ACCURATE THINKING ABOUT BELIEFS

The following link goes to a documentary entitled 'Why I Am No Longer A Christian' by an adept student of   epistemology, named Chris Redford. Chris explains a current wave of reasoning, called evidentialism, that professes the validity of belief solely upon evidence for it. He uses his journey from a belief in theism to a non-belief in theism as his personal example of a process of validation. However, if the whole series of videos in his presentation are not watched, then the best part will be missed. But, if one doesn't watch the first parts, then the last parts may not make as much sense. In any case, It is the best presentation that I have ever seen about epistemology, whereas it is academically presented but with simplicity and everyday examples. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND VIEWING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY--WHETHER CHRISTIAN OR NOT: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical  and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. 

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. 

These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. 

Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. 

Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. 

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. 

This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

ACCURATE THINKING FOUNDATION

Evidentialism as explained by Chris Redford promotes a strong foundation for accurate thinking.

He asks himself:

• How do I know what is real?
• Why do I believe what I believe?
• What am I justified to believe?

He asks himself these things about any situation, about any topic, about the very nature of reality itself.

In other words, WHAT AM I JUSTIFIED TO BELIEVE?

This question, WHAT AM I JUSTIFIED TO BELIEVE, is the core concern of a branch of philosophy called epistemology.

In 1641, Rene Descartes attempted to answer this question in his philosophical treatise called Meditations on First Philosophy.

Descartes strategy was to began by presuming that he was not justified to believe anything--purging himself of ALL his beliefs; after such purging, he would add back only beliefs he could justify.

Given that the senses are sometimes unreliable, the only thing that he could justify beyond any doubt is his own existence as a thinking being. He said: I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

Chris Redford began with this statement and added that he would have to make some other presuppositions in order to have any claims of awareness of anything outside of one's own mind.

Following are Chris's assertions:

1:  I exist.

2:  I have to make a presupposition that at least some of my perceptions (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell) are accurate--that is, that they accurately reflect reality sometimes.

3:

a)  I form beliefs about reality based on physical evidence.

b)  The STRENGTH of my beliefs should be directly proportional to the amount of physical evidence I have for them.

c)  If, based on evidence, I ever DOUBT, the validity of a conclusion I have drawn from previous evidence, I can RETURN to that evidence, RE-EXAMINE it, and SEE IF I COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.

NOTES:

3a)  States that physical evidence is the only justification for any belief.

3b)  States that the strength of my belief should equal the strength of the physical evidence.

3c)  Physical evidence enables verification.

So, every justified belief that we have about reality is ultimately grounded in physical evidence.

And, conversely, beliefs that are not grounded in physical evidence and beliefs that are grounded in less physical evidence are unjustified and more weakly justified respectively. 

EVIDENTIALIST OBJECTION

MAJOR PREMISE:  One ought not to believe something upon insufficient evidence.

MINOR PREMISE:  We have no sufficient evidence for the proposition that God exists.

______________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION:  One ought not believe that God exists.

But what, you might ask, is sufficient evidence?

Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism)  is the philosophical position that all knowledge is most likely impossible.

Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified.

Most members of the skeptical school of philosophy augured for what might be called 'epistemological skepticism'--their focus was upon the reliability of our senses and therefore our ability to make knowledge claims about the world around us. A number of philosophers came to argue that our senses were not reliable sources of factual information. We do not know the external world because we cannot trust our senses, since they have deceived us in the past.

According to skeptics, our knowledge of the external world is blocked because various logical possibilities can be raised--that we are in a dream or are living in a computer-generated virtual reality.

Another skeptical view is that we do not know the world because the mind's structures are a distorting influence on our knowledge of what is real.

Rene Descartes proved, at least to himself, that there was something could be known to exist. He captured this awareness in a profound statement: "I think; therefore, I am." Of course, he could not prove beyond any doubt that anyone else or anything else existed, but he had sufficient proof--beyond any doubt (at least to himself) that he existed. Because he could think, he knew undoubtedly that he existed as a thinking being.

Still, as a radical skeptic, one could not prove (nor claim to know) anything beyond his or her own existence. Such limited perspective in regards to existence would hinder scientific discovery because it would not allow anyone to claim anything as factual outside of his or her own mind.

