galiel

What is it that leads so many people to choose dogma over reason, even when they reject organized religion?

I have been amazed at how many people on this board, who claim not to be theists, have simply replaced their blind faith in god with another blind faith: in an extreme political ideology, or a pseudo-scientific quantum-nonsense New-Agey mysticism, or some other dogmatic inflexible model of reality.

They mainfest the same pathology as the worst religious zealots: they selectively seek out only that information that reinforces their views, they ignore or refuse to believe contrary evidence, they accuse anyone who points out the fallacy in their reasoning or the error of a factual claim of being part of some kind of conspiracy to "suppress the truth," they tend to be anti-intellectual and appeal to emotion, they use "scientific" as an epithet, etc.

Is this, as I posit, simply a wide-spread failure to teach the basics of critical thinking? Or is there something else at work?

I reject the oft-heard claim that humanity is genetically compelled to irrational belief; The fact that some of us are capable of approaching life skeptically and to review evidence critically puts a lie to that claim, or at least shows that we can overcome whatever genetic predisposition exists.

Is it, as some early studies have suggested, merely a matter of brain chemistry (i.e., that certain people are more predisposed to believe than others, because of an excessive level of certian brain chemicals that play a role in promoting pattern recognition, which then leads them to perceive patterns where, in fact, none exist?)

What is it? And what can we DO about it, other than educate?

Liquidrage

Why?

Because the world is much too complicated for any one person to have a really good grasp of it all.

So stop acting like you do.

The Lone Ranger

I don't know. I've often seen it argued that people have a congenital predisposition toward irrational belief. I suspect that there's some truth to that.

For instance, it's been shown that stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain can cause patients to experience what they almost always interpret as "deeply religious" experiences -- even people who aren't particularly religious by nature.

There are lots of hypotheses regarding why humans might have an innate tendency toward dogmatic belief. By no means are all of them mutually-exclusive.

I've read some arguments claiming that a tendency toward religious belief helps strengthen group ties. In other words, if a group of people living together tend to have a set of shared, dogmatic beliefs, this serves as a very effective means of uniting them. Since, prior to modern times, it's almost certainly the case that virtually all humans lived in small groups of closely-related individuals, such a means of promoting group cohesion might have been highly adaptive.

Or, a tendency toward religious belief may simply be a consequence of the way that our brains work. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, there's a tremendous amount of information that a child must take in during the first few years of his or her life. Children tend to absorb information very rapidly, but they tend not to be very good at assessing the quality of that information. Beliefs and habits that people pick up early in life are very hard to shake later in life. This is probably adaptive, as it makes it easy to rapidly pick up valuable skills and information, but the downside is that it's very hard to get rid of bad habits that were picked up in childhood. The churches know this, of course, which is one reason why they're so anxious to get people when they're young. (How's that old Jesuit saying go?: "Give me a child for the first five years of his life, and he's mine for life." Something like that, anyway.)

***

In any event, a tendency toward dogmatic thinking seems to be an integral part of most people's mental makeup. I've noticed that people who, for one reason or anther, manage to throw off one form of dogmatism often simply replace it for another.

I think that it's vitally important to teach our kids critical thinking skills when they're still young and flexible. It's my impression that most people aren't exposed to the concept of critical thinking until they reach college -- if ever. By then, it's probably far too late for most of them.

(As an aside, I've often noted as a teacher that a great many students really dislike being challenged to think. They expect to be spoon-fed information, and they don't want to have to think about it.)

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Cheers,

Michael

galiel

This is exactly the kind of emotional irrationalism and anti-intellectualism of which I was speaking. Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my OP. Critical thinking assumes that one *doesn't* already have all the answers; if one did, there would hardly be anything to question.

You are saying that, because the world is complicated, that one is justified in resorting to dogma rather than trying to understand it? I really don't grasp your reasoning.

Critical thinking isn't a result, it is a process, so what you are saying really doesn't make any sense.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Liquidrage

No, you ranted and generalized before you eventually got around to a point.

What is it that leads so many people to choose dogma over reason, even when they reject organized religion?
I have been amazed at how many people on this board, who claim not to be theists, have simply replaced their blind faith in god with another blind faith: in an extreme political ideology, or a pseudo-scientific quantum-nonsense New-Agey mysticism, or some other dogmatic inflexible model of reality.

They mainfest the same pathology as the worst religious zealots: they selectively seek out only that information that reinforces their views, they ignore or refuse to believe contrary evidence, they accuse anyone who points out the fallacy in their reasoning or the error of a factual claim of being part of some kind of conspiracy to "suppress the truth," they tend to be anti-intellectual and appeal to emotion, they use "scientific" as an epithet, etc.



You didn't provide any examples. You just go about creating the people you want to critique. I have no doubt some do exist, but how about practicing what you preach and showing examples?

By putting down "so many people" you are claiming that you see things clearly while "they" do not. Because it is such a generalized view I see nothing in it but you getting frustrated that some people don't see things your way.

galiel

Talking about a general trend is far less inflammatory than singling out individuals as examples. My goal is not to "dis" anyone, it is to understand WHY people, even people who have rejected religion, are still so irrational.

Nothing In my post is a rant. The very first question is an echo of the topic subject. You choose to believe that my "real" point is something other than what I state it is. Thus, you respond from emotion and create a strawman to which you respond.

My question is what I said it is, nothing more and nothing else. If you have nothing to contribute on topic, please do not post messages whose only purpose is to criticize me or to change the topic.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Liquidrage

My post was perfectly on topic.

I feel I answered your underlying question which was why do people believe one thing when it is obvious (to someone else) that it is the wrong thing to believe.

Your views (which are unknown in this instance) could seem just as absurd to me as others do to you. How am I to know? You have not presented them.

Maybe I would consider your views to come from a lack of critical thinking?

Sorry if I offended you.

Seeker196

People make mistakes.

Even about things they've thought really, really hard about.

And of course when "I" come to a conclusion it is the result of critical thinking....but when someone else comes to a conclusion I don't agree with, then it's just 'dogma'.

No one has 'the answers' because there are no (objective)'answers'.

galiel

That was not my question.
My question was

"What is it that leads so many people to choose dogma over reason, even when they reject organized religion?"

The issue is not, as you continuously insinuate, the choice of one set of political beliefs over another.

The issue is the consistent use of critical thinking, in which one follows the evidence wherever it leads, using the tools of empiricism, rational or logical thinking, and skepticism, in order to acquire knowledge; vs. a dogmatic approach, which starts with a presumption, seeks only corroborating data, and refuses to review, much less acknowledge, contrary evidence.

The issue is an approach that questions assumptions, questions authority, and submits evidence to peer review for dispassionate analysis, vs. an approach that uses ad hominem attacks in order to discredit "opponents".

The issue is the method, not the outcome. You insist on using this forum for purposes that are incompatible with the search for knowledge and that have nothing to do with the question I posed.

galiel

Of course they do. That is part of the scientific method. The difference is how one reacts to contrary evidence. If one learns from one's mistakes and adjusts accordingly, one is practicing critical thinking. If one hunkers down, refuses to admit error and refuses to acknowledge contrary evidence, one is acting irrationally and dogmatically.

Actually, that is quite incorrect and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding about the collaborative process of acquiring knowledge that is the halmark of science and modern rational thought. One can come to quite different conclusions that are the result of critical thinking. Again, the issue is not the result, the issue is the process by which one achieves the result.

You, too, are seeking, not to address my question, but to discredit the questioner.

What matters is whether one keeps asking questions.