Reasons 1 - 10

[Lawrence]

obdurate

6 dictionary results for: obdurate
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ob·du·rate [ob-doo-rit, -dyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

[GentleReader9]

I am going to do this although it's frightening to me. Last night I read this whole string and thought about it (well, I may have mainly felt about it, irresponsible a pastime though that is, I admit). I wrote a fairly long installment of my Opus. (There. Now you're as scared as I am and it's fair). I have not the arrogance to put it here in the string, but I made a first Blog entry of it and because it could also have been entitled, "The Lime Jello God of My Daddy: Some Unitelligible Maunderings," I want to admit here that it exists and that I hope Lawrence at least will read it (because he isn't obdurate and so I think he'll understand; I hope he'll find it to be personally, if not functionally a support in the debate.) Oh, and don't worry. I didn't choose "In Love" as the mood for personal reasons involving any of y'all. It was just the closest thing to it out of the choices. I would have said, Sacred Angst. But I always exaggerate, worse than Daffy Duck.

Also, Penelope was right. Reincarnation was a standard part of Christian thinking until the Council of Nicea (I've probably spelled it wrong and you won't believe me...) explicitly made it a heresy in the fifth century AD. It wasn't before. Lots of early Christians believed in it.

[DWill]

The very essence of critical thinking is that not all beliefs, statements, arguments, premises and conclusions are equally reasonable or valid. This is what the field of critical thinking is about

Chris, I'm sure this is generally true, but isn't critical thinking also in essence an applied skill that we use with varying degrees of success in daily life? That's what it is to me, anyway. Now to use this skill well, to what extent do beliefs that we might profess impinge on us? To what extent, that is, do they cut us off from being able/willing to think critically? I strongly feel that just because, by some independent analysis, a person's beliefs might be judged irrational (take the "standard" Christian beliefs as an example, if you wish), does not mean that person has any less ability to use critical thinking than one who professes no such beliefs. Of course it may be the case that religious belief gets in the way of critical thinking, but the non-believer has no lock on rational thinking, either.
What I'd assert is that we should judge another's critical thinking in action. The extent to which he/she might profess irrational religious beliefs really has no necessary bearing on ability to get along in the discipline of critical reasoning. There are, after all, numerous examples of "religious" people who can more than hold their own in rational discussion on a variety of topics.
DWill

[Robert Tulip]

just because, by some independent analysis, a person's beliefs might be judged irrational (take the "standard" Christian beliefs as an example, if you wish), does not mean that person has any less ability to use critical thinking than one who professes no such beliefs.

I don't agree. If a person believes something that has been proven to be impossible, such as the virgin birth, that belief corrupts their entire capacity to think critically, undermining their ability to base their opinions upon evidence. Once we throw away the requirement for evidence in one area we are on a slippery slope to irrationality. As Voltaire said, who believes absurdities permits atrocities. In the sad case of the Roman Catholic church, their absurdities have produced a dogmatic rigidity which may be adaptive in the short term but is not sustainable.

Of course it may be the case that religious belief gets in the way of critical thinking, but the non-believer has no lock on rational thinking, either.

This is a good point, in that the 'non-believer' also must have beliefs as well. We all have to use our judgement to form opinions about matters for which we lack sufficient evidence, such as whether to make investments. The risk is that baseless opinions can easily crystallise into firm belief.

[DWill]

I don't agree. If a person believes something that has been proven to be impossible, such as the virgin birth, that belief corrupts their entire capacity to think critically, undermining their ability to base their opinions upon evidence. Once we throw away the requirement for evidence in one area we are on a slippery slope to irrationality.

I don't agree . I do not have these beliefs, so I'm not able to say, "Look at me, I'm not irrational" (that would be risky anyway).
But just from knowing and knowing about people who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., I can say that there is no basis to impugn their critical thinking ability. As I tried to say, judge this ability in action, not by exhuming someone's store of beliefs and then attacking it as demonstrating a lack of critical thinking.

I realize that we come here to a very hard point of saying when a "belief" is really a belief. In other words, does profession of belief necessarily equate to mental commitment? Does Barrack Obama, seemingly a supremely rational man and a professsed Christian, really believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If he does, I suppose I would be surprised. Then I would agree with you that his critical thinking might be more likely to be colored than in someome without this belief. But he appears to have no such thinking problem. Could he then be guilty of hypocrisy? I suppose, but tend to think not. It is easy enough to view the resurrection metaphorically. And hypocrisy isn't always so bad.