Thus, to aid scientific discovery, which is based upon inductive reasoning, one must make some provision for believing things other than one's own existence. There are five assumptions in the following provisional hypotheses: (1) I exist, (2) my senses are sometimes accurate, (3) only beliefs that are justified by physical evidence are valid, (4) belief strength is proportional to evidence amount, and (5) evidence-based beliefs are validated through re-examination.

RELIGION & EVIDENCE

SOURCE: Forrest, Peter, "The Epistemology of Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to religious beliefs, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here evidentialism is the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if “it is proportioned to the evidence”.

Evidentialism implies that full religious belief is justified only if there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having a full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the belief that God is not just good in a utilitarian fashion but loving, or the belief that there is an afterlife. Likewise it would be unjustified to believe even with less than full confidence that, say, Krishna is divine or that Muhammed is the last and most authoritative of the prophets, unless a good case can be made for these claims from the evidence.

Evidentialism, then, sets rather high standards for justification, standards that the majority do not, it would seem, meet when it comes to religious beliefs, where many rely on “faith”, which is more like the forecaster's hunch about the weather than the argument from past climate records. Many others take some body of scripture, such as the Bible or the Koran as of special authority, contrary to the evidentialist treatment of these as just like any other books making various claims.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Source: Investopedia

Most people are aware that there is a government body that acts as the guardian of the economy - an economic sentinel who implements policies designed to keep the country operating smoothly.

In the U.S., the answer lies in the role of the Federal Reserve, or simply, the Fed. The Fed is the gatekeeper of the U.S. economy. It is the bank of the U.S. government and, as such, it regulates the nation's financial institutions. The Fed watches over the world's largest economy and is, therefore, one of the most powerful organizations on earth.

The Federal Reserve was created by the U.S. Congress in 1913. Before that, the U.S. lacked any formal organization for studying and implementing monetary policy. Consequently markets were often unstable and the public had very little faith in the banking system. The Fed is an independent entity, but is subject to oversight from Congress. Basically, this means that decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the government, but Congress periodically reviews the Fed's activities.

The Fed is headed by a government agency in Washington known as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors consists of seven presidential appointees, each of whom serves 14 year terms. All members must be confirmed by the Senate and can be reappointed. The board is led by a chairman and a vice chairman, each appointed by the President and approved by the Senate for four-year terms. The current chair is Ben Bernanke, who took over for Alan Greenspan on February 1, 2006. Greenspan had been chairman since 1987.

There are 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities around the country that operate under the supervision of the Board of Governors. Reserve Banks act as the operating arm of the central bank and do most of the work of the Fed. The banks generate their own income from four main sources:

• Services provided to banks
• Interest earned on government securities acquired while carrying out the work of the Federal Reserve
• Income from foreign currency held
• Interest on loans to depository institutions

The income gathered from these activities is used to finance day to day operations, including information gathering and economic research. Any excess income is funneled back into the U.S. Treasury.

The system also includes the Federal Open Market Committee, better known as the FOMC. This is the policy-making branch of the Federal Reserve. Traditionally, the chair of the board is also selected as the chair of the FOMC. The voting members of the FOMC are the seven members of the Board of Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and presidents of four other Reserve Banks who serve on a one-year rotating basis. All Reserve Bank presidents participate in FOMC policy discussions whether they are voting members or not. The FOMC makes the important decisions on interest rate and other monetary policies. This is the reason why they get most of the attention in the media.

The Fed's mandate is "to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and moderate long-term interest rates."

In other words, the Fed's job is to foster a sound banking system and a healthy economy. To accomplish its mission, the Fed serves as the banker's bank, the government's bank, the regulator of financial institutions and as the nation's money managers.

 The term monetary policy refers to the actions that the Federal Reserve undertakes to influence the amount of money and credit in the U.S. economy. Changes to the amount of money and credit affect interest (the cost of credit) and the performance of the U.S. economy. To state this concept simply, if the cost of credit is reduced, more people and firms will borrow money and the economy will heat up.

The FOMC typically meets eight times each year. At these meetings, the FOMC members decide whether monetary policy should be changed. Before each meeting, FOMC members receive the "Green Book," which contains the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) staff forecasts of the U.S. economy, the "Blue Book," which presents the Board staff's monetary policy analysis and the "Beige Book," which includes a discussion of regional economic conditions prepared by each Reserve Bank.

