General > RANT
Why do otherwise bright people beleive stupid things?
EricL:
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---Yet you complain when people are offended when you insult them.
--- End quote ---
Do not! Do not do not do not!!!!!!
I disagree on both counts. It was not my intent to insult anyone and to my knowlege I have not done so. Webster's defines insult as "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence or contempuous rudeness, to afront or demean". I can find nowhere in this topic where I am rude or demeaning and if I was, it was unintentional. But I could hardly make the point of my argument without, well, making the point of my argument and that is that those who beleive things contrary to evidence and refuse to offer a defense of their position are either ignorant or arrogant. That is my claim. It you find that offensive, well then, I apologize, but that is no reason not to make the point.
Additionally, it's quite a stretch to term defense of one's position as complaining....
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---That's not the point. I didn't say that there was anything wrong with debating. The point was you're insulting people, which is a different thing entirely.
--- End quote ---
Was not was not was not!!!!!!
I think the issue you have might be that the term 'arrogant' is generally viewed as deragatory in our society and thus I imagine you might claim that any use of the term, whatever the setting, even when used descriptivly in a logical argument, must therefor be meant as an insult. Perhaps your right and there is no way to even state my premise without giving offense. If so, then so be it, but that would be a pity. Think about that for a minute - that some positions cannot even be articulated without giving offense. What kind of world is that?
Funny. About the only thing I truly find offensive are people who are easily offended...
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---That would be interesting. But can you disprove all accounts of the supernatural, or religion for that matter? I agree that I would suspect most are bogus, but one can't rule out the faint possibility of some cases being genuine. The saying goes, just because it can't be disproven, doesn't mean it exists. But, I'd like to add, that it doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.
--- End quote ---
Certainly I can't (disprove all accounts...). Nor can I disprove the existance of a magical teapot orbiting Mars or an infinity of other equally improbable things one might imagine. Lack of evidence against something does not constitute evidence for it. We all live by probabilities. I will grant you that the probability of any supernatural claim we might choose, no matter how nonsensical, is non-zero. But the evidence overwhelming says that that probability is so vanishingly small as to essentually be zero for all intents and purposes. My claim is that to place the liklehood of the supernatural within even a hundred orders of magnitude of a scientific explanation is irrational and based either in ignorance or arrogance.
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---I don't think its right to put your whole faith into - or even think about - something that probably doesn't even exist, but it works for some people, some people live by it. Don't they have that right?
--- End quote ---
Sure. Everybody has the right to their own opinions. But they don't have the right to their own facts. To beleive something contrary to evidence, people have that right I suppose. I'm just saying that to do so is either ignroant or arrogant...... blah blah blah, I sound like a broken record....
There is a whole other side to this by the way that has to do with cognisant dissonence. Namly, there is good evidence that many people, particulary those who grew up in a religious environment, have problems functioning when their world view is threatened by contrary evidence. Even when they know in their front brain they should change positions on something, evolution v. creationism for example, due to obvious evidence, they can't do it because of how deeply rooted it is and what it would cost them w.r.t. their world view. So to function, they don't rationalize their internal inconsistencies and end up believing contradictory things. They know better, but don't force the issue so they can function. IMHO, this may be part of why some people feel so threatened when their beliefs are contradicted. Forced recociliation of cognative dissonance is physcologically tramatic.
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---Your point is fair, but I do think it is just ignorance. For example, my boyfriend, who is religious, didn't believe in evolution when I first met him. But he was definately not arrogant, just ill-informed. I'm sure if I'd opened up with the same agression you exhibit, he wouldn't have continued the conversation. Instead I explained to him what I knew of theory - which was vastly different from what he had been poorly taught about it - and he's now very accepting of the theory. He may not believe in it, but he's accepting of the likelihood of it being true, and talks about it as matter-of-fact rather than "if it happened...".
--- End quote ---
Your boyfriend is a rarity. As I mention in the first topic, very few people ever change their minds on anything once they hit adulthood, particularly when it comes to their deeply held beliefs in the supernatural.
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---I can tell you're much against the soft approach but if you want your evidence to be heeded, maybe you should use a bit less fire.
--- End quote ---
Yep, I'm forthright to be sure, as I freely admit elsewhere. But in this forum, fire is permitted.
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---The bolded area is what I'm concerned about. See, the thing is there isn't evidence to say that these people are all arrogant. Saying so would mean that they all think they're superior in their beliefs, which is not true at all. Many are very open minded about it.