I think many overestimate the force of so-called beliefs, becoming quite alarmed at their very mention. There is often a compartmentalization that happens, in any case, regarding religious beliefs, tending to wall them off from affecting people's daily decision-making.
DWill

[GentleReader9]

If a person believes something that has been proven to be impossible, such as the virgin birth, that belief corrupts their entire capacity to think critically, undermining their ability to base their opinions upon evidence. Once we throw away the requirement for evidence in one area we are on a slippery slope to irrationality.

Since the rules of logic generally are allowed to state that you can't prove a negative, there is no such thing as proving something is impossible. That last phrase sounds like a paradox, I know, but you have to admit it makes a nice koan. It also goes to show how even logic demands we start with some shared premises that will never be able to be made practically, absolutely demonstrated. You can demonstrate how unlikely something is statistically, but since most Christians are saying the Virgin Birth only happened the one time, that doesn't help. Moreover the assertion that one mistake in critical thinking means we can assume the whole thinking process of the person who made the mistake is irrational would really mean everyone is irrational since we all make mistakes. This is probably true, but hardly a basis to discount the whole of what someone says because we dislike their particular flavor of irrationality.

I am referring to this book as "30 Reasons" because Chris is allowed to say people who say they are Christians aren't allowed their definition unless it matches his definition, and if the author of the book is allowed to discount the kind of Christians who read C.S. Lewis or other intellectual Christian theologians because he thinks there are so few of them -- in history there have been many, many more and more diverse Christians than the kind people are considering here -- and if you are allowed to throw out the whole body of someone's thought because they make an assertion you believe has been "proven impossible" (when? how?) then I'm going to say "30 Reasons" instead of "50 Reasons" and we can all agree to act smaller than we are and talk about less than we could possbily be talking about and see who looks biggest in the end. Won't it be fun?

[DWill]

... but hardly a basis to discount the whole of what someone says because we dislike their particular flavor of irrationality.

Now that's pithy. I could have used that a few minutes ago. In my post I said that belief in a seemingly impossible event, such as the ressurection, might incline someone to be less rational acrosss the board. The operative word was "might', but perhaps even that was giving too much credence to that idea of contamination. I will continue to think about it.
DWill

[Chris OConnor]

GentleReader9

Since the rules of logic generally are allowed to state that you can't prove a negative, there is no such thing as proving something is impossible.

This is actually a common misconception about logic. You actually can prove a negative far beyond a reasonable doubt. Take the statement, "There are no elephants in this shoe box" as an example. All one has to do is open the shoe box and see that the shoebox contains no elephants and they have just proved a negative. Of course you could counter with, "Ahh...but maybe there is an invisible immaterial elephant in that shoebox that you could not sense with your sensory organs." If you did I would walk the other way, literally, because I'm not very good at having civil conversations with this sort of person.

Naturally, opening the shoebox and seeing there isn't an elephant in there is not mathematical proof, but it constitutes scientific proof and certainly the everyday sort of proof you and I utilize to navigate through the complexities of life. Could a philosopher argue me in circles with me stuttering and stammering unable to explain how I know the shoebox is elephant-free? I guess so. I've seen it happen here on BookTalk.org quite a few times. But in the end, for all intents and purposes, opening the shoebox, shaking it upside down for a few seconds, and noting that no elephants have fallen out into your lap, leaves a rational person under the impression and with the conclusion that the box didn't and doesn't contain an elephant. A negative has been proven.

I'm aware that we could go back and forth about this issue. My purpose was to show that it is indeed very possible to prove a negative. And with just as simple of an example it is possible to prove something is impossible. If I said, "It is impossible to put a real alive full-size elephant into this shoebox," I would be correct.

People abuse this rule of logic all the time. Yes, it is impossible to prove a claim is impossible if the claim is defined vaguely in an untestable manner. "God does not exist" is a negative statement that cannot be proven to be true. But this is because "God" has been left wide open for interpretation. Also, are we including the entire known universe? How about other universes? Theists have fun with the "you can't prove a negative" that same way they misuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in debates. Clarification is essential, but clarity is not the objective with some debate participants. The objective is to trip their opponent.

