What Can We Know?

In this lecture, Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine and long-time professor, introduces his course “Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist.” He explores the definitions of truth, the methods used to validate claims, and the boundaries of human knowledge.

---

1. Categorizing Truth

Shermer begins by distinguishing between different ways we use the word “truth.” He argues that the goal of science is to move from personal “internal” truths to “external” validated ones.

• Subjective Internal Truths: Personal preferences or feelings (e.g., “Dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate” or “Meditation makes me feel better”).
• Objective External Truths: Claims that can be verified through observation and measurement (e.g., the number of people in a room or the closing price of the Dow Jones).
• Provisional Truth: Shermer’s scientific definition of truth is a claim for which the evidence is so substantial that it is rational to offer provisional assent, while remaining open to new data.

Analytic vs. Synthetic Truths

---

2. The Tools of Skepticism

To navigate a world full of claims, Shermer introduces several foundational principles used by scientists and skeptics:

• ECREE Principle (Sagan’s Principle): “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.”1
• Hitchens’ Dictum: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
• Sagan’s Dragon: A thought experiment illustrating that if a claim (like a dragon in a garage) is made unfalsifiable through “hand-waving” (it’s invisible, it floats, it’s cold), it is indistinguishable from a non-existent dragon
• The Null Hypothesis: The default position that a claim is not true until proven otherwise. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, not the skeptic.

Pinker’s Chapter 4 supplement — epistemic safeguards can be violence safeguards

Pinker uses witch trials, blood libel, and religious persecution to show that standards of evidence have moral consequences. Hidden supernatural agency explains every outcome and therefore no outcome; torture converts pain tolerance into apparent guilt; and mutually incompatible sects can each interpret certainty as a license to eliminate dissent. Once an allegation is unfalsifiable, enemies cannot clear themselves and every new coerced confession can recruit more suspects.

Two compact tests in the chapter belong in a skepticism toolkit. Shakespeare’s Hotspur answers a boast about calling spirits by asking whether they actually come. Francis Bacon points to the missing denominator in a shrine’s pictures of sailors saved after making vows: where are the pictures of those who made vows and still drowned? The broader lesson is not that empirical reasoning automatically produces tolerance, but that falsifiability, comparison groups, public evidence, and acknowledged uncertainty remove important permission structures for persecution. Chapter 4 synthesis · Hidden agency and unfalsifiable accusation, PDF pp. 204–208 (file not included in this release) · Fragile faith and coercive certainty, PDF pp. 208–214 (file not included in this release) · Fallibilism, Hotspur, and Bacon’s missing denominator, PDF pp. 214–215 (file not included in this release)

---

3. Truth and Human Psychology

Shermer addresses why it is so difficult for humans to reach objective truth, focusing on tribalism and motivated reasoning.

• The Post-Truth Myth: Shermer rejects the idea that we live in a “post-truth” era He argues that the moment someone tries to argue we are in such an era, they are using reason and evidence to make a point, thereby validating the existence of truth.
• Virtue Signaling: Many beliefs (on climate change, evolution, or economics) are held not because the individual understands the science, but as a signal of group loyalty.
• Reality vs. Mythology Mindsets: Most people are rational regarding their immediate physical surroundings (reality mindset) but often rely on tribal narratives for remote or complex topics (mythology mindset).

---

4. The “Known Unknowables”

Shermer concludes by identifying four “Mysterion” problems—topics that may be beyond the current (or permanent) reach of human neural architecture:

1. Consciousness: The “Hard Problem” of what it actually feels like to be someone.
2. Free Will: The tension between a determined universe and the feeling of volition.
3. God: Whether a higher power exists or if the concept is conceptually outside of scientific measurement.
4. First Cause: The question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

   “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” — Philip K. Dick

---

The Methods of Science

In this second lecture, Michael Shermer delves into the mechanics of scientific skepticism, defining what it means to “think like a scientist” by focusing on the burden of proof, the nature of belief, and the statistical tools used to differentiate reality from “noise.”

---

1. The Skeptic’s Starting Point

Shermer emphasizes that skepticism is not about debunking for the sake of it, but about applying the null hypothesis: assuming a claim is not true until proven otherwise
He shares data on the prevalence of paranormal and religious beliefs in the general population to illustrate why skepticism is a necessary filter:

---

2. Defining Science and Testing Claims

Shermer defines science simply as a “method to explain the world that is testable and open to change.” He highlights that even famous scientists like Einstein must submit to observation.

