Questions to Atheists about God-of-the-Gaps

[Bradski]

Bradski: When you stated that you are an atheist I took you at your word, but I find this is not what you mean.
Quote: post # 64 by Bradski: "and lastly, what do I know about God, Ah, I see because I now describe myself as an atheist, you have assumed that I knew nothing about him (God) "

What is one suppose to assume when you trust that the person is being truthful, who calls himself an atheist? You didn’t add any modifiers, or qualifiers to your description of yourself.

When you explain the convincing evidence you find so compelling that eliminates all doubt in maintaining your position- in calling yourself an atheist, and not even considering the possibility of the supernatural unless you see it for yourself . (not giving any credence to personal testimony, even with witnesses) And when you give the true reasons for calling yourself a (supposedly) atheist I’ll give you may compelling reason why I know “levitation” is a fact, even though I have witnesses ( of course you are not one of them so why accept the evidence from others) I am reminded of the saying "for nonbelievers, no argument or reason is adequate, for believers no argument is necessary

Thanks, yno. But I’m not here to perform for you. This thread is not titled: ‘Why Bradski Describes Himself As An Atheist’. If you think that I’m going to go through a lifetime of experience, complex philosophical questions and personal internal debate so that you might deign to give me evidence for a party trick, then you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If it’s the one I can do (I’ll check it lunchtime), then it does look impressive. Not exactly floating around the room, but I have had people think there was a hidden wire somewhere. As you said, it is ridiculously easy to fool people.

I sat at a table with a professional magician a few years back with a mate of mine. The two of us watched him like hawks. Never took our eyes off him. Not for a second. We had both his hands in full view at all times. There was no WAY he was going to fool us. And what he did we still talk about. It was actually quite a shock seeing something that every fibre of your body says is impossible. The hairs literally stood up on the back of my neck and I actually went a little cold. It was unnerving. We were in denial all afternoon (there was no WAY he did that!).

A simple conjuring trick. And two reasonably mature, reasonably intelligent men, expecting trickery, watching for sleight of hand and sitting literally in front of a young guy with a pack of cards and some glib patter were utterly fooled.

That is why all those “reported” and “witnessed” miracles are meaningless. All those very intelligent observers who are taken in because they are untrained in the most important field there is: “the field of deception and misdirection”. I always laugh when someone talks about the “trained” doctors, who find no natural explanation for the “miraculous” healings at Lourdes. Ask a stage magician, and the deception will be revealed.

 

[Bradski]

“She Went in Haste” is probably one of the more comprehensive and objective of the publically available entry points. It quotes a lot of primary documentation.

I would explain to you what a partial levitation means were it not for your continued jejeune attitude above which doesn’t yet warrant my free generosity. So if you cannot work that out due to an intelligent yet less than sincere mind just read the material for yourself.

Well, the events described on pages 203, 345, 589 and 602 don’t seem to be well supported and the villager’s daughter mentioned on page 415 and the older boy on 480 are hardly what you might describe as reliable witnesses. And partial levitation is just that. Unless we have substantial proof of full levitation, then I’m going to discount anything described as partial or incomplete or indeed any description where the person was seen as not having fully left the floor.

I can’t see that this adds anything to the discussion unless you have anything more substantial to add. I think the evidence presented is too weak to be considered. As did the Vatican.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, the events described on pages 203, 345, 589 and 602 don’t seem to be well supported and the villager’s daughter mentioned on page 415 and the older boy on 480 are hardly what you might describe as reliable witnesses. And partial levitation is just that. Unless we have substantial proof of full levitation, then I’m going to discount anything described as partial or incomplete or indeed any description where the person was seen as not having fully left the floor.

I can’t see that this adds anything to the discussion unless you have anything more substantial to add. I think the evidence presented is too weak to be considered. As did the Vatican.

Thanks for the exhaustive 4 minutes investigation and reflection on this starting point source material.

Why don’t you go looking for more primary sources indicated by the Book. I said it was a starting point for you. Its sad you concentrate on full levitation and that levitating while reclining only on heels isn’t good enough for you. You completely overlook all the other phenomena recorded in the book by a huge variety of witnesses.

