No, Really, I've Deceived Myself
Followup to: Belief in Belief
I recently spoke with a person who... it's difficult to describe. Nominally, she was an Orthodox Jew. She was also highly intelligent, conversant with some of the archaeological evidence against her religion, and the shallow standard arguments against religion that religious people know about. For example, she knew that Mordecai, Esther, Haman, and Vashti were not in the Persian historical records, but that there was a corresponding old Persian legend about the Babylonian gods Marduk and Ishtar, and the rival Elamite gods Humman and Vashti. She knows this, and she still celebrates Purim. One of those highly intelligent religious people who stew in their own contradictions for years, elaborating and tweaking, until their minds look like the inside of an M. C. Escher painting.
Most people like this will pretend that they are much too wise to talk to atheists, but she was willing to talk with me for a few hours.
As a result, I now understand at least one more thing about self-deception that I didn't explicitly understand before - namely, that you don't have to really deceive yourself so long as you believe you've deceived yourself. Call it "belief in self-deception".
When this woman was in high school, she thought she was an atheist. But she decided, at that time, that she should act as if she believed in God. And then - she told me earnestly - over time, she came to really believe in God.
So far as I can tell, she is completely wrong about that. Always throughout our conversation, she said, over and over, "I believe in God", never once, "There is a God." When I asked her why she was religious, she never once talked about the consequences of God existing, only about the consequences of believing in God. Never, "God will help me", always, "my belief in God helps me". When I put to her, "Someone who just wanted the truth and looked at our universe would not even invent God as a hypothesis," she agreed outright.
She hasn't actually deceived herself into believing that God exists or that the Jewish religion is true. Not even close, so far as I can tell.
On the other hand, I think she really does believe she has deceived herself.
So although she does not receive any benefit of believing in God - because she doesn't - she honestly believes she has deceived herself into believing in God, and so she honestly expects to receive the benefits that she associates with deceiving oneself into believing in God; and that, I suppose, ought to produce much the same placebo effect as actually believing in God.
And this may explain why she was motivated to earnestly defend the statement that she believed in God from my skeptical questioning, while never saying "Oh, and by the way, God actually does exist" or even seeming the slightest bit interested in the proposition.
Comments (44)
My curiosity is drawn to the nature of the benefits the woman expects. Does she get a high from the false belief or does her mental model inform her that the false belief will favorably affect external reality -- e.g., she will have friends more likely to behave charitably towards her than atheist friends will be?
A very intelligent conservative Christian once gave me the latter as a primary reason she become a Christian. OTOH, Garcia thought that the former was usually the motive in the population he interacted (which was very different from the population at large though).
Georges Ray has defended a position he calls "Meta-Atheism." He believes that just about nobody who says they believe in God actually does, for reasons somewhat like the ones Eliezer mentions. I highly recommend checking it out. Here's a link: http://stairs.umd.edu/236/meta-atheism.html
When I first read "Belief in Belief", I liked it, and agreed with it, but I thought it was describing a curiousity; an exotic specimen of irrationality for us to oooh and aaah over. I mentally applied it to Unitarians and Reform Jews and that was about it.
I've since started wondering more and more if it actually describes a majority of religious people. I don't know if this is how Eliezer intended it, but it was two things that really convinced me:
The first reason was behavior. Most theists I know occasionally deviate from their religious principles; not egregiously, but they're far from perfect. But when I imagine a world that would make me believe religion with certainty - a world where angels routinely descend to people's bedsides to carry their souls to Heaven, or where Satan allows National Geographic into Hell to film a documentary - I find it hard to imagine people sleeping in on Sundays. Not even the most hardened criminal will steal when the policeman's right in front of him and the punishment is infinite.
The second was a webcomic: http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/file1126-2.jpg It wasn't so much that theists wouldn't drink the poison as that they'd be surprised, even offended at being asked. It would seem like a cheap trick. Whereas (for example) I would be happy to prove my "faith" in science by ingesting poison after I'd taken an antidote proven to work in clinical trials.
I see two ways this issue is directly important to rationalists:
Is this solely a religious phenomenon, or are our own beliefs vulnerable to this kind of self-deception?
What kind of tests can we create to determine whether a belief is sincerely held?
It's worth mentioning that one can actually believe in god yet only say "I believe in god".
When I talk to religious people, I usually say "I don't believe in god" rather than "God does not exist". They both get the point across that I'm an atheist, but nothing else. The second, however, is less confrontational, and it often takes effort to keep people from seeing the discussion as a "battle".
I like this article (but then I liked Dennet's ideas of belief in belief right from the start) and I've been thinking about this off and on all day.