--- End quote ---
I claim it is arrogant to hold entrenched positions in opposition to evidence when you are aware that evidence exists, whether you have examined it our not. If someone says "I don't know if palm readers are for real, I've never studied the matter and have no clue whether science has anything to say on the topic" then they are truly ignorant, probably about a great many things. They simply arn't aware there is evidence to contradict their beliefs and thus their beliefs are excusable. (Although in today's society, it is becoming harder and harder to claim unawareness of the scientific evidence.) There is nothing necessarily wrong with being ignorant. I am ignorant of a great many things, East Indian Curry recipies not the least. But if someone claims knowledge, to "know" the earth was created in 7 days or that mystics can tell their future by the stars or whetever, and they are aware this violates scientific evidence, even if they have never examined or explored that evidence, then I claim they are arrogant even though as I illustrate in the first post, they may not be aware of the depth of their arrogance.
If your going to hold a belief, then you better examine it and be able to defend it and be willing to change it. Otherwise I'm going to call you arrogant.
In my experience, those that are "open minded" don't pretend to knowledge. They are ignorant and freely admit to such.
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---You are using words - insulting generalizations to accessorize your argument, rather than just biting your tongue and taking the civil approach without being so narrow-minded.
--- End quote ---
Yep, I'm using words though I disagree that they are insulting. What should I use instead? Suicide vests? I've never been one to bite my tongue though I always try to be civil. Besides, if I can't speak my mind in the RANT forum of this board, where can I?
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---not all people who believe in the supernatural or religion stick by their beliefs through pride alone. Many are simply ignorant to evidence, some already accept the evidence (but wuld still like to be keep to their religious beliefs in peace), at the end of the day,
--- End quote ---
Wholy cow, I think I agree with you! Many people do indeed live with cognisant dissonance.
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---people don't deserve name-calling just because they won't change their views to suit you.
--- End quote ---
Do to! Do to do to do to!
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---Besides - faith is a whole different world altogether. Faith is not about scientific evidence, it's about believing in something in the absence of evidence. Sounds silly to you? It does to me too! But for some people it's the very foundation of their lives, the way they can make sense of the world - in many cases alongside science - and why should they have to put up with prejudice just because of a lifestyle choice that harms nobody? (obviously excluding some pushy enthusiasts)
--- End quote ---
I have elaborated elsewhere on my opinion that blind faith is in fact extremely harmful but I won't digress here...
--- Quote from: Trilobite ---(by the way, I have an incidence I'd like you to comment on - about a psychic medium, if you don't mind, can I PM you? A second opinion from the other end of the spectrum would be nice)
--- End quote ---
Of course. Please do so.
Moonfisher:
This is an endless debate, in the end noone is 100% sure of anything, but if you had to pick between theories formulated by a man who traveled and studied nature, a collection of oraly transmitted stories (Get your mind out of the gutter) from about 1938 years ago (That would be the bible) or one of the older books, or believing something that was written by a crazy old lady on wellfare with 50 cats, or a science fiction novelist.... and the list of options could go on.... (If I HAD to pick a religion, I think I would go for confusionism)
I would probably pick Darwin over all of the above, and I wouldn't call myself an anagonist, I would definately call myself an atheist, since I don't believe that any diety exists.
Latelty it seems like a lot of people are afraid to call themselves atheists, because some guy somewhere was realy arogant about it, so now people hate atheists. But I've met a lot more arogant religious people, that just take it for granted that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is either retarded or evil...
In the end you can't prove or disprove anything, all you can do is prove that evolution is possible, and that it's more likely than... well... magic.
And if you think I'm being arrogant by calling it magic.... what would YOU call it ?
Edit :
I almost forgot, the reason atheists are often eager to join this debate is because religious rulers through time have had a nasty habbit of burning atheists whenever they couldn't find someone with other beliefs too burn. I'm personaly relieved that this year the "Christian Democrats" party in my country didn't even qualify to stay in government, since if I did believe in the devil I would believe he worked through religious leaders. As long as religion keeps out of politics and education I usualy stay out of the debate, but the second anyone tryes to tell people what to do or not to do, based on their beliefs, then I can't keep my mouth shut. And if people start arguing that schools should teach X religion because of it's fine moral codex, they're forgetting that any religion can be interpreted freely and often to the point where people with the exact same religion (Usualy one that teaches you never to kill) kill eachother over minute differences in opinion. A religion has nothing to do with moral, most christians don't even know all of the 10 comandments, because they don't care, they'll do whatever they want and find a passage in the bible that can justify it.