Here is more focussed testimony from a primary witness I sourced within 30 secs of tracking a ref on the topic of Garabandal levitations alone.

ourlady.ca/info/de%20la%20Riva/delaRiva19.htm

No doubt you will poo poo it because its from a priest, amongst others.
And yet many priests were initially opposed to such superstition … until they actually went to Garabandal at that time .

As I say, there were numerous examples of impossible partial levitations of this nature witnessed by groups of people who provided names and written testimony together.

Clearly nothing will be acceptable to you unless reported by an adult non-believer complete with checking hoop. What you really mean is that the only sure evidence that will convince you of a gap is…if you see it with your own eyes…and even then I don’t think that will be enough.

To say that these simple young children were putting on cunningly staged and highly skilled magical shows almost every 2nd day when large groups with many sceptics watched and followed them in their trances starts to get more ridiculous than the gap you try to deny.

So, as predicted, your apriori denial of scientifically inexplicable gaps is clearly at work in denying the large amount of corroborating primary testimony and material wrt preternatural phenomena at work there.

I have no idea if it is to be explained by God, the devil, or from cosmic potential of the human mind itself…but its not at all unreasonable to conclude that sufficient testimony exists that the inexplicable did take place there.

You appear as prejudiced in your “atheism” as any superstitious Christian in their signs of God under every rock and stone or self-proclaimed prophet.

 

[Bradski]

I have no idea if it is to be explained by God, the devil, or from cosmic potential of the human mind itself…but its not at all unreasonable to conclude that sufficient testimony exists that the inexplicable did take place there.

OK, sounds reasonable to me.

From now on, any time we can furnish enough witnesses to an event, it will be safe to assume that something did happen as described by those witnesses. I’m happy to agree with that and I assume you are as well. Unless you need to qualify what we’ve just agreed, is it OK as it stands?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

OK, sounds reasonable to me.

From now on, any time we can furnish enough witnesses to an event, it will be safe to assume that something did happen as described by those witnesses. I’m happy to agree with that and I assume you are as well. Unless you need to qualify what we’ve just agreed, is it OK as it stands?

Bradski I think you have issues.
Take care.

 

[Bradski]

I’m sorry, but you don’t agree with what you have just proposed? But isn’t this your argument for determining if something has happened? Find people who say that they actually saw it happen?

I can’t honestly see what else you require from me other than to agree with you in the way we can determine these type of things. Unless you think that we might get someone quoting any number of so called ‘credible witnesses’ for things that we both agree are spurious, I can’t see a problem with it.

But thanks anyway for the heads up on how we all should determine the truth of these matters. I can’t wait to try it out on someone. Maybe quote a few of the lines you wrote above so that the right person gets the credit for it.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sorry, but you don’t agree with what you have just proposed? But isn’t this your argument for determining if something has happened? Find people who say that they actually saw it happen?

I can’t honestly see what else you require from me other than to agree with you in the way we can determine these type of things. Unless you think that we might get someone quoting any number of so called ‘credible witnesses’ for things that we both agree are spurious, I can’t see a problem with it.

But thanks anyway for the heads up on how we all should determine the truth of these matters. I can’t wait to try it out on someone. Maybe quote a few of the lines you wrote above so that the right person gets the credit for it.

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy”, don’t you think?

 

[Bradski]

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy”, don’t you think?

We just came out of the trees, Tony. There is so much we don’t know, we don’t even know that we don’t know it.

 

[tonyrey]

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy", don’t you think? We just came out of the trees, Tony…

That sounds like a miracle, Brad! Any reason why we happened to be there? Or was it a fluke?

There is so much we don’t know, we don’t even know that we don’t know it

Then how do you know there is so much we don’t know we don’t even know that we don’t know it? Or are you guessing?

 

[ynotzap]

We just came out of the trees, Tony. There is so much we don’t know, we don’t even know that we don’t know it.