But I think perhaps Eliezer over-analyses: On the surface this person's beliefs and thoughts seem fuzzy, so Eliezer admiraly digs deeper - but perhaps it's just fuzz all the way down.
Perhaps she believes P and ~P, perhaps she believes P>Q and she believes P but she beleives ~Q.
Perhaps you just have to shrug, and move on.
My experience is that most religious people give very, very, very little thought to what they actually believe. (About 10,000th of the introspection that Eliezer performs, say :-) ) and analysing it terms of doctrine, beliefs (or indeed impressions) is simply using the wrong tools. Perhaps better to think about emotions invovled in 'being religious' and being 'part of' a religion.
What you say doesn't account for the curious absence of any direct affirmation of her belief - it's weird that she's always at one remove from her own belief.
But for an academic actually doing that analysis (not that I'm necessarily calling EY an 'academic'), one must invoke the principle of charity, which necessitates assuming she's saying things that are reasonable, justified, and truthful, as far as you can push it.
Argue against the belief, not the person - if you can wrestle out some truth from what someone's saying, count that as a win even if they oppose you.
Eliezer's post focuses on the distinction between two concepts a person can believe (hereby called "narratives"):
"God is real."
"I have something that qualifies as a 'belief in God'."
Either narrative will be associated with positive things in the person's mind. And the person, particularly with narrative #2, often forms a meta-narrative:
3. "My belief in God has positive effects in my life."
But: Unlike the meta-narrative, our analysis should not proceed as if the relationship between narrative and effects is a simple causal link.
The actual cognitive process that determines the narrative might go something like this:
Notice that the desirable aspects of life enjoyed by religious people in the community conflict with undesirable properties (e.g. falsehood, silliness, uselessness) of religious beliefs.
Trigger a search: "How do I make the undesirable properties go away while keeping benefits?"
Settle on a local optimum way of thinking, according to some evaluation algorithm that is attracted by predictions of certain consequences and repulsed by others.
The search can have a very different character from one individual to another. For example, if the idea of not having a defensible narrative isn't repulsive, then the person says: "I'm happy in my religious community, so I don't think too hard about my religion." The kind of thing they are actually repulsed by would be "for me or my peers to believe that I am not a fully committed member of my in-group".
Or, if the person is given to conscious reasoning, then it would be extremely repulsive to not have a defensible narrative. What their search evaluation algorithm is actually repulsed by might be something like, "the self-doubt that I am not a capable reasoner", or "the loss of respect and status among other intellectuals". So the quick fix is: Add more layers of justification and arguments surrounding religion, so that both you and your peers can plausibly feel that you are a capable reasoner occupying a justifyable stance on a complex issue.
So regarding Eliezer's post, it's not surprising that someone with narrative #2 can get a "placebo" version of the positive effects that come with narrative #1. The narrative doesn't independently cause the positive effects; the narrative is shaped by a cognitive algorithm that predicts the benefits of believing it.
Also note the historical benefits to religion being in a 'separate magisterium' - scientists could go about the business of science without being hassled by religious conflicts (internal and external) and people in Europe didn't feel so much of a need to kill each other over heresy anymore. (cf. The Baby-Eaters)
EDIT: fixed spelling of cf.
I may not be too far from this. I started to be an atheist but (as best as I can describe) found myself believing in god anyway. I interpreted it as catholicism having etched a god shaped hole into my brain. It seemed like more trouble than it was worth to fight it. In this context 'I believe in god' isn't a conclusion but an observation.
Knowing that your brain hasn't updated correctly does not make it trivial to force it to.
By my current theology, my Gods are rather a lot like the dragon in my garage which is invisible, can't be touched, and leaves no thermal signature. For example, I may be wired to believe in divinity, but I am apparently not wired to believe in a creator (Thanks PBS!) so in my thinking on cosmology, physics, or evolution, my theology just doesn't come up. This is at least partly by design.
Although this does not speak directly to the heart of your argument, the Elamite etymologies you provide are almost certainly incorrect, and seems that the reference to the legend is even weaker.
Here is a good discussion of the point, with references.
Mordechai and Esther are of course theophoric, but theophoric names, including those named after the gods of the dominant culture but given by non-believers in the respective gods, are common in many cultures, ours included.
Well - for a start, I actually got the story off her, then looked it up online to confirm; before then I was unaware of the etymology of Purim.
It's not clear to me how you could plausibly carry the theory that Haman, in the story, is a personal name, given that Haman and Vashti were paired male and female gods at least according to other sources (the name Vashti is mentioned in your cited book, but it's not clear in what connection). Haman is a coincidence but Vashti isn't? Either I'm missing something, or I must suspect the motives of your book's author; that is always a hazard in this sort of thing. (Of course, so is the converse hazard of going eager-beaver on a good atheistic strike - but obviously Mordecai and Esther are Marduk and Ishtar, so it certainly wouldn't be surprising if Haman and Vashti are rival gods; according to her, Vashti isn't even a very Persian name.)
