Squeers ignores the complete logical disproof of his argument, and just instantly returns to trying to cover for the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the global warming scam, by diverting the argument to ad hominem ad nauseam.

Squeers and Poirot's argument against Ridley is not logically about confirmation bias: it's logically that he's a class enemy.

Overall, an excellent article as was Matt's book The Rational Optimist. The point about confirmation bias is well made.

My one quibble is his throw away line regarding religion: Matt faults religion as a possible pseudo science because it "explicitly claims
that there are truths that can be found by other means than observation and experiment". Actually Christianity is quite happy to be judged on the evidence, in fact the New Testament and early church collected evidence and did all they could to publicise that evidence. Now we may not like that evidence because it doesn't fit with our naturalism (confirmation bias) but Christianity has never been shy about it's evidences. Christianity has always been about faith and reason, hand in hand, much like scientists (and atheists for that matter).

What 'evidence about Christianity/God are you talking about exactly, David Palmer?

The Bible was written by some mere mortals thousands of years ago.
Why do so many people believe what these men wrote?

No one has ever proven they have 'seen' or 'spoken to this mythical God.
Having 'faith in this mythical being is therefore a big stretch of the imagination.

That fact makes the core beliefs of Christianity a psuedoscience ......

Here's a three-part study of Ridley's contributions.
I'm sure you'll all deny your confirmation bias and give it some attention : )

http://skepticalscience.com/Ridleyriddle1.html

Hi Susanonline,

You are reflecting your own confirmation bias (as I do). Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago. We have abundant testamentary evidence from a vast array of sources stretching back to second century AD plus the history of the church bearing witness to the incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

All I'm saying, as a mild disagreement with Matt, is that Christians take that evidence extremely seriously for if there is no evidence for the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, then the cause is lost.

You are entitled to argue with the evidence (though I have doubts on the basis of your comment that you have tried to assess such evidence). What you are not entitled to reject is Christians' own declared understanding that Christianity is based on certain historical evidences - open to study/reason - concerning Jesus Christ.

I would have to say that Christianity is based more on faith than it is on reason. In fact, when it comes to the biblical accounts of creation, it would be correct to say that it has been scientifically proven to be absolutely erroneous. It doesn't even remotely fall into the classification of pseudo science. It is about the same standard as the aboriginal stories of the dreamtime.

David