But we know that we know, I agree with B.H. you have unresolved issues. And I know who can resolve them, do you? You appear as one who has been hurt deeply, and you can be truthful when you want to be, but perhaps a hardness of heart has set in. It’s a very likely experience for us humans, Ah, but it doesn’t have to be that way, but who has ears to hear, and understand. To watch humanity suffer is to suffer when one is given a heart of flesh for a heart of stone. And I know a Master Magician who can.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But we know that we know, I agree with B.H. you have unresolved issues. And I know who can resolve them, do you? You appear as one who has been hurt deeply, and you can be truthful when you want to be, but perhaps a hardness of heart has set in. It’s a very likely experience for us humans, Ah, but it doesn’t have to be that way, but who has ears to hear, and understand. To watch humanity suffer is to suffer when one is given a heart of flesh for a heart of stone. And I know a Master Magician who can.

“Discuss topic not each other,” but maybe that rule is only applied when the non-Catholics are making uncomfortable observations about the Catholics. Lets test it out, since it seems we’re getting away with things in this thread:

I think sentiments like YNotZap’s are the reason so many religious people think that atheists are angry people. Zap’s attitude is incredibly condescending and presumptuous. People who are sympathetic to Zap (i.e. other Christians) are likely to interpret his opinions as some combination of piety and zeal, but anyone on the receiving end would naturally find it patronizing. It should be no surprise when someone on the receiving end of a sentiment like this one responds angrily, but many religious people seem shockingly deaf to their own tone.

It reminds me of the saying that if everywhere you go smells, maybe you should check your shoes. Zap probably goes around giving atheists this sort of holier-than-thou spiel, and he thinks the reason no one listens is that atheists are angry people. Unfortunately, he has forgotten to check his shoes; he is actually doing a disservice to Catholicism by antagonizing people with his spiel. In his quest to remove the sliver from his brother’s eye, he has failed to notice that his message is not one calibrated to make his audience feel his charity or other Christian virtues. His message sounds like an attempt to win, to convince other people that he is holy and clever and a cool Catholic. His message is “I know more than you, am happier than you, and a better person than you.”

I am not usually antagonized by these sorts of things, simply because I grew up around them and I know that the people who make them are not usually being deliberately antagonistic. But after getting myself on the receiving end, I suddenly realized how pretentious the messages I’d previously admired sounded to those people not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, there are times when I have a hard time believing people like Zap could be so tone deaf they don’t realize how they sound to others.

 

[ynotzap]

I

“Discuss topic not each other,” but maybe that rule is only applied when the non-Catholics are making uncomfortable observations about the Catholics. Lets test it out, since it seems we’re getting away with things in this thread:

I think sentiments like YNotZap’s are the reason so many religious people think that atheists are angry people. Zap’s attitude is incredibly condescending and presumptuous. People who are sympathetic to Zap (i.e. other Christians) are likely to interpret his opinions as some combination of piety and zeal, but anyone on the receiving end would naturally find it patronizing. It should be no surprise when someone on the receiving end of a sentiment like this one responds angrily, but many religious people seem shockingly deaf to their own tone.

It reminds me of the saying that if everywhere you go smells, maybe you should check your shoes. Zap probably goes around giving atheists this sort of holier-than-thou spiel, and he thinks the reason no one listens is that atheists are angry people. Unfortunately, he has forgotten to check his shoes; he is actually doing a disservice to Catholicism by antagonizing people with his spiel. In his quest to remove the sliver from his brother’s eye, he has failed to notice that his message is not one calibrated to make his audience feel his charity or other Christian virtues. His message sounds like an attempt to win, to convince other people that he is holy and clever and a cool Catholic. His message is “I know more than you, am happier than you, and a better person than you.”

I am not usually antagonized by these sorts of things, simply because I grew up around them and I know that the people who make them are not usually being deliberately antagonistic. But after getting myself on the receiving end, I suddenly realized how pretentious the messages I’d previously admired sounded to those people not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, there are times when I have a hard time believing people like Zap could be so tone deaf they don’t realize how they sound to others.