Of course, the validity of the point about "Haman" is not relevant to your core argument.
When I said "good discussion" in my comment, I was trying to say that using my best judgment, honed in a PhD in a closely related field, and examining the argument and the affiliations of the authors, it seems like an unbiased discussion. Good scholarship is of course neither "pro" nor "anti" Bible.
The apparent phonetic resemblances between Haman and an Elamite god are linguistically far-fetched. There is absolutely no connection between a h and a kh (written also h-with-hook-underneath). It is always easy to find coincidences if you are willing to stretch resemblances far enough. Even Jensen admits that Vashti (perhaps pronounced Washti) is unattested and that he is is emending from Mashti.
Also, note that Haman and Vashti are in no way paired in the Biblical story, and Marduk and Ishtar were not a divine couple.
After the first modern Bible scholars tried (with religious motives) to understand the Bible in its historical context , and found that much of it was non-historical and that there were connections to other Near Eastern cultures, some went overboard in their enthusiasm to "debunk" the Bible. I suspect that Jensen in 1892 was motivated by this rather than atheism.
Mordecai and Esther are simply common names coming from Marduk and Ishtar (like Maria and Jesus today).
By the way, this book about Esther has a chapter on its historicity, bringing arguments for and against, and definitely concludes against.
In writing this, I feel like I am acting out this webcomic, but hey, at least the PhD is good for something.
I accept your verdict.
Rationality is about winning. Sometimes it's a great psychological relief to be able to use belief as a shield or help. I have never had any qualms about using it to counter other irrational beliefs, fears, anguishes. Like for instance, when I was a child, the fear of darkness or monsters below my bed or whatnot.
Telling myself "ok, this isn't real and you know it, so no fear should be necessary" doesn't have quite the same effect as "God will help me chase them away / protect me".
Those are two different ideas, even though we use "belief" for both. I believe in God, gods, fairies, anything and whatever, whenever I find it convenient, just the same way I'll use nootropics when I'll find those convenient, both to the purpose of enhancing my mood or cognition. That is believing, as in, making up a comfortable, warm, fuzzy story, that recovers myself my serenity. Not believe as in "what can help me understand or manipulate the real, physical world, what is real and what will have a causal effect on that external world".
The only wrong consequence I can foresee for such a behavior is to go too far, to really start believing in such things, and hence loose some of your potential for rational reasoning as you'll then have to defend a lie and forgo truth sometimes, or also, feeling the need to elaborate further and further upon the stories, whether you believe them or not, wasting your time upon fantasizing.
Please note here how such stories which were at first understood to be fiction became serious stuff. Science fiction that becomes religion, as in scientism (to end up believing in your own story), or how some people will go to ludicrous lengths to demonstrate how star wars is still physically "not impossible" (to waste your time embellishing your fantasy and rationalizing it).
This I can understand.
I am a protestant Christian and your friend's experience with "belief" are similar to mine. Or seem to be, from what I gather in your post.
One thing I've come to realize that helps to explain the disparity I feel when I talk with most other Christians is the fact that somewhere along the way my world-view took a major shift away from blind faith and landed somewhere in the vicinity of Orwellian double-think.
The double-think comes into play when you're faced with non-axiomatic concepts such as morality. I believe that there is a God - and that He has instilled a sense of right and wrong in us by which we are able to evaluate the world around us. I also believe a sense of morality has been evolutionarily programmed into us - a sense of morality that is most likely a result of the formation of meta-political coalitions in Bonobo communities a very, very long time ago.
These two beliefs are not contradictory, but the complexity lies in reconciling the two. This post is not about the details of my Escher-esque brain, so suffice to say there are questions unanswered by viewing only the scientific side and there are just as many unanswered if viewed only from the spiritual side.
Simply because your friend is not blind to contradictions in the Orthodox Jewish belief system does not mean she does not sincerely believe - or that she's deceived herself into believing that she believes. It means that she, as all intelligent believers who practice crisis of faith should, understands just how much she doesn't understand.
What is the evidence that "she does not receive any benefit of believing in God"? I would expect that with her attitude she would be accepted and included into religious communities.
That's not a benefit of believing in God. You don't have to believe in God to be accepted into religious communities. You just have to say "I believe in God".
