Poster Child for Cognitive Dissonance

As I’ve mentioned in this blog, when people associate with a point of view, they begin to lose objectivity. For example, if you were President of the Unicorn Association of America, and spent your days explaining how wonderful unicorns are, you would become married to that viewpoint. If 400 peer-reviewed scientific articles suddenly appeared indicating that all unicorns are pedophiles, you would be unable to accept that evidence. That’s how normal human brains work, i.e., crappily.

Check out an angry atheist’s response to my two posts on Pascal’s Wager. I don’t think he appreciates the philosotainment benefit of watching the Dilbert cartoonist whip people like him into a frenzy.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259315.htm

For your amusement, I will now stir this fellow into an even frothier foam of cognitive dissonance. I’m certain someone will point him to this post and we can observe the results of the experiment.

First, I will make an argument on such a simple level no rational person could disagree. Then we will watch him disagree.

My argument:

1. It is common for humans to be 100% certain of a particular fact, and later find out it is wrong.

2. Therefore, it is irrational for you, a human, to be 100% certain on any particular topic.

3. Agnostics believe humans are not equipped to be certain about truth. That is rational, and backed by all the peer reviewed science.

4. Atheists come in two flavors.

5. One type of atheist is 100% sure there is no God. That is not rational because humans can sometimes be mistaken, and things can exist for which no evidence has yet been found.

6. The other type of atheist, the so-called weak form, believes that the lack of good evidence for God provides no reason for belief. That is rational. Agnostics who understand science believe the same thing.

7. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference between an agnostic who understands science and a weak atheist who understands science. Neither believes the case for God has been made, and both accept the peer reviewed science showing the fragility of the human mind for knowing “truth.”

The phrase “weak atheist” is apparently nothing but a weasel self-label for agnostics who have picked a side and don’t want to be seen as giving any opening to religion. It is politics disguised as philosophy.

Now let’s sit back and see how long it takes my atheist friend to figure out what philosotainment is.

[Update: The Angry Atheist jumped on this post like a hobo on a ham sandwich. See his response at the end of the link I provided above, and his comments to the comments in his own site. If you have been following The Dilbert Blog, and know the evil that is me, the following three words will make you laugh: "Dance, monkey, dance!"]

Comments

[David Schwartz]

"
1. It is common for humans to be 100% certain of a particular fact, and later find out it is wrong.

2. Therefore, it is irrational for you, a human, to be 100% certain on any particular topic.
"

That's a load of crap. It is common for humans to be female. Does that mean it's irrational for me to be 100% sure I don't have black skin?

The argument that because it's possible for human to make a mistake it must be possible for anything a human ever concludes to be a mistake is simply incorrect. It's possible for an animal to be a dog, that does not mean it's possible for any given animal to be a dog.

[Skidoo]

"A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

I enjoy Dilbert, but Scott Adams has proven himself embarassingly naive about philosophical and scientific topics.

[Daryl Branson]

I agree with everything you said, Scott, except that an agnostic who understands science and a weak atheist are the same animal. You might call it a disagreement on what the evidence shows. The common usage of the term "agnostic" is for someone who believes that whether God exists is a toss up. We don't know and we can't know. A weak atheist is someone who takes the scientific position that there MIGHT be a God, but they attribute to that possibility the same probability of there really being a Santa Clause.

I don't think anyone calls themselves an atheist as a cop-out. Society is much more accepting of agnostics than atheists. If my conscience allowed me to call myself an agnostic, I would, but that would be deny the vast amount of evidence that promotes the model of a universe without an omnipotent superbeing.

[Steven McDaniel]

"I have noticed a rise in what I will call fundamentalist atheism. Seriously, I can see a point at which some rogue group of atheist would be in favour of sterilizing/culling non-believers of non-belief.."
James from Canada

Too late, James - it's already happened, known as the Communist Revolution. The Communists couldn't destroy the Christians' faith through torture - look at how the 'House Church Movement' is flourishing in China (see Wikipedia). They can't destroy my faith through threatening to argue me to death either. My knowledge of God comes from a deeper source than intellect - my spirit and conscience. You all should sometimes put the brakes on your sonorous discourse and listen to your spirits and consciences. "Since God in his wisdom SAW TO IT THAT THE WORLD WOULD NEVER FIND HIM THROUGH HUMAN WISDOM, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe." (1 Cor 1:21 in the World's best selling book of all time, which still sells more copies every year than Richard Dawkin's has ever sold).

