Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
Posted by Eclipso
on Sun 1 May 11, 9:48 PM to the Informed_Debate group.
Having read a few of the previous posts in this group, I would like to see the type of minds who gather here conisder the validity of the following thing I've learned.
I used to debate extensively with religious people. The first thing I wanted to do when I realised that there was no god, or anything else supernatural, was drag as many people as I could into the same revelation as I'd just had. Over the years one thing has become abundantly clear when discussing it with them; they almost never change.
I learned the following whilst engaging in these debates, and it almost entirely stopped me from engaging in rational discourse with religious people, and this is what I would like you to consider:
Religious people do not operate on rationalist principles at all. And by this I cannot stress enough that, whilst most of us recognise that they do not adhere to reason consistently, I am suggesting that they do not even have a comprehension of what it is, why we use it or what significance it has compared to other ways of validating argument and evidence. I do not believe that bad reasoning alone would account for the nature of their beliefs, I believe that this is only accounted for by considering a new model in which they literally do not contain the mental structures required to know what it is. If you could consider initially whether or not this model more accurately accounts for rational thinking and give me your views on that, and then consider how, assuming this model to be accurate, we should modify our style of discourse, if indeed discourse is the right thing to do in such a circumstance.
I will also add that it is my personal belief that many rationalists are immensly confused by how reasonable religious people appear to be. I often hear "How can they be reasonable in all areas except religion?" and am inclined to think that many religious people only give off the illusion of appearing rational in other areas, but actually what they're doing is following another doctrine that very closely mirrors what a reasonable person would do, but the actual source of their knowledge is merely repetition and societal expectation. I also believe that using this assumption presents a testable hypothesis, and if anyone wants to extend the debate even further by suggesting how we could falsify my claims I would be interested to hear it.
| 1 May 11, 11:10 PM DominantMind UK(N), 15 mths  |
A. Yawn B. There are plenty of scientists of the highest calibre who also hold religious beliefs - to somehow suggest that there is something wrong with their brains is mildly offensive. C. Zzz
Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words... ad libitum | |||
| 2 May 11, 8:25 AM Ian_2007 UK(N), 4 yrs |
A-hah! This is an ironic post, right? You do realise that this is exactly what they could and probably do write about you? You ought to.
If the behavioralists' experiments have taught us anything, it's that none of operate on rationalist principles. At all. If you believe that you do, then volunteer to take part in some of them, you'll be a valuable data point
That sounds like a good summation of the human condition Reading between the lines, it would appear that you're accusing "the religious" of mimicking rationality so as to trap you in conversation and then evangelise at you (the cup of irony runneth over....). The tiny flaw in your theory should be obvious: it requires rationality to be the default state for humans, and religion to be the late-comer. Otherwise, the religious wouldn't know what it was they were supposed to be mimicking.... Anyone who's cast even a casual eye over late mediæval proofs of the existence of god (and other stuff) cannot fail to be impressed by their rigour. One can disagree vehemently with their chosen axioms, but one cannot fault their logic.
Of course, the quality of debate has declined significantly since then | |||
| 2 May 11, 10:20 AM DominantMind UK(N), 15 mths |
For what it's worth - none of us act rationally, aethiests, agnostics or worshippers of the FSM. Our brains aren't computers, they are accretions of millions of years of evolved responses to particular situations - most of which are more relevant to hunter-gatherers on the African savannah, than t'Internet forums. Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words... ad libitum | |||
| 2 May 11, 10:38 AM ThatAnanke UK(NG), 13 mths |
OP, An awful lot of philosopical terminology that is a little mixed up here. It is difficult to pick out your main point as you just seem to be throwing in words. Forgive me if that seems critical, but in philosophy definitions are key. Words like "validity" have a very specific job to do. Can you summarise in a sentence or two your main point? If you are serious about this discussion and not just baiting, then the ontological arguments are indeed intersting and worthy of discussion. | |||
| 2 May 11, 8:41 PM DancesWithPussycats UK(TW), 7 yrs |
For many (most?) people a cherished belief over-rides rationality. I feel the ability of some religious people to be rational in other areas but irrational about their religious beliefs is similar to the way some patriotic American colleagues could see that GW Bush the man was a crooked little prick, but believed that the President of the USA was unquestionably honest and honourable because he was the President, even when he was GW Bush. International man of mystery | |||
| 2 May 11, 9:29 PM Elan2007 UK(B), 5 yrs |
This old trope keeps being trotted out - So What! Elan | |||
| 2 May 11, 9:32 PM Elan2007 UK(B), 5 yrs |
Errrhhhm - Really!?
Elan | |||
| 2 May 11, 9:33 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
Still waiting for a credible example too... And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | |||
| 2 May 11, 11:03 PM DominantMind UK(N), 15 mths |
How is it a trope? There are scientists who believe in god - it's not a crazy idea. One example - if you have the misfortune to need IVF treatment in the UK, then most of the methods in use have been developed by Lord Robert Winston, who is an observant Jew. His religious beliefs don't interfere with his ability as a scientist, and he fully supports evolution, etc. I personally know many religious doctors, physicists, biologists, geneticists, etc. None of whom would ever let their religion influence the way they apply scientific theory. In fact, they are more likely to reassess their understanding of god based on scientific knowledge rather than the other way around. The 'so what' is that it's a falacy to try and continuosly make out that religion in itself is an enemy of science. Yes, there are religious people and groups that opposed science that appears in their eyes to subvert their beliefs, but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you tar everyone with the same brush. It's an overly simplistic and flawed way of approaching the world. Ok - you don't like religion - we get it. But it's just plain daft to crusade against every person who holds some belief in the cause of championing science and/or rational thought. Personally, I think a bigger current threat to science education and understanding is the massive growth of 'woo', spirituality, healing crystals, homeopathy, etc. (see Ben Goldacre) Make a positive argument FOR science, show what's good about it, why it is the right way of dealing with the vast majority of the challenges we face in this world. And, yes, campaign against religious extremists who threaten to undermine that - but do it in an intelligent way that actually makes some sort of sense. Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words... ad libitum | |||
| 2 May 11, 11:36 PM Elan2007 UK(B), 5 yrs |
It is a so what situation. I am not sure who you addressing in the rest of your text. Elan |