I can’t say I am surprised at Japanese Kappa’s reaction, especially when I thought one of his presentation was rather humble and well thought out, and I h aven’t changed my mind no matter how he reacts or feels about me. I know he doesn’t know me or my experience. I can only deal with a problem when people are truthful, I am very fallible, and will admit it. But I also know other are as well. When people are handicapped, and we all are from birth , by that I mean, lack the grace of God in their lives, and what that means, and what it meant in my life. And yes what God showed me (and it doesn’t matter to me what anyone may think) I follow my beliefs, and suffer for it from people, it brings out the unpleasant in them, and I know this. I receive all kinds of negative reactions, and it doesn’t come as a surprise. I am 83 and will meet my Maker in the near future, and if I don’t know what life is about by now, I am hopeless. But I know I am not hopeless, but I see many who are hopeless. a person would have to be intellectually blind not to understand, or see it. I also know that just because we think we are right, doesn’t mean we are right, there is a spiritual blindness there they know nothing about, but I am aware of it. And trying to bring them to that truth, I sometimes try to correct the situation which I don’t have the power to correct, only God can correct it. So if some find me a problem, or disturbing, I am sorry for that If they find me condescending to those of my own belief, that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand or have compassion for those who do not believe or understand as I do, but when people show a kind of belligerent attitude,or some uncharitable attitude, or an arrogant attitude, I try my best to get at the cause, to help them. I am convinced if Jappanese Kappa really knew me, that his opinion would change, like I said, it doesn’t matter to me unless I did him wrong, or anyone else. I expect such reactions, they are never pleasant, but Jesus warned me. (I probably lost most of the world on that statement) But that doesn’t matter either. After all this is a Catholic Forum. I kept it on track, about God and the gap, and the supernatural, but i found so many discrepencies in Bradski’s replys, and sought the answers, I guess Japanese Kappa didn’t. There are reasons why people think what they think, and I was not condescending to Blue Horizon because I agreed with him, not because he is a Catholic. Japanese Kappa. If you followed some of my posts with Blue Horizon, we had our differences, we agree where we can, and disagree were we must. You are a hardware engineer, and think like one, and I respect and admire that, but there is a gap there. I don’t apologize for my understanding, such as it is, but I do apologize for any uncharitableness I may have caused, I am not aware of it.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Here is more focussed testimony from a primary witness I sourced within 30 secs of tracking a ref on the topic of Garabandal levitations alone.

Most of us understand that the weakest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony, due to the vagaries of human perception and the observer’s susceptibility to bias. With that said however, we’re fortunate enough to have photographic evidence from Garabandal.

The most famous example of which can be found on this website:

whatisgarabandal.wordpress.com/2014/08/

It’s the image of a young girl who is purported to be levitating.

Witnesses at the time, and even many believers who examine the photograph today, swear that the girl in the photograph is levitating. However, to any unbiased observer, the photograph depicts nothing that could reasonably be described as levitation. Not even partial levitation. But what it does do is give us a guide as to what observers at the time identified as levitation. Using this guide it seems reasonable to assume that what many observers identified as levitation wasn’t levitation at all. Even the written description of Conchita’s levitation bears a striking similarity to what we see in this photograph, leading us to justifiably question whether that too was simply an overzealous misinterpretation of the event.

Supplementing eyewitness testimony with photographic evidence leads the unbiased observer to conclude that there were most likely no actual levitations at Garabandal. It also leads one to the conclusion that people who continue to argue for such levitations in spite of the evidence, are unduly biased, and their opinions on any subsequent “supernatural” events should be gauged in the light of such bias.

Rightly or wrongly, if I find your judgment questionable in one instance, then I’m far less likely to trust it in any subsequent instances. That’s just simple human nature. We tend to trust those with whom we agree, and we tend to agree with those in whom we trust. The problem for many people is that when it comes to the supernatural we simply can’t trust your evidence. Why? Because in spite of your protestations to the contrary, you have none. None that holds up to objective analysis anyway. It only takes so many instances of having to refute spurious claims of the supernatural before one turns a deaf ear to them. If you’re going to make claims for the supernatural, then you sure as heck better have some darn good evidence, otherwise you’re just another brick in the wall.

 

[ynotzap]

Who s

I’m not sure how old you are but I could take a stab at this and say that there is a possibility that I was a Christian for longer than you have been. There may also be a chance that I have also spent more time studying Christianity than you have. I may be wrong on both counts, but each statement should give you a ball park idea of where I’m coming from.

I am 83, and have been a Catholic all of my life, wrong again. Why can’t you say whether you were a Christian, and also spent time studying Christianity? Is this some kind of a game? If you studied Christianity, then you should understand the the Vatican has an archive of miracles, and Saints, and what it took to be canonized. How can you come to the truth, if you are really concerned about it, and not be sincere and open about it. You can always deny what anyone might say if you choose not to believe anyone. I have been accused of making this a personal thing and not keeping it on track, and other things. This is where a discussion with you leads.