The Emily Rosa Experiment

A highlight of the lecture is the story of Emily Rosa, who at age 11 became the youngest person published in a major medical journal (JAMA). She tested “therapeutic touch” practitioners who claimed they could feel a “human energy field.”

• The Setup: A blind test using a cardboard partition.
• The Results: In 280 trials, the practitioners achieved 123 hits and 157 misses.
• The Conclusion: They performed worse than random guessing (50%), failing to reject the null hypothesis.

---

3. Signal Detection Theory (SDT)

Shermer introduces the 2x2 Matrix as a tool for decision-making under uncertainty. This theory helps determine if a “signal” (like a missile or cancer) is real or just “noise” (like birds or a benign blob).

Real-World Applications:

• Nuclear War: Stanislav Petrov avoided a global catastrophe in 1983 by correctly identifying a radar blip as a “False Alarm” rather than an incoming U.S. missile
• Criminal Justice: The system is weighted toward Correct Rejections (acquitting the innocent). Shermer cites Blackstone’s Ratio: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”3
• Covid-19: Public officials had to choose between the risk of a “Miss” (letting a deadly virus spread) vs. a “False Alarm” (shutting down society for a less-lethal threat). Both carry significant human and economic costs.

Signal Detection Theory (SDT) is a framework used to explain how we make decisions when we aren’t 100% sure what we are seeing or hearing. It helps us understand how we distinguish a Signal (the thing you are looking for) from Noise (background distractions).
Think of it as a way to measure not just how good your “eyesight” or “hearing” is, but how you decide to act on what you perceive.

---

1. The Four Possible Outcomes

Whenever you try to detect something, there are only four things that can happen. Imagine you are listening for your phone to ring while you are in a noisy shower:

---

2. The Two Main Factors

SDT says your performance depends on two independent things:

• Sensitivity (d′): This is how clear the signal is compared to the noise. If your phone has a very loud, distinct ringtone, your sensitivity is high (d′ is a large number), and it’s easy to tell the difference. If the ringtone sounds like running water, your sensitivity is low.
• Criterion (Bias): This is your personal “threshold” for saying yes.
  • Liberal Bias: You are expecting a very important call, so you jump out of the shower at the slightest sound. You get more Hits, but you also get a lot of False Alarms.
  • Conservative Bias: You don’t want to get cold for no reason, so you only get out if you are 100% sure. You avoid False Alarms, but you will probably Miss some real calls.

---

3. Real-World Examples

• Medical Screening: A radiologist looking at an X-ray for a tiny tumor. A Miss is dangerous (cancer goes untreated), so the system is often designed to be “Liberal,” accepting more False Alarms (biopsies that turn out fine) to ensure they get every Hit.
• Military Radar: An operator seeing a blip. Is it an enemy plane (Signal) or a flock of birds (Noise)? During wartime, the Criterion shifts to be more sensitive to threats.
• Jury Duty: “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a Conservative Criterion. The law would rather have a Miss(letting a guilty person go) than a False Alarm (sending an innocent person to prison).

---

4. Thinking as Skilled Work

Shermer concludes by arguing that clear thinking is not an innate talent but a practiced skill, similar to playing an instrument or a sport.

“Thinking is skilled work. It’s not true that we’re naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically without learning how or without practicing.” — Alfred Mander

Key Q&A Takeaway:

Shermer critiques public health communication during the pandemic, suggesting that officials like Anthony Fauci failed by not admitting uncertainty. He advocates for Bayesian reasoning—updating the “credence” of your beliefs as new data arrives—rather than sticking to a fixed narrative.

---

How We Make Decisions

In this third lecture, Michael Shermer explores the evolutionary and psychological landscape of human rationality. He moves beyond the circular definition of “using reason” to present a pragmatic, goal-oriented view of how we think and choose.

---

1. Defining Rationality: Knowledge in Service of Goals

Shermer adopts Steven Pinker’s definition: Rationality is the ability to use knowledge to attain goals. * Knowledge:Justified true belief (as discussed in Lecture 1).

• The “Why”: Why do we have goals? Evolutionarily, we are wired to push back against entropy. Our brains are circuitry designed to capture energy, survive, and reproduce—effectively acting as “survival machines” for our genes.

