# Ideological Turing Test **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887 "2011-07-13T16:29:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/81 "2012-06-23T22:44:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would the moderators allow a volunteer Christian to start a thread along these lines? An “Ask the hypothetical Atheist” thread where she/he argues with those of the Christian persuasion? I’d volunteer. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/82 "2012-06-23T22:53:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d volunteer. I don’t get it. Are you proposing to defend atheism, or challenge the tenets of all theist comers? If the former, there’s nothing to defend. Atheism is a lack of belief. Do you propose to defend not believing in certain things? If the latter, well I guess I don’t understand the point. What is the difference between an atheist claiming that certain Christian beliefs are illogical, and someone of some non-Christian faith doing the same? IOW, atheists not particularly better suited to attack any particular religious faith, except perhaps on a universal principle of requiring tangible evidence before belief. And that doesn’t sound like much of a debate. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/83 "2012-06-23T23:09:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > In any case, the lady who converted probably did for the same reason anyone converts. She ignored rationality and did what she wanted to. There are a great many benefits to faith (for the individual, it costs society quite a bit). It lets you not have to deal with death and the loss of loved ones. It lets you think that you deserve all the good things in your life and will overcome all the bad things. It says that there is justice in the world, and that eventually, everything will balance out. It lets you pretend that you’re going to exist forever in bliss and death is nothing to fear. > > It’s attractive, so of course people do it. . I’ve an issue with this concept. You don’t convert because you want to and/or because it puts your mind at rest. Yes, if I were to believe that bad guys would eventually have their comeuppance, that I would see again my father, that death is unimportant, I probably would be happier. But I can’t just decide to believe that any more that I can decide to believe in Santa Claus on the basis that it would be nice to get a present for Christmas. You can’t “decide” to believe (of course I can conceive a scenario where such a thing would happen, but it would be a bit convoluted and would involve someone who never has really thought much about religion). You might wish you would believe, but you can’t chose to, regardless how beneficial it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/84 "2012-06-23T23:14:40Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I don’t get it. Are you proposing to defend atheism, or challenge the tenets of all theist comers? I don’t get it either - are challengers going to ask things like “would you state publicly that you’d be happy to take a dump in a toilet shaped like Jesus?” or other iconoclastic tests to see if someone is “really” atheist? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/85 "2012-06-23T23:17:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t have a copy ahndy to check, but I recall Richard Feynman describes in [one of his books](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You're_Joking,_Mr._Feynman!/) trying to pin down Yeshiva students in this way and finding it extremely difficult, since they’d been well-trained in defending their faith. So? For one Yeshiva student, there are 1000 people who don’t know the first thing about their own religion. They still are true believers. So, knowledge or ability to advance sound arguments is irrelevant for determining who believes and who doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/86 "2012-06-23T23:18:18Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > … but you can’t chose to, regardless how beneficial it seems. Didn’t Pascal claim to do precisely that? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/87 "2012-06-23T23:20:54Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’ve an issue with this concept. You don’t convert because you want to and/or because it puts your mind at rest. Yes, if I were to believe that bad guys would eventually have their comeuppance, that I would see again my father, that death is unimportant, I probably would be happier. But I can’t just decide to believe that any more that I can decide to believe in Santa Claus on the basis that it would be nice to get a present for Christmas. > > You can’t “decide” to believe (of course I can conceive a scenario where such a thing would happen, but it would be a bit convoluted and would involve someone who never has really thought much about religion). You might wish you would believe, but you can’t chose to, regardless how beneficial it seems. You value rationality. I would suggest that the lady the OP is about doesn’t. She wants to believe, and all these nice people around her believe. So crush those doubts into a ball and swallow them. Anyone who examines the issue rationally will see that there is no evidence for any supernatural belief system, other than some misguided and most likely self-deluded people making unsupported claims. But plenty of folks come to religion as adults. Meaning that there must be some strong benefit to overcome mental inertia. A member of this board has stated he came to religion after growing up atheist. I suspect he was a very, very shallow atheist, who wasn’t one based on reasoning, but apathy. If atheism isn’t something come to by reason, there is nothing to fight the _pervert-in-the-van-with-candy_ nature of religion. Without the underpinnings of rationality, atheism is just a preference. And preferences can be overcome with will. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/88 "2012-06-24T03:40:30Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I would think the usefulness of the ideological turing test is to get past the point where the person or people you are debating believe you do not UNDERSTAND their arguments and positions. If you can play back to them their own perspective, not just repeating their key points but showing that you genuinely get it, can make new assertions from THEIR perspective, make connections, elaborate on things, etc, until they agree that you seem to be understanding them, THEN when you disagree you can move on to look for a point of departure. It may be easier to agree to disagree in a respectful and friendly manner, something that’s difficult when you feel that the person or people you’re arguing with just don’t GET IT. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would the moderators allow a volunteer Christian to start a thread along these lines? An “Ask the hypothetical Atheist” thread where she/he argues with those of the Christian persuasion? > [@Bricker](#): > > I’d volunteer. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I don’t get it. Are you proposing to defend atheism, or challenge the tenets of all theist comers? > > If the former, there’s nothing to defend. Atheism is a lack of belief. Do you propose to defend not believing in certain things? > > If the latter, well I guess I don’t understand the point. What is the difference between an atheist claiming that certain Christian beliefs are illogical, and someone of some non-Christian faith doing the same? IOW, atheists not particularly better suited to attack any particular religious faith, except perhaps on a universal principle of requiring tangible evidence before belief. And that doesn’t sound like much of a debate. What I thought was of interest was AHunter’s idea: “I would think the usefulness of the ideological turing test is to get past the point where the person or people you are debating believe you do not UNDERSTAND their arguments and positions.” ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/89 "2012-06-24T03:59:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What I thought was of interest was AHunter’s idea: “I would think the usefulness of the ideological turing test is to get past the point where the person or people you are debating believe you do not UNDERSTAND their arguments and positions.” Atheists and theists get to that point in virtually every thread on the subject. You and I probably have different understandings of who is not understanding who, or is it whom? What is the point? FYI, the original OP link describing the concept is no longer working, so I can’t read about it. So, can you describe the point of a Turing test that doesn’t involve a computer simulating human intelligence at any stage in the process? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/90 "2012-06-24T06:32:43Z")
Speaking of Turing tests, does anyone know how to access Google’s Turing doodle? I didn’t get a chance to finish it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/91 "2012-06-24T07:37:08Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Atheists and theists get to that point in virtually every thread on the subject. You and I probably have different understandings of who is not understanding who, or is it whom? What is the point? > > FYI, the original OP link describing the concept is no longer working, so I can’t read about it. So, can you describe the point of a Turing test that doesn’t involve a computer simulating human intelligence at any stage in the process? Briefly: can a theist, via message board posts, explain the atheist position in a away that is indistinguishable from an actual athirst, and can an atheist explain the theistic position in a way indistinguishable from the believer? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/92 "2012-06-24T08:14:31Z")
Why would it be a challenge for a theist to fake being an atheist, aside from some kind of moral qualms about denying their faith? A reasonable atheist position consists of, “Show me measurable evidence of the existence of your god.” There is no belief to defend. OTOH, for an atheist to fake being a theist offers a whole lot of complications. First, there are many flavors of theist – which type is to be faked? And does the supposed theism of the two parties need to be the same? What if the atheist fakes being a Muslim to a Christian? Or a Lutheran to a Catholic? How is a Catholic supposed to detect a fake Lutheran? And, in a thread here, where all participants would actually know you are a genuine theist pretending to be an atheist, what would the thread actually demonstrate? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/93 "2012-06-24T08:20:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Speaking of Turing tests, does anyone know how to access Google’s Turing doodle? I didn’t get a chance to finish it. [Here you go](https://www.google.com/doodles/alan-turings-100th-birthday). In general, you can access a list of all the past logos by clicking “I’m Feeling Lucky” with an empty search. ETA: Wait, that’s actually not a useful link… Shit, I don’t know then. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/94 "2012-06-24T18:42:34Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Why would it be a challenge for a theist to fake being an atheist, aside from some kind of moral qualms about denying their faith? A reasonable atheist position consists of, “Show me measurable evidence of the existence of your god.” There is no belief to defend. :dubious: Rationality, the belief in the efficacy of a mindset that anchors itself in verifiable propositions, materialism, skepticism, positivism, empirical data, occam’s razor… ?? It is an entire worldview and mindset. Many atheists do not get the impression that theistic people with whom they come in contact understand or appreciate these standards or see any reason to base a worldview around them. ---
**Author:** ![tapu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@tapu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tapu)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/95 "2012-06-24T23:28:11Z")
To restate what I understand from Jas09, above: It is the nature of religion that it is not rational. Since the religious side can not be completely argued logically (as it takes faith–which is the opposite of reason in this sense), the Turing test approach is not a valid way to explore the issue. The poor rationalist will be in exactly the same place the religious finds themselves–saying that it is “the answer” based on that they believe it to be so. Of course, if the goal of the ITT applied to religion is to understand each other’s point, then that should do. But when you say “exploratory” I think it has to result in each other seeing the rational (reasoned argument) in the other’s position. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887/96 "2012-06-25T09:55:24Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > :dubious: > Rationality, the belief in the efficacy of a mindset that anchors itself in verifiable propositions, materialism, skepticism, positivism, empirical data, occam’s razor… ?? > > It is an entire worldview and mindset. Many atheists do not get the impression that theistic people with whom they come in contact understand or appreciate these standards or see any reason to base a worldview around them. This is a problem a lot of arguments have. Technically atheism does just mean lack of belief in God, whether that belief is rationally based or not. Someone who doesn’t believe in God because some Christian treated him poorly is still an atheist, even though his reasoning is irrational. But this isn’t how atheism is usually used in the context of arguments, except as a rhetorical defense. Atheism is treated as a worldview, with all those characteristics you mention. The only one of those I reject is positivism, and that’s enough for me not to be an atheist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ideological-turing-test/588887.md?page=4)