[Steven McDaniel]

"I have noticed a rise in what I will call fundamentalist atheism. Seriously, I can see a point at which some rogue group of atheist would be in favour of sterilizing/culling non-believers of non-belief.."
James from Canada

Too late, James - it's already happened, known as the Communist Revolution. The Communists couldn't destroy the Christians' faith through torture - look at how the 'House Church Movement' is flourishing in China (see Wikipedia). They can't destroy my faith through threatening to argue me to death either. My knowledge of God comes from a deeper source than intellect - my spirit and conscience. You all should sometimes put the brakes on your sonorous discourse and listen to your spirits and consciences. "Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe." (1 Cor 1:21 in the World's best selling book of all time, which still sells more copies every year than Richard Dawkin's has ever sold).

[God]

Hi, God speaking here. Just a newsflash: I don't exist. :-)

Intelligent design does exist, though. You see, we are humans. We consider ourselves to be intelligent. We may disagree on the whole design but we're surely heading to some kind of design. The past 5000 or so years have shown how mankind has been altering the face of the Earth with Global Warming as one short-term goal. And who knows what we'll design next?

Thus, in a way, every human is a bit of God. You could say that humans are created in the image of God. Then again, humans also created God in the image of Humanity... People are just people, but combined we are God. We are the intelligent designers.

So do I exist or not? Well, am not 100% sure about that. Bit more like 50-50%...

Blessed Be, Lisa.

[Daniel Miessler]

Here's my argument for why Dawkins' definitions of atheism vs. agnosticism are valid, while Scotts' are not.

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/atheism-adams-vs-dawkins

[Phil Kelly]

There are different strengths of Agnosticism.

Clearly if someone presented iron-clad proof that god existed, refusing to change your mind would be irrational.

However, it is possible to say something about the probability of someone coming up with that evidence. Given what we know about the human psych, it's easy to see that probability approach zero.

Therefore rational unbelievers must admit to being agnostics. However, because of their expectation of the evidence being presented, it is accurate enough to say that they are de-facto atheists.

[Oli]

How cool is THAT? You've got your own trained idiot! Bet you can't make him crawl through a tunnel and run over a seesaw.

[Jonathan]

Poor fella. I think he just needs God.

[adora]

"...hobo on a ham sandwich" - Nicely done!

[Gimble]

I agree with the "Angry Atheist." But that doesn't mean there is any kind of issue. Just carry on as you do. But you may want to consider that you're not always right and you may have a completely wrong point of view when analyzing topics. In other words, you read something and without the right background information, you think it means something completely different then argue against it. Your arguement is then very flawed for the topic discussed.

[Steven McDaniel]

As a Bible believer, I get a lot of lampooning, but it doesn't bother me. However, I do bait atheists a lot on the BBC websites forum 'Have Your Say.' What really makes them froth at the mouth is my reply to their constant assertions that religion has caused all the wars in the world, with the fact that Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Chairman Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc, all atheists, murdered more people in one century than all the religious nut jobs put together did in all of history. I like your blogs about evolution, and Pascal's Wager. Keep the monkeys dancing, Scott - they really know how to boogie!

[Alex Wojtak]

Reading both your post and the counter to it, both seem to caontain fairly hefty flaws. Most significantly, both fall into the 'argument on the Internet' trap of attacking one another more than addressing your own points, in Scott's case by taking glee in winding the other up, and in Austin's case for taking more time using pejorative terms than making his valid counter-argument.

Cline's central point seems to be that, yes, an Agnostic and Atheist can hold the same opinion on the existance of God, but importantly, by the definitions, one can be both an Atheist AND and Agnostic. In other words, one can admit not knowing, while also not believeing in God.

[Richsp]

My cartoonist can whip your aethiest.

[Björn]

No offense, but aren't you two dancing the monkey dance together? I don't see any of you really having the upper hand here. The only way out seems to be to just shut up...

[Dennis]

Richard Dawkins, in his book, The God Delusion, tries to explain away the possibility of God. (Wow, what a novel topic, no one has ever tried to reason God out of the universe before... *YAWN*). Dawkins bills himself as an atheist, however one chapter heading "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" tells me only one thing: HE DOESN'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST (this destroys his entire argument against the existence of God). Otherwise he would have called the chapter "Why God doesn't exist". Yes, Richard, you would like to think there is no God, but even you find your own brand of dog food hard to swallow.