Degrees of Freedom

Shermer uses William James’s classic metaphor to distinguish rational agents from physical forces:

• Iron Filings: Move in a straight line toward a magnet. If a card is placed between them, they press “idiotically” against it. They have almost no degrees of freedom.
• Romeo & Juliet: If a wall is built between them, Romeo scales the wall or finds a circuitous route. The end is fixed, but the path is modified.

---

2. The Philosophy of Choice: Free Will vs. Free Won’t

Shermer tackles the debate between determinism (the universe is a chain of cause and effect) and libertarian free will(the belief in a “ghost in the machine”).

• Compatibilism: Shermer and Daniel Dennett argue that free will and determinism can coexist. As organisms become more complex, they gain more “degrees of freedom.”
• The Cartesian Theater: Shermer rejects Dualism (the idea of a soul separate from the body). He argues there is no “Mini-Me” inside the brain watching a screen; there is only the “Electric Meat” of the brain.
• Free Won’t: Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet found that brain activity precedes conscious choice. However, Shermer highlights the left dorsal frontal medial cortex (DFMC), which allows us to veto an impulse. We may not have “free will” to start an urge, but we have “free won’t” to stop it.

---

3. Reason as the “Slave of Passions”

Shermer revisits David Hume, who argued that reason is merely a tool. Reason can tell you how to get what you want, but it cannot tell you what to want.

• Proximate Goals: Immediate desires (e.g., eating a cookie for the sweet taste).
• Ultimate Goals: Evolutionary reasons (e.g., caloric capture for survival).

Time Preference: Present vs. Future Self

Life is a series of Marshmallow Tests (delaying gratification).

• The Conflict: Your “Current Self” wants a reward now; your “Future Self” wants the long-term benefit.
• Odyssean Self-Control: Like Odysseus tying himself to the mast to hear the Sirens without jumping overboard, we can use Choice Architecture (or “Nudges”) to manage our future behavior (e.g., setting out gym clothes the night before or auto-deducting 401k contributions).

---

4. Meaning vs. Happiness

Shermer provides a breakdown of how psychologists distinguish between a “happy” life and a “meaningful” one.

“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” — David Hume

---

5. Rational Ignorance

Sometimes, it is rational to not know something. Examples include:

• Blinded Experiments: Preventing bias in science or medicine.
• Sequestered Juries: Preventing external contamination of a trial.
• Game Theory: In a game of “Chicken,” it is rational to make the other person believe you cannot see them or cannot change course (locking the steering wheel) to force them to swerve.

---

Cause and Effect

In this fourth lecture, Michael Shermer shifts the focus from how thinking goes wrong to how thinking goes rightthrough the scientific method. He focuses on the mechanics of Causality, the difference between Correlation and Causation, and the power of Bayesian Reasoning.

---

1. The Logic of Causality

Shermer revisits David Hume to define how we perceive cause and effect.

• Constant Conjunction: When X happens, then Y happens (e.g., fire then heat). We naturally infer a causal connection.
• The Evolutionary Bias: Using the example of “Lucy” (an early hominid), Shermer argues we are evolutionarily wired to make Type I errors (False Positives).
  • If you assume the wind is a predator, you stay skittish but survive.
  • If you assume a predator is just the wind, you die.
  • Result: Humans are “pattern-seeking animals” who often see causal connections where none exist.
• Counterfactual Causation: Hume’s refinement—if X had not happened, would Y still have occurred? (e.g., “Chanticleer the Rooster” believed his crowing caused the sun to rise. If he stays silent and the sun still rises, the causal link is broken).

---

2. Correlation vs. Causation

Shermer warns against the “Biography Bias” and “Survivorship Bias,” where we look at successful people (like Steve Jobs) and assume their specific actions caused their success, ignoring the thousands who did the same and failed.

The Math of Connection

• Correlation Coefficient ($r$): A value between $0$ (no relationship) and $1$ (perfect relationship).
• Coefficient of Determination ($r^2$): By squaring the correlation, we find the proportion of variation explained.
  • Example: Height and Weight have an $r=0.7$. Squaring it ($r^2=0.49$) tells us that roughly 50% of weight is explained by height. The other 50% comes from “confounding variables” like diet, genes, and exercise.

---

3. The Gold Standard: How to Prove X Causes Y

To move from simple association to proof, scientists use specific structures:

1. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT): Randomly assigning subjects to groups to eliminate self-selection bias. (Difficult in social sciences/nutrition).
2. Natural Experiments: Studying events that happen anyway.
   • North vs. South Korea: A perfect natural experiment. Same people, same geography, but different political/economic systems. The result is visible from space (lights) and in biology (South Koreans are 4-6cm taller due to diet).
3. Blue Zones: Studying why people in specific areas (Loma Linda, Okinawa) live decades longer by looking at their shared “confounding variables” (community, exercise, diet).

---

4. Bayesian Reasoning: Updating the Mind

Shermer introduces Bayes’ Theorem as a way to assign probabilities to claims rather than just “Yes” or “No.”

• Priors: Your initial belief/knowledge before seeing new evidence.
• Credence: Your confidence in a belief (e.g., “I am 90% sure this is true”).
• Cromwell’s Rule: Never assign a probability of $0$ or $1$ to anything. Leave room for the possibility that you are mistaken.

The Breast Cancer Paradox (Base Rate Neglect)

Shermer presents a classic problem given to medical students to show how we fail at Bayesian thinking:

• Base Rate: 1% of women have breast cancer.
• Sensitivity: The test is 90% accurate if you have it.
• False Positive: The test is wrong 9% of the time if you don’t.
• The Question: If a woman tests positive, what is the chance she has cancer?
• The Intuition: 80-90%.
• The Bayesian Reality: 9%. (Because the disease is so rare, the number of false positives in the 99% of healthy women far outweighs the true positives in the 1% of sick women).

---

5. Case Study: UFOs and UAPs

Applying Bayesian reasoning to the alien visitation claim:

1. Ordinary Terrestrial (95%): Balloons, swamp gas, lens flares. (High Base Rate).
2. Extraordinary Terrestrial: Secret Russian/Chinese drones. (Low likelihood—we would see them in current wars).
3. Extraordinary Extraterrestrial: Alien visitors. (Extremely low Prior—no verified base rate).

   “Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it’s not in this world.”

---

Mistakes Our Brains Make

In this fifth lecture, Michael Shermer explores the “dark side” of cognition: the specific ways our brains are hardwired to make mistakes. He argues that most “irrational” beliefs stem from adaptive mental shortcuts (heuristics) and flaws in how we perceive statistics and memory.

---

1. Cognitive Heuristics: Mental Shortcuts

Shermer demonstrates three powerful biases that distort our judgment:

• The Anchoring Effect: Our tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”).
  • Experiment: Groups primed with the number 100 estimated there are 48 countries in Africa; those primed with 10 estimated only 30. (The actual number is 54).
• The Availability Heuristic: We judge the probability of an event by how easily examples come to mind, usually driven by news media.
  • Reality Check: People fear plane crashes and terrorism, even though car accidents and lightning strikes are statistically far more deadly.
• The Representativeness Heuristic: Judging the probability of an event based on how well it matches a stereotype or prototype.

---

2. The Conjunction Fallacy

This is the logical error of assuming that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.

The Linda Problem

Subjects are told Linda is a bright, outspoken philosophy major concerned with social justice. They are asked what is more probable:

1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
   The Math:
   The probability of two events occurring in conjunction ($P(A\cap B)$) is always less than or equal to the probability of either event occurring alone ($P(A)$).
   $$P(\text{Bank Teller}\cap \text{Feminist})\le P(\text{Bank Teller})$$
   Despite the math, most people choose option 2 because it “sounds” more like Linda.

---

3. Memory is a Construction, Not a Recording

Shermer highlights the work of Elizabeth Loftus, proving that memory is highly fallible and easily manipulated.

• False Memories: In the “Lost in a Mall” experiment, subjects were convinced they had a traumatic childhood event that never actually happened simply through leading questions.
• The Recovered Memory Movement: In the 1990s, therapists accidentally “planted” memories of abuse in patients using leading techniques, leading to tragic, false convictions.
• Facilitated Maps & Genre/Communication: A “moral panic” where facilitators unknowingly moved the hands of autistic children (the ideomotor response), creating messages the children didn’t actually write.