 

[Bradski]

Why can’t you say whether you were a Christian, and also spent time studying Christianity? Is this some kind of a game?

Is this some sort of therapy session? Would you like some potted history on my home page or a CV I could send you so that you have a clearer picture of who I am? What on earth has it got to do with you whether I was a Christian or not? I actually thought long and hard before I even listed myself as an atheist because I know very well that people then automatically make assumptions about me which are invariably incorrect.

To give you an example, I used the term ‘my partner and I’ in another thread a couple of weeks ago and almost every poster assumed from that point on that I was gay. Well, that tended to polarise opinion. A gay atheist trying to make an argument? Well, whatever he says must be wrong.

Here’s an idea. You can give it a go or not. To be honest, I’m really not that interested. But how about you read what I write and try not to read between the lines. I try to put some thought into what I write and make it as clear as I can. You shouldn’t have any problem in understanding what I mean to say. If you do, ask, and I’ll try to make it clearer.

Then you can respond to that and cut out the psychoanalysing.

 

[ynotzap]

Thanks, yno. But I’m not here to perform for you. This thread is not titled: ‘Why Bradski Describes Himself As An Atheist’. If you think that I’m going to go through a lifetime of experience, complex philosophical questions and personal internal debate so that you might deign to give me evidence for a party trick, then you are sadly mistaken.

I don’t expect you to perform, just to fill the gaps that are apparent in your discussion about God, and the supernatural. Nor do I expect you to go through a life time of experiences.

How could a party trick cause all of those reactions you had, apparently with a deck of cards (I assume) Are you sure it was a trick? Do you have a scientific answer, a logical one? Why did you say "No Way! And why use the word “conjure” Do you see where I’m coming from? And I can safely assume that I had more experience with the supernatural and God then you have, (am I supposed to be ashamed of that J.K) You see when I hear one who calls himself an atheist, I automatically give him credit for being intelligent as a human, not that he is informed of the truth. I understand human nature to the degree that I know within our nature there is a desire to know the truth, even a liar doesn’t desire to be lied to, and a child asks “Why”, and a scientist explores. I also know where this desire leads, the purpose of this desire. The end of this desire is God, who is the truth, and who we were created for. “Only a fool says there is no God” or a person who had a complete lobotomy, but that is speaking from the “Supernatural”, I do not believe in such a thing as a “pure atheist”, not as long as he is an intellectual human. I know the supernatural exists, and it’s Creator, the God of the Gaps. Science is good, but it doesn’t go far enough, it doesn’t transcend to the spiritual, they do not even know the nature of a “thought” (This statement is on track J.K.) I am not a stealth arian, here to please!

 

[ynotzap]

Is this some sort of therapy session? Would you like some potted history on my home page or a CV I could send you so that you have a clearer picture of who I am? What on earth has it got to do with you whether I was a Christian or not? I actually thought long and hard before I even listed myself as an atheist because I know very well that people then automatically make assumptions about me which are invariably incorrect.

To give you an example, I used the term ‘my partner and I’ in another thread a couple of weeks ago and almost every poster assumed from that point on that I was gay. Well, that tended to polarise opinion. A gay atheist trying to make an argument? Well, whatever he says must be wrong.

Here’s an idea. You can give it a go or not. To be honest, I’m really not that interested. But how about you read what I write and try not to read between the lines. I try to put some thought into what I write and make it as clear as I can. You shouldn’t have any problem in understanding what I mean to say. If you do, ask, and I’ll try to make it clearer.

Then you can respond to that and cut out the psychoanalysing.

Then don’t give me cause, give open honest answers, and again, quit playing games.
Read your own statements, and study your own answers again.

 

[Bradski]

Supplementing eyewitness testimony with photographic evidence leads the unbiased observer to conclude that there were most likely no actual levitations at Garabandal.

You could almost draw a straight line graph correlating the amount of definitive evidence for a proposed miraculous event and the number of people who say it’s categorically true.