Trilobite:
--- Quote ---Do not! Do not do not do not!!!!!! smile.gif
I disagree on both counts. It was not my intent to insult anyone and to my knowlege I have not done so. Webster's defines insult as "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence or contempuous rudeness, to afront or demean". I can find nowhere in this topic where I am rude or demeaning and if I was, it was unintentional. But I could hardly make the point of my argument without, well, making the point of my argument and that is that those who beleive things contrary to evidence and refuse to offer a defense of their position are either ignorant or arrogant. That is my claim. It you find that offensive, well then, I apologize, but that is no reason not to make the point.
Additionally, it's quite a stretch to term defense of one's position as complaining....
--- End quote ---
I don't find it offensive. And I do think either is a beter way to put it rather than just is.
--- Quote ---Was not was not was not!!!!!! smile.gif
I think the issue you have might be that the term 'arrogant' is generally viewed as deragatory in our society and thus I imagine you might claim that any use of the term, whatever the setting, even when used descriptivly in a logical argument, must therefor be meant as an insult. Perhaps your right and there is no way to even state my premise without giving offense. If so, then so be it, but that would be a pity. Think about that for a minute - that some positions cannot even be articulated without giving offense. What kind of world is that?
Funny. About the only thing I truly find offensive are people who are easily offended...
--- End quote ---
So then explain how the use of arrogant, a term which describes the inflated ego and bigotry, is not insulting. I honestly don't know. Your argument is logical, but when you're calling people in real life arrogant for believing in what they do, I personally think that would only be counter-productive, and would only anger people rather than help them see your point of view. You may find that you have reasonable grounds to use that term, but not everyone will see it that way.
--- Quote ---Certainly I can't (disprove all accounts...). Nor can I disprove the existance of a magical teapot orbiting Mars or an infinity of other equally improbable things one might imagine. Lack of evidence against something does not constitute evidence for it. We all live by probabilities. I will grant you that the probability of any supernatural claim we might choose, no matter how nonsensical, is non-zero. But the evidence overwhelming says that that probability is so vanishingly small as to essentually be zero for all intents and purposes. My claim is that to place the liklehood of the supernatural within even a hundred orders of magnitude of a scientific explanation is irrational and based either in ignorance or arrogance.
--- End quote ---
That's exactly what I meant O_o But there's nothing wrong with ignorance, and that was my point.
--- Quote ---Sure. Everybody has the right to their own opinions. But they don't have the right to their own facts. To beleive something contrary to evidence, people have that right I suppose. I'm just saying that to do so is either ignroant or arrogant...... blah blah blah, I sound like a broken record....
There is a whole other side to this by the way that has to do with cognisant dissonence. Namly, there is good evidence that many people, particulary those who grew up in a religious environment, have problems functioning when their world view is threatened by contrary evidence. Even when they know in their front brain they should change positions on something, evolution v. creationism for example, due to obvious evidence, they can't do it because of how deeply rooted it is and what it would cost them w.r.t. their world view. So to function, they don't rationalize their internal inconsistencies and end up believing contradictory things. They know better, but don't force the issue so they can function. IMHO, this may be part of why some people feel so threatened when their beliefs are contradicted. Forced recociliation of cognative dissonance is physcologically tramatic.
--- End quote ---
Maybe so, and I agree with you. But what can you do? If it can come as such a shock for many people to accept other possibilities, would agression even work anyway? Again, it would only be counter-productive.
--- Quote ---Your boyfriend is a rarity. As I mention in the first topic, very few people ever change their minds on anything once they hit adulthood, particularly when it comes to their deeply held beliefs in the supernatural.
--- End quote ---
No disagreements there.
--- Quote ---Yep, I'm forthright to be sure, as I freely admit elsewhere. But in this forum, fire is permitted.
--- End quote ---
Aren't we talking about real-life situations? (that is what you made a rant on, isn't it?)
--- Quote ---I claim it is arrogant to hold entrenched positions in opposition to evidence when you are aware that evidence exists, whether you have examined it our not. If someone says "I don't know if palm readers are for real, I've never studied the matter and have no clue whether science has anything to say on the topic" then they are truly ignorant, probably about a great many things. They simply arn't aware there is evidence to contradict their beliefs and thus their beliefs are excusable. (Although in today's society, it is becoming harder and harder to claim unawareness of the scientific evidence.) There is nothing necessarily wrong with being ignorant. I am ignorant of a great many things, East Indian Curry recipies not the least. But if someone claims knowledge, to "know" the earth was created in 7 days or that mystics can tell their future by the stars or whetever, and they are aware this violates scientific evidence, even if they have never examined or explored that evidence, then I claim they are arrogant even though as I illustrate in the first post, they may not be aware of the depth of their arrogance.
