galiel

Tell that to people dying from AIDs in South Africa because their president believes that it is not caused by HIV. Tell that to quadraplegics in the US whose hope for spinal cord repair has been set back at least five years because of objections to stem cell research. Tell that to people who drag gay men to their deaths behind pick-up trucks. Tell that to schools that receive inadequate local funding because voters can't see the significant long-term property-value implications of good local education while they myopically focus on individually insignificant short-term tax-cut gains. Tell that to people who will permanently lose liberty in order to gain the illusion of short-term security. Tell that to people who don't think learning to understand statistics is important, so they have no objective means for evaluating the success or failure of a given policy. "Matter little", indeed. I can scarcely think of anything that matters more.

Actually, the folks you mention are not happy, not as long as they haven't imposed their way of life and view of reality on everyone else. To say "rationalism and logic" do not "suit" everyone is disingenuous. Rationalism and logic suits everyone when they use it to decide whether to keep their eyes open when crossing the street. It suits most people (with the possible exception of Christian Scientists, and even then not consistently) when they are brought to a "scientifically" biased emergency room, where "rational and logical" doctors work tirelessly to save their life. The only thing irrational, illogical points of view (which is the alternative to rational, logical points of view) serve is a palliative for personal anxiety, at the expense of the rest of society.

Interesting that someone who justifies unscientific points of view makes a factual claim about "human nature". Without objective science to go by, what common frame of reference can all people have?

I don't seek to "break it apart" for anyone. What evidence do you have to support the premise that thinking illogically is a good thing? What common ground exists for agreement among all people if not empirical evidence and the rules of logic? And what argument can you make that differentiates between blind faith in a religious dogma and blind faith in a political dogma?

Amen-Moses

It is sarcasm, note the shades man.

Of course everyone reading the OP is going to say "that doesn't refer to me" whilst at the same time probably noting your own dogmatic assertions (at times) as identifying you as being the very type of poster you seem to be complaining about.

I thought that was obvious, no?

Amen-Moses

Wyz_sub10

I would disagree with your assumption to begin with. Most atheists I know are the very same sorts who denounce sceances, ghosts, ESP, Uri Geller and alien abductions.

There are, of course, atheists who adhere to a political ideology that they sometimes apply to every situation they see, but I don't think being an atheist makes you immune to being opinionated.

I see this political "dogma" in a number of people on this board. It may indicate a lack of critical thinking when it comes to an issues for which we have a strong bias, but I'm not sure that it "replaces" religion. For some, maybe. But atheists who are not crticial thinkers, I would guess, are in the minority.

seanie

I think we all inhabit our own 'model of reality'. Those models might vary in rationality and flexibility but I doubt any of them are purely rational or logical. We all have our own dogmas. It's just that some are more harmfull than others.

Veil of Fire

ExCUSE me?

You accuse the other guy of making ungrounded generalizations not based in fact, and then you spit out this nonesense??

Why do YOU care so much about what makes OTHER PEOPLE happy when it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg?

galiel

If you read the paragraphs following that statement, you would have read a long list of reasons why it matter, and why the people I am concerned about are precisely the ones who would pick my pocket and (in some, but not all cases metaphorically) break both my legs. Are you making the generalization that NO-ONE who subscribed to irrational, illogical ways of understanding the world has any intention of imposing their way of life on others? If so, why do we even have a need for sites like this?

galiel

[quote]Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
<strong>

It is sarcasm, note the shades man.

Forgive me. It was sarcasm, not gratuiously snide. Equzlly constructive.

Not only do you claim to speak for everyone reading this post, which I find interesting, but you claim that they will all probably note my "dogmatic assertions" which "identify me as being the very type of poster" you claim I am complaining about.

Other than continuing to try and turn this thread into a personal critique of yours truly, do you have any constructive comment about what causes many people to blidnly follow dogma rather than reason?

As to your accusation, what "dogmatic assertions" have I made that you can you cite as evidence, and, since you seem to refuse to take my specific question as my actual intent and to respond respectfully to what I ask, what do YOU think I am "really" complaining about?

galiel

How do you define dogma, and what evidence do you have to support your claim that we all have them?

joedad

Simply put, I think the answer to galiel's question is "metacognition":

<a href="http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html" target="_blank">http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html</a>

is an interesting link someone posted recently on this topic.

Although the article uses objective criteria to evaluate a person's ability relative to others, the fact is that people with the least knowledge think they have the most. When later confronted with the fact that they do not, they refuse to accept the results, and simply inflate their previously high and inaccurate estimate of themselves.

On the other hand, people with the highest abilities tend to underestimate their abilities relative to others, and when confronted with evidence that they are relatively smarter than they estimated themselves to be, are able to recalibrate their position within that spectrum.

To paraphrase, if you have the ability to recognize that you are not as smart as someone else, you become smarter. Lacking that ability, you stay relatively stupid, but continue to believe that you're relatively smart.

joe

Veil of Fire

Alright, fine.

Please provide evidence for your previous statement:

In reference to New Agers, Communists, and Fundies.

Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite when you accuse others of making ungrounded generalizations about groups of people.

For example: I find it funny you complain that Amos claims to speak for the people reading this post, when you think nothing of speaking for all the New Agers, Communists, and Fundies in the world.

[Edit: PS: Why is this here? I don't see anything even remotely scientific in Gal's rant.]

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>