When the FOMC meets, it decides whether to lower, raise or maintain its target for the federal funds rate. The FOMC also decides on the discount rate. The reason we say that the FOMC sets the target for the rate is because the rate is actually determined by market forces. The Fed will do its best to influence open-market operations, but many other factors contribute to what the actual rate ends up being. A good example of this phenomenon occurs during the holiday season. At Christmas, consumers have an increased demand for cash, and banks will draw down on their reserves, placing a higher demand on the overnight reserve market; this increases the federal funds rate. So when the media says there is a change in the federal funds rate (in basis points), don't let it confuse you; what they are, in fact, referring to is a change in the Fed's target.
If the FOMC wants to increase economic growth, it will reduce the target fed funds rate. Conversely, if it wants to slow down the economy, it will increase the target rate.

The Fed tries to sustain steady growth, without the economy overheating. When talking about economic growth, extremes are always bad. If the economy is growing too fast, we end up with inflation. If the economy slows down too much, we end up in recession.

Sometimes the FOMC maintains rate at current levels but warns that a possible policy change could occur in the near future. This warning is referred to as the bias. The means that the Fed might think that rates are fine for now, but that there is a considerable threat that economic conditions could warrant a rate change soon. The Fed will issue an easing bias if it thinks the lowering of rates is imminent. Conversely, the Fed will adopt a bias towards tightening if it feels that rates might rise in the future.

The Fed has more power and influence on financial markets than any legislative entity. Its monetary decisions are intensely observed and often lead the way for other countries to take the same policy changes.

Finally, all national banks and some state-chartered banks are part of the Federal Reserve System. They are referred to as member banks.

The Fed's mandate is "to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and moderate long-term interest rates."

In other words, the Fed's job is to foster a sound banking system and a healthy economy. To accomplish its mission, the Fed serves as the banker's bank, the government's bank, the regulator of financial institutions and as the nation's money manager. 

Let's recap

• The Federal Reserve Board was created to in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible and more stable monetary and financial system.
• The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve heads up the Fed.
• Twelve Regional Federal Reserve Banks are the operating arms of the Fed.
• The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is the policy-making branch of the Federal Reserve.
• The Fed's mandate is "to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and moderate long-term interest rates."
• The Fed serves as the banker's bank, the government's bank, the regulator of financial institutions and as the nation's money manager.
• Monetary policy is influenced through open-market operations, the discount rate and reserve requirements.
• The FOMC sets a target for the federal funds rate and attempts to reach that rate primarily through the use of open market operations.
• The FOMC typically meets eight times per year to make decisions on monetary policy.
• If the FOMC wants to increase economic growth, it will reduce the target federal funds rate (and vice versa).
• If the target rate has been increased, the FOMC sells securities. If the FOMC reduces the target rate, they buy securities.
• Reducing the target rate means that the fed is putting more money into the economy (and vice versa).
• Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke took over the position from Alan Greenspan on February 1, 2006. Greenspan had held the position since 1987. 

JUSTIFIED BELIEFS (Source: Chris Redford)

Every justified belief that we have about reality is ultimately grounded in evidence.

And, conversely, beliefs that are not grounded in evidence and beliefs that are grounded in less evidence are unjustified and more weakly justified respectively.

Even in defending evidence, I have to use evidence to be justified.

Evidence is essential to the verification process.

In other words, I form beliefs about reality based on physical evidence. The strength of my belief should be directly proportional to the amount of evidence I have for them. If I ever doubt the validity of a conclusion I  make based on evidence, I can return to that evidence, re-examine it, and see if I come to the same conclusion. Even in defending evidence, I have to use evidence to be justified. Therefore, evidence is essential to the verification process.

Although my direct perception is the strongest evidence, it would be unfeasible for me to personally collect all the evidence I use for my beliefs; however, I can gather evidence indirectly in the form of the multimedia and testimonies given by other people. But, I cannot place as much confidence in multimedia and testimonials--written, spoken, or otherwise--as I can in direct physical evidence that I myself perceive.

Thus, if I want to maximize my confidence in a belief, I should only use indirect evidence given to me by other people as a starting point and then directly verify the physical evidence myself. If I refuse to do this for any belief, I must accept that my confidence in it should be lower than my confidence in a belief based on evidence that I have directly verified.