Anything that happened two thousand years ago and was seen by a couple of people and then written about decades later? Definitely happened. Seen by thousands but no photographs? Yes, I guess we could run with that. A recent miracle with photographic evidence? Mmm…let’s talk about the last one instead (are you saying that thousands of people were all fooled/mad/delusional/lying!).

How could a party trick cause all of those reactions you had, apparently with a deck of cards (I assume) Are you sure it was a trick? Do you have a scientific answer, a logical one? Why did you say "No Way! And why use the word “conjure” Do you see where I’m coming from?

Actually no.

I’m trying to illustrate that even when you KNOW it’s a trick, even when you KNOW there is a simple explanation for it, even when you KNOW that it isn’t really ‘magic’, you can still be fooled. Even when you KNOW you are being fooled. If you want something to be true, it takes a hell of lot less evidence to convince than if you were your normal, everyday, run of the mill sceptic. Surely you understand that. You must.

Obviously you know that people who do these type of illusions for real – I mean professional illusionists, are not doing them using supernatural means. But they can fool us all, just as the guy with the cards did to me. It’s impressive because we don’t know how it’s done. So if you see something that looks supernatural and you can’t see a natural explanation and you expect and WANT it to be supernatural, then what do you really think will happen…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Most of us understand that the weakest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony

Testimony is by its very nature a prudential and probable source of knowledge like most things in the past or at a distance when we were not actually there ourselves.
This is not the essential issue.

With that said however, we’re fortunate enough to have photographic evidence from Garabandal.

I find your way of talking here strange.
You assume photographic evidence is all things being equal more certain in communicating knowledge of a past truth/event. On what basis? Photos can be edited or be deceiving just as much as your biased witnesses can they not.
And, if we really want to turn up the sceptic volume control, how do we know the photo actually is of the time and people and place it purports?
I suggest the main way we know, and accept much of the coercion of testifying artefacts still relies on human testimony about those artefacts.

Witnesses at the time, and even many believers who examine the photograph today, swear that the girl in the photograph is levitating. However, to any unbiased observer, the photograph depicts nothing that could reasonably be described as levitation. Not even partial levitation.

The pseudo legalistic/scientific phrases cannot disguise the fact that you are calling on personal omniscience here to make your claim. “To any unbiased observer” is just plain silly. Obviously the 2D photo by itself is not 100% coercive, it is you who assume that such artefacts can and need to be. Lets face it, if Loli here (whose sister I interviewed when doing my own personal research) were floating above a house you would say the photograph’s been doctored . Which of course would be possible.

But what it does do is give us a guide as to what observers at the time identified as levitation. Using this guide it seems reasonable to assume that what many observers identified as levitation wasn’t levitation at all.

OK, lets get this straight. A static less than clear 2D picture of a single incidence of a partial-levitation gives you a better view of what the testifying witnesses observed in a 3D setting, with their own eyes, under moving conditions over a period of time, and from different angles … and indeed for some of them on multiple occasions?
And you are an unbiased viewer and they are not?

I would like to hear what you have to say about the bridge incident (to say nothing about all the other phenomena observed there).
How about the Seers running backwards down the steep rocky paths with the young men of the village often unable to keep up. And when they did they were exhausted and the breathing of the girls was normal?

Part. your approach here is flawed.
The evidence of “gaps” here ultimately is the testimony of the many corroborating witnesses. To try and use a photo (that nobody has said alone proves the levitation) to prove the testimony is mistaken is rather clumsy sorry.

There were many different types of partial levitation reported. The photo you “evidence” is not even one of the more spectacular ones reported.

Even the written description of Conchita’s levitation bears a striking similarity to what we see in this photograph, leading us to justifiably question whether that too was simply an overzealous misinterpretation of the event.

Do some more research and read the details of other witnesses. This is what a single photo cannot see. There were many differences with Conchitas.

Supplementing eyewitness testimony with photographic evidence leads the unbiased observer to conclude that there were most likely no actual levitations at Garabandal.

That’s the problem, you are attempting to replace a mass of varied eye-witness details and testimony with a 2D single photo you allege is more coercive in its own self-testimony which you assert is clearly seen as not even a partial-levitation. And if anyone disagrees with your interpretation of the picture they are not un-biased.

Pleease give me and others here a break from such uncritical self-bias.