The irony even makes its own gravy.

[Scott]

Ha. Dance Monkey Dance. I get it. The question is... is he an athiest because he doesn't believe he's the monkey, or a weak agnostic because he doesn't want to believe he's the monkey???

Maybe I'm the monkey for replying to the post. D*mn you Scott Adams! How do I know that this wasn't your ultimate goal all along!!!!! I'm such a pawn in a great global game of monkey-chess.

[nate]

Nothing can not give rise to something. Thus an Atheist is a self defeating proposition.

[Jerky]

Cognitive dissonance made me so used to Scotty being right, I have to believe it again. Damn my useless brain.

[Stargoat]

"5. One type of atheist is 100% sure there is no God. That is not rational because humans can sometimes be mistaken, and things can exist for which no evidence has yet been found."

I have to disagree with this statement. By this logic, fairies and gremlins also might be found. But the sane person does not seek aid from fairies or gremlins, let alone live their life as though the fairies and gremlins may somehow have a meaningful impact on modern society. But clearly, if fairies and gremlins did exist, their culture would undoubtedly be worth studying.

Despite 6000 years of writing, more than 2000 years of taxonomy, and 250 years of organized taxonomy, gremlins and fairies have not been found nor proof presented - in spite of the numerous awards and graduate papers that could be gleaned from such a discovery. You might say, "But Stargoat, there are unexplored places on the earth where fairies and gremlins might still be." Perhaps. But unlikely.

Even more unlikely is the existence of an almighty creator. The chief occupation of humanity's leisure time over the past twelve thousand years has been the worship and attempt to prove the existence of such a creator. No verifiable proof has been offered. None. Not a single iota.

The continued belief in such a creator is foolhardy in the extreme. Even with the complete lack of proof aside, the idea of a creator flies in the face of Ockham's Razor.

Humans can be mistaken about things. But in this case, with the extreme lack of proof and the illogicalness of the existence of a creator, the conclusion is obvious. Until verifiable proof comes forward, the sensible man operates and states his opinion that no god exists.

[Joshua Jacobsen]

You contribute to a culture of hostility towards the non-believer. And what you state is largely misinformation or mistinterpretation. You seem to be unaware of what agnosticism means to "the public."

The type of "agnostic" that I most-often run into is the "believes in Jesus Christ, but not any specific doctrine, dogma, or tradition." I also frequently run into the "believes in a higher power, but not any specific religion" agnostic.

The point of being an atheist is to distinguish "us" from the PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING.

If you take the approach that nobody can be 100% certain of anything, and that it somehow makes everyone an agnostic, regardless of their beliefs, your render the term "agnostic" useless, along with most other religious terminology.

Perhaps that's your goal? You're not much of a philosopher, if your goal is to destroy concepts and ideas.

[Annonymous]

This is quite amusing, and after reading quite a few of the dilbert blogs and not knowing much about atheists or agnostics I think Scott Adams arguments are much stronger than Austin Clines. Although I have my own personal ideas about religion, I also think people are entitled to their own opinion and shouldn't bash other peoples arguments without giving an argument to backup their claim. For example Austin Clines states :

"Perhaps if he had spent even a small amount of time researching the matter, he'd have learned what the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism is — and at the same time, he might have even learned how and why everything he wrote in his post was either factually incorrect or logically incoherent."

He fails to state what the correct difference between weak atheism really is, the link just points back to the same article.

In Austin Clines re-post he states the following:

"If it's "entertainment," then I can say you're wrong for taking it so seriously... just before I proceed to restate my argument in a manner that is clearly meant to defend my original position as deserving serious consideration."

It appears to me that Austin has claimed that Scott Adams has not done the time researching the matter, but it is clear that Austin Clines has not researched Scott Adams very much. There are previous posts where Scott Adam has claimed multiple times that he likes to -- take the side people normally don't take and start to try to make logical arguments and twist it around. He also speaks a lot about hypnosis and seems to have a general interest in other peoples views and differences in views. And from reading previous posts I believe Scott Adams truly is trying to entertain people and have fun and he finds entertainment in others who try to do the same.

[buttbutt]

Wow, so this is what becomes of english majors do after graduation? Very odd that Cline seem's to support Adams' arguments more than refute them, even when trying to refute them. I'm also going blind from having to read so much. Kudos to the Dilblog for keeping things short.

[Maria]

I agree with egg.