A LITTLE BIBLE STUDY

A little study of the Bible will reveal how absurd some of its writings are:

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. ¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; ¹⁷ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
~ Genesis 2:15 - 17

[Even as a child, I questioned: Why wouldn't God want people to have knowledge? What I rationalized is that it was the knowledge of evil that he didn't want people to have and that it was a package deal--that is, if you had knowledge, then you had both knowledge of good and evil. But, think about it: without knowledge humans would have been just as ignorant as the other animals. For a supreme being to want that of us is absurd.]

1 Now the serpent was craftier than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

² The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³ but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
~ Genesis 3:1 - 5

[If snakes talked then, why don't any snakes talk now?
Moreover, history reveals that the snake was correct in that the Bible says: “Adam had lived 130 years.” (Genesis 5:3)

But, like a gullible Christian, I rationalized that the death would be spiritual—not physical.
Then, if that is so, THE BIBLE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY. And, WE SHOULD GET THE LESSONS FROM IT BUT NOT BELIEVE THAT THE STORIES ARE TRUE.]

OCCAM’S RAZOR (by Chris Redford)

According to the principle called ‘Occam’s razor,’ when faced with two opposing explanations for the same set of evidence, our minds will naturally prefer the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions.

So if an event or process can be explained without an extra or superficial element, our minds will naturally shave that element away using Occam’s razor.

The explanation that makes the fewest assumptions and yet still accounts for all the evidence one has is the one that the mind will naturally accept.

SOMETHING MAY BE POSSIBLE; BUT WITHOUT EVIDENCE, THERE IS NO RATIONAL MOTIVATION TO BELIEVE IT.

The same is true for God—if everything that one thinks is true about God is NOT explainable through natural evidence then there becomes NO rational motivation to believe that there is a god.

So, THERE IS NO RATIONALLY MOTIVATING EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOD.

I WILL AVOID ARGUING ABOUT RELIGION

I have resolved to AVOID ARGUING with anyone about their beliefs. And, I will respect all beliefs. I have made this resolution because I realize that some people would be much worse without their religion. In other words, I have come to the realization that some people actually need religion. ~ Perman Wilson

THE PRIMARY PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF A PERSONAL GOD IS TO GIVE THE BELIEVER A SURROGATE PARENT.

SOME MINDS ARE ABLE TO BECOME INDEPENDENT OF PARENTAL FIGURES; OTHERS CANNOT AND FALL INTO SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR WITHOUT THEM.
MINDS IN THIS CATEGORY RELY ON RELIGION.

~ Chris Redford

IF NOT RELIGIOUS, WHY PRAY?

If 'LORD' means owner, then MY BRAIN IS MY LORD.
If 'GOD' means ruler, then MY BRAIN IS MY RULER.

If 'religious' means belief in something supernatural,
then I am NO LONGER religious.

Yet, I still pray, and I still say 'THANK YOU LORD'
and 'THANK YOU GOD.'
But who or what, you might ask, is it to whom I pray?
I PRAY TO MY LORD, which is MY GOD.

For me, prayer is no superstitious act.
When I pray, it is an act of self-suggestion
or communication with my subconscious mind.
I am communicating more deeply with my inner self.

A communal prayer achieves a similar purpose
for all in attendance.

So, I AM NO LONGER RELIGIOUS;
but, I AM VERY THOUGHTFUL;
and, I DO STILL PRAY.

THEISM MAY BE NEEDED BY SOME PEOPLE

The primary psychological function of a personal god

is to give the believer a surrogate parent.

Some minds are able to become independent of parental figures.

Some others cannot, and without such parental (or authoritative figures)

such mentally dependent people would fall into self-destructive behavior;

minds in this category may need to rely on religion.

MENTAL SLAVERY

MENTAL SLAVERY is much more enslaving than physical slavery because a person who is physically enslaved knows it, while one who is mentally enslaved doesn't.

Harriet Tubman said, "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed more if only they knew they were slaves."

HYPNOTISM, MIND-CONTROL, AND RELIGION ARE AWESOME METHODS OF ENSLAVEMENT.

Unfortunately, many people who are mentally enslaved by religion revere their religion and thus foolishly enjoy their enslavement.

Voltaire's words are just as true today as when he first uttered them:

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO FREE FOOLS FROM THE CHAINS THEY REVERE."

Please watch the following documentary to find how one individual escaped his mental slavery:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/