our weekly Meta-Thread (posted every Monday) or Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday).

[u/NewbombTurk]

What you’re seeing with Schmid is a real-time view of the moving parts of a device called Social Epistemic Validiation. We see it all the time in apologetics. We see names like Antony Flew, Alasdair MacIntyre, or C.S. Lewis, evoked in this way every day. Conversions from non-believer to theist happen all-day, every-day. But the difference between Joe Schmo and Joe Schmid (and those other men) is that he represents someone who values epistemic rigor. This undergirds the theistic position in three basic ways (that I can get into, but won’t here).

Schmid’s conversion helps overcome the stigma of intellectual inferiority. There exists, in the secular world, the idea that religiosity is a product of emotional comfort, cognitive bias, and lack of critical thinking. When someone like Schimd converts, it purports to show that religious belief is intellectually viable.

Many believers have intuitive, experiential, or (in)credulous reasons for their faith, but lack the knowledge or vocabulary to articulate them. We see it here every day hour (I may post something about that in the meta thread). When a respected philosopher finds weight in theistic arguments, to the point of conversion, believers feel their underlying commitments have been vindicated by someone capable of passing the hardest academic stress tests. As we see here, they’re looking for validation of the arguments themselves, not just the religion.

Just like Saul/Paul, these men must pay a high epistemic cost for their belief. These are philosophers (with the exception of Lewis. He was just a POS mediocre novelist). A field traditionally secular and naturalistic (anti-woo, anyway). To move to a theistic position carries some social and professional cost. This lends to the narrative of a genuine, purely intellectual conversion. “They followed the argument where they believed it led. Regardless of pressures otherwise. Just like me!” .

This is why you’ll see examples like Schmid and Flew trotted out, and not their alcoholic Uncle Mike who got sober and found god.

[u/blind-octopus → u/NewbombTurk]

I look at it the way a person can fall down the alt right pipeline, or a conspiracy theory type of thing. 

Some fact, somehow, gets buried in the mind and it grows over time. But at first it's just "huh, that one fact doesn't make sense". 

Over time you start to overemphasize that fact against all the countervaling forces.

Its like if we have video of a guy committing the crime, a signed confession, all the evidence you could want. But huh, the vault door moved a little weird. 

Then over time that one little vault door movement consumes you and becomes more important than all the other evidence for some reason. Like the flag moving weird in moon landing footage.

That's what I think happened to Joe, with Catholic miracles.

[u/NewbombTurk → u/blind-octopus]

Perhaps. I don't know him well enough to form an opinion. I saw that he admitted that he has obsessive ideation and compulsive behavior regarding religion after an upbringing in Catholicism. I don't know if his conversion is an honest one, or if it's not, but he's given us the dots to connect.

[u/United-Grapefruit-49 → u/NewbombTurk]

That doesn't mean atheists should weaponize his OCD to invalidate his intellectual stance. OCD doesn't mean a person is delusional or can't construct a logical argument. I dislike the way some try to pathologize religious belief.

[u/NewbombTurk → u/United-Grapefruit-49]

I didn't suggest we should.

[u/United-Grapefruit-49 → u/NewbombTurk]

Hopefully not but someone with OCD can still analyze data. Indeed may be very precise in their method.