For 2,000 years one hallmark of xianity has remained its hatred of natural science and skeptical philosophy. The Stoics and Epicureans of Athens laughed at Paul of Tarsus when he spoke to them. Paul's anti-intellectual rejoinder is still holy writ:

20-Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21-For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22-Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23-but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles . . . . 1Cor1 20-23 NIV

In short, Paul and his fellow revenge seekers created a god sharing their nihilistic valuations.

27-But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28-He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are . . . . 1Cor1:26-28 NIV

Xianity still appeals to those who believe themselves mistreated. To those in whom resentment surges. To those who must punish their guilty selves. To those who must blame others.

Xianity is practical nihilism. Directed inward, hatred of self. Directed outward, hatred of others and the world.

Psychologically I don't see much difference between the Taliban in Afghanistan and bible-worshipers (fundies) spread like pond scum across the US. Without a vigorously enforced secular state, you and I would burn at the stake or receive a bullet in the head for disbelief.

For all true believers, this is their doctrine: "those not with us are against us" Luke 11:23 NIV

Their fideistic hatred is not some peripheral ideological stance -- it is the dark heart and sick soul of Paul's life-negating world view, tarted up as a religion of "love".

bipolar2
© 2008

Yes, if a person is already committed to a set of non-evidence-based beliefs, the critical thinking method described in this post will lead to incorrect conclusions. The problem is that those preexisting irrational beliefs got in "under the gate", so to speak. Those beliefs were not originally formed using the method described in this post, and that will contaminate their belief pool and bias future judgments by skewing their notions of what is extraordinary. For this method to work, it has to be used consistently, and all a person's beliefs have to be formed in this way.

I believe that the part i emboldened does not usually describe how the theist comes to hold his set of beliefs. I've come to believe that it is possible to accept christianity without ever irrationally preferring a more extraordinary claim over a less amazing one.

This is made possible by the fact that rational assessment is a less powerful tool for keeping out false beliefs if a person's belief set is small. Further: it's arguable that most of us start out with a belief that our guardians are trustworthy (for good evolutionary reasons). These two things combined allow the rational acceptance of god claims by children.

I made an animated video about it here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LAUU9xG6OLQ

('belief audit' is an excellent phrase!)

This approach fails if someone already has a body of beliefs - from their point of view, accepted facts - that don't match reality. In that case, the quick plausibility test will lead to a growing body of beliefs that support their superstition, and suspicion of any evidence against them.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. :)

Yes, if a person is already committed to a set of non-evidence-based beliefs, the critical thinking method described in this post will lead to incorrect conclusions. The problem is that those preexisting irrational beliefs got in "under the gate", so to speak. Those beliefs were not originally formed using the method described in this post, and that will contaminate their belief pool and bias future judgments by skewing their notions of what is extraordinary. For this method to work, it has to be used consistently, and all a person's beliefs have to be formed in this way.

So what's to be done about the person who holds some evidence-based beliefs and some that are not, and wants to tell the two apart so that they can eliminate the latter? Well, that will just have to be the topic of a future post.

Another innoculation against new data that hinders believers is the "strong delusion" that's prevalant in the "World." If a fact contradicts the scriptures it must be the result of a conspiracy masterminded by Satan using human dupes, the "worldly."
I felt the weight and force of several Bible verses counteracting my attempts at self-education on the origins of Chrisitanity very, very strongly. I kept asking myself if I was being tricked by these "scholars."
But, logic kept telling me that it was those verses that were tricking me, that it was the Bible that was making bold assertions without proof and asking me to suspend reason, which is a necessary precursor to being deceived.
The phrase "clever sounding arguments" from a verse warning about going astray passed through my mind often. As did, "thinking themselves wise, they became fools instead" and "always seeking wisdom but never finding the Truth" and a bunch of others. Oh yeah and the always popular, "the fool says in his heart, there is no God"

And then there's the unpardonable sin, which many believe is rejecting JC after having had a "taste of the glory of the Son" and then rejecting him thus, "crucifying him all over again and trampling the Holy blood underfoot."
Heavy words! I am hellbound without hope of clemency!

Needless to say I'm not worried.

And now the diversion... I tend to think that, for some people at least, the reason it's so hard to get out of superstition isn't that they lack critical thinking skills, but that their body of prior knowledge is skewed towards facts that support the wrong conclusions. As you said:

The quickest and most reliable way to judge the plausibility of some startling new claim is to check whether it fits in with other facts that are already known. The more numerous and the more well-established are the facts which a new claim contradicts, the stronger the evidence for that claim must be in order for it to overturn conventional wisdom and be accepted.

This approach fails if someone already has a body of beliefs - from their point of view, accepted facts - that don't match reality. In that case, the quick plausibility test will lead to a growing body of beliefs that support their superstition, and suspicion of any evidence against them. I think this is what happens in most people who are raised in a religion - the existing body of "facts" are presented before they reach the point of being able to evaluate them critically.

For example, for someone who was brought up as a Christian, there's an existing body of "facts": Jesus was raised from the dead, prayer works, my dead relatives are in a Better Place, etc. If someone claims that there's no such thing as god, it conflicts with a huge body of pre-existing knowledge, and will be rejected as nonsense. The only way to get that idea past the nonsense filter is to start questioning the accepted collection of "facts" one by one, which is a big task.

At least, that was my experience.

I'll put it on my to-do list. :)