It also goes to show how even logic demands we start with some shared premises that will never be able to be made practically, absolutely demonstrated.

Very true.

You can demonstrate how unlikely something is statistically, but since most Christians are saying the Virgin Birth only happened the one time, that doesn't help.

The virgin birth can be countered without resorting to statistics. Just al elementary understanding of animal reproduction, and specifically human reproduction, informs the educated and rational person that babies aren't born without sex (or artificial sex). The virgin birth didn't happen because it is impossible because an egg cell and sperm weren't united, blah, blah, blah. I shouldn't have to go on and I won't.

Moreover the assertion that one mistake in critical thinking means we can assume the whole thinking process of the person who made the mistake is irrational would really mean everyone is irrational since we all make mistakes.

Again, very true. But when a mistake in thinking is pointed out to this same person and they refuse to change their beliefs....? Are they still a clear thinker? When human reproduction is explained to a believer in the virgin birth and the believer brushes it aside should we assume this person is rational?

When a person makes an error in thinking and this error has been pointed out repeatedly and in depth, yet the person clings to the erroneous belief, they are now showing that they might not be such a clear thinker after all. Theists that get into debates are presented with clear scientific facts that challenge their beliefs, yet do not change their beliefs based on the introduction of clear scientific facts. These people are not acting rationally.

I'm aware that theists that believe in the virgin birth are not, by default, morons. They could possible excel in a critical thinking class and in everyday life. But with regards to their religious beliefs they are clearly suspending their critical thinking skills. In these cases the rewards for belief in the impossible or irrational exceed the rewards for disbelief. For their own personal reasons they have opted to ignore the rules of logic and principles of clear thinking, if only for this one issue.

Personally, I find it strange and troubling and a little sad that people are comfortable behaving rationally and reasonably in most areas of life, but when it comes to religion they allow the rational part of their brain to be disengaged. This scares me, quite frankly. But I'm not throwing this people away as irrational nutcases. Religion or religious belief is extremely powerful and I liken it to brainwashing. As much as I'd like to not admit it I think the faithful are almost helpless against the forces of indoctrination. I fault them only when they are bright enough to understand the arguments for and against theism, are exposed to the arguments; yet still cling to religious belief. And when I say I fault them I don't mean I hate or dislike them, but I do believe in personal accountability. When you've been taught about the errors in your thinking and you keep committing those errors at some point you are to blame.

This is probably true, but hardly a basis to discount the whole of what someone says because we dislike their particular flavor of irrationality.

I agree and have never argued this.

I am referring to this book as "30 Reasons" because Chris is allowed to say people who say they are Christians aren't allowed their definition unless it matches his definition,

I don't make such childish arguments. You're taking my words out of context, purposely.

and if the author of the book is allowed to discount the kind of Christians who read C.S. Lewis or other intellectual Christian theologians because he thinks there are so few of them

Again, you're not being fair. The author doesn't discount them at all. He is addressing an audience he chose to address. Not addressing each and every religion or cult on this planet is absolutely essential if the author wants to write a book that will have value to a large audience. Maybe Guy Harrison doesn't devote 4 chapters to Wiccan beliefs because such a book wouldn't sell. There aren't enough Wiccans or people interested in Wicca for such a book. Or maybe Guy Harrison just isn't interested in Wicca enough to write about it. Look at the title of the book. This should be a hint. The book is about "50 reasons." Maybe you're reason or reasons for believing in a god aren't in the 50 he discusses. Read the Intro and you see that he is addressing the 50 reasons most commonly given to him by believers.

[DWill]

Personally, I find it strange and troubling and a little sad that people are comfortable behaving rationally and reasonably in most areas of life, but when it comes to religion they allow the rational part of their brain to be disengaged.

Chris, I'm interested and glad to hear that you don't doubt the ability of religious people to behave rationally in daily life. I know you might have stated this many times, but could you say just briefly what you do see to be the problem with what these people believe? I mean not just that you feel disappointed or that you pity them. I'm assuming that there are larger stakes involved for you. Thanks.
DWill

[Chris OConnor]

Answering your question briefly is the hard part. Which people are you referring to? And what are their beliefs? Would you like me to just bullet-point the dangerous and destructive nature of the major world religions?