If your going to hold a belief, then you better examine it and be able to defend it and be willing to change it. Otherwise I'm going to call you arrogant.
In my experience, those that are "open minded" don't pretend to knowledge. They are ignorant and freely admit to such.
--- End quote ---
I agree There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something. However, in the case of those who choose to ignore evidence, would you be willing to consider that arrogance has less a part to play, and fear has a bigger part to play?
--- Quote ---Do to! Do to do to do to!
--- End quote ---
.....
--- Quote ---I have elaborated elsewhere on my opinion that blind faith is in fact extremely harmful but I won't digress here...
--- End quote ---
Ok.
Moonfisher:
I don't think blind fate is harmfull, the problem is that you're leaving your most important decisions in life up to someone else... what makes it harmfull is that this person often lived thousinds of years ago and thought the earth was flat, so usualy this person is in no way qualified to make any decisions for anyone.
The best form of faith you can hope for is when people say they believe there's someone or something out there, but they also believe that anyone who claims to know ANYTHING about it is full of sh..... #2.
This is also why I like confusionism, since it encourages people to question confusionisme itself, which is the exact oposite of all other religions I know of.
I guess what I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with blind fate, as long as you don't place it in another human.
EricL:
--- Quote from: Moonfisher ---I guess what I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with blind fate, as long as you don't place it in another human.
--- End quote ---
Okay, sorry, but I have to go here for a moment.
First some terminology. I'm using the term 'blind faith" as opposed to simply 'faith' to distinguish between faith in something for which there is no evidence (and for which there is often evidence to the contrary) v. faith in something for which there is in fact supportting evidence. I have faith in the unconditional love of my daughter. I have faith that the articles in Nature magazine are peer reviewed. This is faith, not blind faith, because although I may not have exhaustivly explored all the evidence for and against personally, what I have explorred provides sufficient evidence for me as a reasonable person to hold these positions.
Second, lets create a spectrum of what people might have blind faith in for the purposes of disucssion. At one end (lets call this the left side) of the spectrum might be blind faith in something fuzzy and comforting but otherwise amorphous and not in violation of any laws of nature or physics. There may be no evidence for it but neither is there perhaps strong evidence against it. This is perhaps the position in which many educated folks who still call themsevles religious find themsevles. It's about the least religous one can be and still fit that description. When pressed, they will admit they don't actually beleive the earth was created in 7 days or in an afterlife or that prayers actually do anything outside the physcological impact on the brain of the prayer or that preists can really turn wine into blood but for some reason (perhaps they were raised that way or or otherwise maitain soem degree of cognisant dissonance) they still like to think there is "something out there" and would still check the box on the form indicating they are in fact religious.
At the other end (right side) of the spectrum is blind faith in things that really, truly violate evidence and scientific priciples. Blind faith that there is an afterlife, blind faith that you will be granted 70 virgins in that afterlife, blind faith that preists really do have the power to turn wine into blood, that kind of thing.
Okay, so, my position is that the degree to which blind faith is dangerous or harmful is directly proportional to where it lies on that spectrum.
If you are near the left side of the spectrum, well, you may not be basing your beliefs and world view on the most logical analysis of the evidence, but the blind faith you have I would not term dangerous or necessary harmful. In fact, it may be mildly benifical (to you) in that there are studies that show that some people may actually benefit from the physcological comfort such beliefs might offer. I'm not one of them, but there is evidence this is the case.
While I'm sure most people on this board are near the left side or off the spectrum entirely (as I beleive that I am) if you are near the other end of the spectrum, I would claim that blind faith is indeed harmful and dangerous for a number of reasons:
1) Holding positions that are contray to evidence with conviction is bascially the definition of irrationality. People have been known to do crazy things such as withhold medical assistance from their dying spouse or mutilate their daughter's genitals because of such irrationality.
2) By definition, you can be convinced of irrational things. Someone may come along and convince you that detonating an explosive vest in a shopping mall or flying an airliner into a skyscraper is the path to eternal salvation.
3) It makes you lazy. "Because god wants it that way" is an easy, convienent answer. Why bother seeking the real answers?
4) If you have power or wealth, actions in support of your blind faith may have far reaching consequences for the rest of us. You may use your TV show to convince millions of people that birth control is evil and thus increase the spread of aids. You may be the president of the US and be more willing to lauch a nuclear strike or invade the Middle East because of your faith in the prophocies.
Remember that a huge portion of the world does not share your enlightened attitude towards blind faith or the supernatural. Billions are on the wrong end of the spectrum....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version