It may help to genuinely believe you believe in God. But in the Modern Orthodox Jewish community that I remember from Chicago, someone who actually seriously believed in God and acted accordingly, who was over the age of 20, would probably get looked at a little funny - they wouldn't get the warm friendship that accrues to those who just say the passwords.
A "benefit" of actually believing in God would be, say, that you weren't too sad at funerals because you genuinely believed the deceased was in Heaven. Pretty sure no one at the family funerals I attended went that far.
Doesn't she receive a benefit by not having to live a lie her whole life? I've read deconversion stories, and they almost always include a point where someone has lost faith but tries to stay in their religious communities and go through the motions. Most of them end up miserable (granted that there is a 100% selection bias because these are deconversion stories)
Well, yes, there is a 100% selection bias here. I'm not sure I can count that as evidence, like, at all.
The intention was to provide a clarifying example of an existential statement that should be non-controversial ("There exist some people who are uncomfortable living a lie"), not to assert probabilistic evidence for a universal statement ("Everyone I have read about is uncomfortable living a lie, therefore this is true of all humans"). I noted the selection bias only to clarify that I am not making the stronger universal statement, but it doesn't interfere with the existential statement.
In human terms, or ideal Bayesian terms?
Wait, couldn't people have been programmed by evolution to grieve no matter what they truly believe about where the deceased went?
This seems like an empirical proposition. Does anybody here know what cryonics believers say who've seen friends or loved ones frozen?
An interesting point. Keeping in mind that cryonics "believers" trust cryonics with varying degrees of probability and that many or even most of them try to appear more rational to their skeptical friends by saying "The probability is only 20% but that still makes it a good bet based on expected utility", then I'd say that I've seen both behaviors. That is, I've seen some cryonicists expressing grief, some cryonicists (including myself) saying "See you later", and my untrustworthy eyeballs indicate that this correlates to how much trust they have in cryonics.
Eyeballs also indicate that someone who's more deeply involved in the cryonics community per se is less likely to mourn, regardless of what they say about their verbal probabilities. And furthermore, when someone is suspended who themselves believed strongly in cryonics, "weak" cryonics advocates are less likely to mourn that person! This may have something to do with the degree to which mourning is empathy...? Or do they, perhaps, believe just strongly enough to worry that the one will come back and be annoyed at the "condolences"?
Are weakly religious people less likely to mourn the death of strongly religious people? I'm guessing "Yes" - and it'd be easier to gather data here.
Sounds like priming: since the deceased is associated with not mourning cryonically suspended, the attitude towards this issue changes in the context. I expect that the verbal probabilities, if not premeditated, will also change, if the question is framed like "what is the probability that [this person] will be restored?", depending on the belief of [this person] in the success.
If you knew that everyone got uploaded to a virtual world when they died, and the virtual world was better in every way than the natural world, and when you died you would be reunited with them in the virtual world, then would you really have something to grieve about when their soul passed out of their body?
Yes; you would be unable to talk to them for.. however long it'd take before you could join them.
Of course the rational solution then would be suicide or, failing that, good, ethical actions that certainly would get you into heaven but just happen to be incredibly dangerous. I'm sure we could find some.
You don't grieve because of what you said. You grieve because you miss them and you don't know when you will see them. I know it is selfish but its true. I attended a funeral once where the son of the deceased was a friend and "We are sad not because we would no longer see him, but because we do not know when.", Of course he maybe lying but sometimes we can take these people's statements at face value. Some people are short sighted, they are saddened inspite of their belief that they would be reunited and what they term the other side/life would be a far far better place. They are saddened because their lives have to change , maybe not for the better.
I think EY just means that she doesn't get the benefit from truly believing in God, but another, possibly similar, benefit one gets by deceiving oneself into believing in God.
Many people cannot distinguish between levels of indirection. To them, "I believe X" and "X" are the same thing, and therefore, reasons why it is beneficial to believe X are also reasons why X is true. I think this, rather than any sort of deliberate self deception, is what you have observed.
I expect it is an easy distinction for most people whom Eliezer describes as "highly intelligent".
If it's a distinction they'd rather not think about, I wouldn't bet on it. If you don't put some work into preventing it, more intelligence can just mean cleverer defences for your irrational beliefs.
How can more intelligence lead to be more likely to defend your irrational beliefs?
See Positive Bias: Look Into the Dark and Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People.
It depends on how seriously they took the conversation.
I completely agree with Jim, the difference between, "I believe God exist" and "God exist" is a debate in itself
I also think that Eliezer should have brought up this point to her attention to really get the response she "believes in"
For many people saying "I believe God exists" is a stronger proposition than "I know God exist"
I'm a little surprised that the lack of evidence for peripheral stories that aren't in the Torah is considered significant, compared to the lack of evidence that Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt.