Why do Americans believe in God despite all the evidence?????

[Alcon]

Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

How many atheists do you meet that claim it is?  Most claim that lack of proof is evidence of the irrationality of belief, and that if people were consistent with metaphysical claims lacking belief -- instead of giving special treatment to those common in their culture -- they'd be extremely dismissive of evidence-free metaphysical claims.

I'm sure there are some completely dumb atheists who make this claim literally, but Dibble is certainly not one of them; are you maybe shadowboxing a little?

[Alcon]

As to the question of "Why do Americans believe in God despite all the evidence?" the reasons why people believe are not particularly different from why anyone believes in such things.

Primarily it comes down to the rather simple fact that most people don't actually understand what constitutes legitimate evidence and are not trained to think critically. As such they can be more easily fooled into believing arguments that merely sound good when they aren't examined thoroughly or just appeal to them emotionally. Those raised to be religious also had the idea ingrained into them, and various psychological factors make it difficult for many of them to change their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

As to why America in particular is more religious than most other developed Western nations, that might be a little more complicated. I doubt the people in those other nations are really that much more versed in critical thinking than most Americans are, and as such I suspect many of the non-believers are apatheists and are just non-believers because they weren't raised to be religious and their culture doesn't put a heavy emphasis on being religious. One reason for that which may be valid is that the states had official religions for long enough that those religions didn't really have to compete aggressively for followers at most points, and by the time freedom of religion was popularized their influence just faded out. America on the other hand had no state church, so the various beliefs had to compete more aggressively to both keep and attract followers, and so a more religious environment developed and was sustained and people were raised more religiously.

So, Duns Scotus and Rene Descartes were unable to think critically?

I should let John speak for himself, but I doubt he's arguing that all theists are thoughtless -- just that, as a general tendency, poor analytical skills make people more likely to accept whatever they were taught is true by default.  If we were a nearly-unanimously atheist country, I'm sure those with excellent analytical skills would be more likely to be theists.  

There are certainly very thoughtful people who have believed in God.  There are also very thoughtful people who have believed in things we know now to be objectively wrong.  I really doubt that any thoughtful atheists asserts that there are no intellectually honest and rigorous theists, although there are probably a lot of atheists who would probably suggest that the less open-ended theists might "over-believe" relative to the intellectual strength of their arguments.  (Like in pretty pretty much every more-than-slightly-complicated debate out there)

Edit: I'd also note that there are plenty of otherwise stellar analytical thinkers -- atheist and theist -- who have delivered some completely lame arguments about the existence of God.  People compartmentalize, both in terms of what they're rational about, and in what they devote their mental energy to.

[Alcon]

Could you both define what you mean by "critical thinking"?  I had like a three-paragraph post typed up about critical thinking, first principles and the ontological argument, and then I realized I can't figure out a possible consistent definition of "critical thinking" going on here.

[Alcon]

We know logic works because it's been demonstrated to work consistently when applied correctly using demonstrated premises.

Yep...which is what I'm waiting on amccollum to get into.  The first principle here isn't really "logic is right"; it's "we can observe the world and makes inferences from our observation" -- that first principle has lots of caveats, but I think it's way different than, say, asserting the first principle of "Einstein's cosmology is true," or whatever.

I'll get into that more if it ends up relevant

[Alcon]

We know logic works because it's been demonstrated to work consistently when applied correctly using demonstrated premises.

Yep...which is what I'm waiting on amccollum to get into.  The first principle here isn't really "logic is right"; it's "we can observe the world and makes inferences from our observation" -- that first principle has lots of caveats, but I think it's way different than, say, asserting the first principle of "Einstein's cosmology is true," or whatever.

I'll get into that more if it ends up relevant

I don't have a problem with logic at all.  However, Dibble raised the issue that if critical thinking raises issues that the thinker ignores, then his critical thinking is subpar or his theory is not entirely based on critical thought.

If you rely on critical thinking, you are relying on logic, in large part.  That would raise the problem as to whether logic is accurate or reliable.  Since logic can't be proven, then to ignore the problem would necessarily render all critical thought (by Dibble's definition) as subpar and no theory could be entirely based on critical thought.

Again - as a disclaimer - I don't have a quibble with the efficacy of logic, I only point out a problem of circular reasoning in Dibble's analysis of critical thinking.

Right, but by pointing out that logic entails a first principle argument (that observation is proper, or however you want to put it), exactly what are you trying to cast doubt on?  Do you seriously challenge the first principle underlying logic?  Do you expect others to substantiate this first principle before presenting an argument?  I mean, I understand the theoretical attack you're making, but to what ends?

Ossum!  I couldn't imagine how to further state you are the ultimate arbiter of objective truth than that response!  You might as well have stated, "I never said I was the smartest man ever, but I am."

No...in the context of his argument, that's not what he's saying at all.  He's implying you are misunderstanding the relationship between observation, logic and methodology, and...

Another way of saying, "we used logic to prove logic, therefore we know logic works".

...You are.  Because, here, you are acting like logic is the same concept as observation, and as if logic could not be justified based on the first-principle assumption that observation is proper/useful/whatever.  Since Dibble could easily argue that he has every reason to assume you make this first-principle assumption, it attacks the formal part of your argument pretty effective.  (Tbh, I still am not quite clear on how you guys are using "critical thinking" as distinct from observation or logic.)

Surprisingly, I would accept that definition, but would emphasize the term "process."  I am also a little surprised Dibble admits even his ilk ("so you'll of course get some disagreement from time to time even among critical thinkers") will occasionally disagree amongst themselves.  

How is that remotely surprising, considering his argument...? :S