---

4. Statistical Innumeracy

Shermer identifies several ways we fail to understand randomness and probability:

• The Monty Hall Problem: In the game show Let’s Make a Deal, you should always switch doors. Your initial choice has a $1/3$ chance, but the remaining door has a $2/3$ chance of holding the prize.
• The Law of Truly Large Numbers: With billions of people and billions of events, “miracles” and “death dreams” are statistically inevitable.
• Regression to the Mean: Exceptional performances (like a Sports Illustrated cover) are usually followed by a return to the average, not because of a “curse,” but because of basic statistics.
• Confirmation Bias: We “notice the hits and forget the misses.”
  • Example: The “Paul is Dead” urban legend or the “Bible Code”—finding patterns in noise because you are specifically looking for them (Anomaly Hunting).

---

5. Summary Table: Why We Are “Irrational”

---

 Skeptical Thinking Cheat Sheet

---

1. The Anchoring Effect

The tendency to rely on the first piece of information encountered.

• The Trap: Your brain uses a random number or price as a “hook” to judge everything that follows.
• Skeptical Question: “If I hadn’t seen that first price/number, what would I independently calculate this to be worth?”
• Action: Look for the “second-best” or “middle” option first to reset your internal scale.

---

2. The Availability Heuristic

Judging probability based on how easily a memory comes to mind (usually via news/media).

• The Trap: Dramatic, scary events (shark attacks, plane crashes) feel more likely than common, boring ones (car accidents, heart disease).
• Skeptical Question: “Am I afraid because this is statistically dangerous, or because it’s a high-definition memory from the news?”
• Action: Check the Base Rate. Look for the “boring” statistics before making a safety decision.

---

3. The Conjunction Fallacy

Thinking a specific “story” is more likely than a simple fact.

• The Trap: Adding details to a claim makes it feel more plausible (the “Linda Problem”), but mathematically, every detail added lowers the probability.
• Skeptical Question: “Does adding this detail actually make the event more likely, or does it just make the story sound better?”
• Action: Apply the Null Hypothesis. Strip the story down to its simplest components.

---

4. Representativeness Heuristic

Stereotyping a person or event based on a “prototype.”

• The Trap: Thinking a person must be a certain thing because they look or act like your mental image of that category.
• Skeptical Question: “Am I looking at the actual data of this individual, or am I just matching them against a mental stereotype?“

---

5. Regression to the Mean

Exceptional events are usually followed by average ones.

• The Trap: Thinking a “curse” happened because an athlete performed worse after a great game, or thinking a medicine worked because you felt better after being at your “sickest.”
• Skeptical Question: “Was that peak performance/sickness just an extreme outlier that was naturally going to return to normal anyway?“

---

6. The Confirmation Bias

Noticing the “hits” and forgetting the “misses.”

• The Trap: Remembering the one time your “death dream” came true but forgetting the 1,000 times it didn’t.
• Skeptical Question: “What would it take to change my mind? Am I actively looking for evidence that proves me wrong?”
• Action: Conduct a “Red Team” Review. Try to argue the opposite side as strongly as possible.

---

Why We Believe Conspiracies

Conspiracy Theory Thinking
In this sixth lecture, Michael Shermer explores the world of conspiracies and conspiracy theories. He moves beyond the stereotype of the “tinfoil hat” and treats conspiracism as a rational problem of signal detection: how do we tell the difference between real secret plots and paranoid fantasies?

---

1. Defining the Terms

To study the subject scientifically, Shermer first destigmatizes the language:

• Conspiracy: Two or more people plotting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others illegally or immorally.
• Conspiracy Theory: A structured belief about a conspiracy.
• Conspiracist: Someone who holds a conspiracy theory.
  Shermer argues that because real conspiracies exist (e.g., Watergate, Lincoln’s assassination), being a “conspiracy theorist” is actually a rational starting point for investigating the world.

---

2. Who Believes and Why?

Conspiracism is not a marginal phenomenon. Shermer provides concrete data to show its prevalence:

Belief Statistics (U.S. Data)

The Educational Gap

Education serves as a significant (though not perfect) filter for conspiratorial thinking:

• No High School Diploma: 42% score high on conspiracism scales.
• Postgraduate Degree: 22% score high on conspiracism scales.

---

3. The Psychology of Conspiracism

Shermer identifies several cognitive “traps” that make us prone to believing in plots:

• Monological Belief System: If you believe one massive conspiracy (like a UFO cover-up), you are statistically more likely to believe others (like 9/11 truthers).
• Proportionality Bias: The belief that a “big” event (like the death of a Princess or President) must have a “big” cause We struggle to accept that a “lone nut” could kill a world leader.
• Patternicity & Agenticity: We evolved to find meaningful patterns in noise (patternicity) and to assume those patterns are caused by an intentional agent (agenticity).
• Hindsight Bias: Looking at intercepted intelligence memos after an event like Pearl Harbor and saying, “Why didn’t they see it?” while ignoring the thousands of other “noise” memos that led nowhere.

---

4. The Three Primary Drivers

Shermer categorizes why people hold onto these theories even when evidence is thin:

1. Proxy Conspiracism: The theory is a “stand-in” for a deeper truth. (e.g., Anti-vaxxers might not be right about the specific science, but their belief is a proxy for the very real phenomenon of “regulatory capture” by Big Pharma).
2. Tribal Conspiracism: Beliefs serve as a “virtue signal” for group loyalty. You believe it because your “tribe” (political or social) believes it.
3. Constructive Conspiracism: An evolutionary “better safe than sorry” approach. Because some conspiracies are real and deadly, our brains prefer the cost of a False Positive (believing a fake plot) over the cost of a Miss (being killed by a real one).

---

5. The Conspiracy Detection Kit

To help separate fact from fiction, Shermer offers a “Baloney Detection Kit” for conspiracies:2

• The Scale: How many people would need to be involved to pull this off? The more people required, the more likely someone would have talked (whistleblowers).
• The Complexity: How many things have to go exactly right? (e.g., 9/11 “controlled demolition” theories require thousands of variables to align perfectly).
• Whistleblowers: In the age of WikiLeaks and Snowden, why hasn’t a single person come forward with physical proof (memos, pay stubs, blueprints)?

  Shermer’s Rule: “Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure it’s not in this world.”

---

6. Real Conspiracies in History

Shermer validates the skeptic’s caution by listing confirmed conspiracies:

• Operation Northwoods: A proposed (but rejected) CIA plan to stage fake terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to justify invading Cuba
• COINTELPRO: Confirmed FBI program to spy on and blackmail domestic activists like Martin Luther King Jr
• MKUltra: A CIA program exploring mind control and chemical interrogation (LSD dosing)
• Operation Paperclip: Secretly bringing Nazi scientists to work for the U.S. government after WWII

---

Miracles, Myths, and Meaning

Religion
In this seventh lecture, Michael Shermer applies the tools of skepticism and Bayesian reasoning to the realm of the divine. He explores the definition of miracles, the historical context of religious claims, and the psychological role of myths as “Oppression-Redemption” narratives.

---

1. Defining Miracles: Hume’s Maxim

Shermer distinguishes between colloquial miracles (unlikely events like winning the lottery) and literal miracles (violations of natural law). He relies heavily on David Hume’s 18th-century logic:

• Hume’s Definition: A miracle is a “transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity.”
• Hume’s Maxim: No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it tries to prove.
• The “What’s More Likely?” Test:
  • Is it more likely that a dead man truly came back to life?
  • Or is it more likely that the witnesses were mistaken, hallucinating, or the story was altered over decades of retelling?

---

2. The Historical Jesus and the Resurrection

Shermer treats the claims about Jesus using the same evidentiary standards as any other historical event.

• Ordinary Claims: That a man named Yeshua (Jesus) existed and was crucified by the Romans. These are historically plausible and accepted by many secular scholars.
• Extraordinary Claims: Walking on water or rising from the dead.
• The Law of Large Numbers: Of the 100 billion people who have lived before us, all of them died, and none have been scientifically verified to return. The claim that one did requires evidence proportional to the 100-billion-to-one odds.
• The Delay of Accounts: According to biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, the earliest Gospel (Mark) was written at least 40 years after the events, by someone in a different country, based on oral tradition. Other accounts may be as late as 90 years after the fact.

---

3. Comparative Mythology

Shermer argues that religious stories often follow universal patterns that predate the Bible.

• Virgin Births: Myths of Dionysus, Perseus, Buddha, Romulus, and others include virgin births.
• Dying-and-Rising Gods: Osiris (Ancient Egypt) was said to be the judge of the dead who rose again 2,400 years before Jesus.
• The Functions of Myth (Joseph Campbell):
  1. Mystical: Maintaining a sense of awe.
  2. Explanatory: Providing an image of the universe.
  3. Normative: Validating a moral order.
  4. Guidance: Guiding an individual through life stages.

---

4. Oppression-Redemption Myths

Shermer identifies a pattern where oppressed people concoct “Messiah” stories to regain a sense of control and hope.

---

5. Conclusion: Heaven as a State of Mind

Shermer concludes by suggesting that taking these stories literally misses the point. He references Luke 17:21, where Jesus says, “The Kingdom of God is within you.”

• Secular Immortality: Shermer critiques tech billionaires obsessed with “uploading” consciousness, noting it misses the point of living now.
• Final Insight: Heaven is not a “paradisiacal state in the next world,” but a “way to be” in this one.

---

The Question of God

In the final installment of the Skepticism 101 series, Michael Shermer tackles the most enduring question in human history: the existence and nature of God. He applies the same psychological, statistical, and scientific lenses used in previous lectures to deconstruct why we believe and what “God” might actually be in a vast, advancing cosmos.

---

1. Defining the Positions

Shermer begins by categorizing the various ways humans relate to the concept of a higher power.

---

2. Why Do People Believe?

Belief is rarely the result of a single factor. Shermer identifies a “rat’s nest” of causal variables:

• Genetics: Behavior genetic studies on twins suggest that about 50% of the variance in religious attitudes is accounted for by genes (temperament and openness).
• Neuroscience: Our brains are hardwired for Patternicity (seeing meaningful patterns) and Agenticity (assuming those patterns are caused by an intentional agent).
• Parental Influence: Belief is highly predicted by parents’ beliefs, unless there is high parental conflict, which often leads to rejection of the parents’ worldview.
• Attribution Bias: Shermer’s research found a fascinating disconnect:
  • People say they believe because of intellectual reasons (e.g., “The design of the universe”).
  • People say others believe because of emotional needs (e.g., “It brings them comfort”).

---

3. The Philosophy of Proof

Shermer reviews and rebuts St. Thomas Aquinas’s five famous proofs from the 14th century:

1. The Prime Mover / First Cause: Everything has a cause, so there must be an “Uncaused Cause.”
   • Shermer’s Rebuttal: If God doesn’t need a cause, why does the universe? This is a “special pleading” fallacy.
2. Possibility and Necessity: It is possible for things not to exist; therefore, something “Necessary” must exist to start it all.
   • Shermer’s Rebuttal: This hits an epistemological wall where language fails. A “Necessary” God is a concept, not necessarily a physical reality.
3. Design (Teleological): Nature looks designed (like a watch), so there must be a designer.
   • Shermer’s Rebuttal: This is a category mistake. We can see watchmakers making watches; we have no base rate for “universe-makers.” Furthermore, “Who designed the designer?” leads to infinite regress.

---

4. The God Gambit (Shermer’s Last Law)

Shermer concludes the course by bridging the gap between theology and science fiction. He references Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

The Extraterrestrial Comparison

If we encountered a civilization 100,000 years ahead of us (a blink in cosmic time), they would likely be:

• Type II or III on the Kardashev scale (controlling the energy of entire stars or galaxies).
• Capable of creating life, manipulating genomes, and perhaps even engineering “baby universes” in a lab.

  Shermer’s Law: Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.
  If you do not understand the underlying technology, an entity that can create a world is, for all practical purposes, a deity. This moves the “God” question from the realm of the supernatural to the realm of advanced naturalism.

---

5. Final Thoughts on the Course

Shermer ends by emphasizing intellectual humility.

• Cromwell’s Rule: Never assign a probability of 0% or 100% to anything.
• The Goal of Skepticism: It is not to be a “debunker,” but to build a “Constitution of Knowledge” where we value truth over tribal comfort.
• Living Now: Whether there is an afterlife or not, the “Kingdom of Heaven” is best viewed as a state of mind and a commitment to human flourishing in the present.

---

Suggested Books for Retention:

• Michael Shermer: The Moral Arc (on moral progress) and The Believing Brain.
• Steven Pinker: Rationality and Enlightenment Now.
• Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene.
• David Deutsch: The Beginning of Infinity.