|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 15, 2017 20:00:04 GMT -5
I'm starting a new thread because even though the conversation was starting to shift in an interesting direction, I didn't want to take away from the original focus of the Alabama Senate thread, but I did want to continue what I thought could be a really fruitful conversation. I'm of the same mind regarding a lot of what Daniel said in the second video (and dayum, he sure did grow a vocabulary since the first video). But at the same time, he is very young, and I get the sense he is looking for a place to belong. He wants to be a part of a group -- now, the atheist group -- and in some ways, I think he's just regurgitating what he's heard and read. Nearly everyone wants to belong to a group in some sense and many of our beliefs are associated with, if not entirely reinforced by, group membership of some sort. I've watched at least two other videos with Daniel and I agree that he comes across as a tad over-eager, even more so in the vids of him I've seen that were subsequent to the one you're referring to. But, I also think that it's a somewhat natural reaction to have. When a person feels like their eyes have been opened, or that they're finally believing in or living their lives in a way that feels more natural or comfortable to them, there's a temptation to be very excited about it and talk about it a lot (e.g., religious converts and deconverts, vegans, Crossfitters, etc.). I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing. And most of us are at least slightly, if not 100%, guilty of it. And, when it comes to "just regurgitating what he's heard and read," I think, again, that's what most people do when they learn new information. They often repeat it and only understand it on a superficial level until they finally come to understand it on a deeper level and truly make that idea their own. Little kids do it when they learn something new, repeating dumb shit ad nauseam to the point of driving their parents crazy. Adults often do it when they learn something new (especially when it's related to a political topic) and just have to talk to everyone about it (see: vegans and crossfitters). Some of the most annoying examples of this are undergrad students, especially psychology and philosophy students. Once an undergrad takes intro to philosophy or abnormal psychology, all of a sudden they can't help themselves from waxing pseudo-profoundly about Plato's allegory of the cave in nearly every conversation or diagnosing everyone they know with narcissistic personality disorder just because of what they half-ass read in paragraph two of chapter 8 of some bullshit textbook. So, yeah, it can be annoying, but nearly everyone does it to a small degree, so I'm not gonna hate on the kid too much (although he comes across as rather annoying in a livestream I watched last month). I find your perspective on Magnabosco's to be overly cynical, if not just straight up odd. In all of his vids, he just stands off by himself and politely asks people if they'd like to chat. If they don't want to, they say no, keep walking, and he's totally fine with it. When he does talk to them, all he does is ask probing questions to get them to examine *why* they believe what they believe. He doesn't push any kind of point of view on them and doesn't try to get them to believe a specific set of beliefs. He only tries to get them to critically examine their own personal epistemology. As he's said in talks and interviews, he isn't trying to get them to believe anything specific, just to introspectively examine how they arrived at their beliefs and if they did so in a reliable way. In his words, he wants to "leave a pebble in their shoe" so that they leave the conversation thinking about it on a deeper level. This isn't too different from the way we teach critical thinking skills in university classrooms. Proselytizing, on the other hand, always involves trying to persuade someone to a specific belief or agenda. Going door-to-door to preach the gospel with the overt goal of winning souls to Christ is much more presumptive and intrusive, in my opinion, than quietly and politely standing on a sidewalk. It's not like Magnabosco is ranting and hurling insults like Richard Dawkins at a "skeptics" convention. I don't fault you for viewing things this way, because we all have our own experiences with religious and non-religious people, but I do feel you're being overly cynical and overly critical of it. As I think I've mentioned here before, I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian, graduated from a fundamentalist Christian school, and have even given a few sermons and led other parts of worship service in church before. Then, I eventually became an atheist; an ardent one at first and now I've softened up quite a bit. The "militant" atheists piss me off just as much as the fundamentalist religious people, because they're tactics are very much the same and I think it's a turn off to people on both sides. But, I think a lot of those people (the 'militants' on both sides) are often young and don't truly understand the deeper complexities of not only their position, but the greater world in general. They're militant not because they understand, but just because they want their team to "win" and look awesome and all that kind of "yeah, bro!" bullshit, so they posture and insult and judge the other side. Most of them eventually grow out of it...well, at least I like to believe that, anyway. Here's another guy who practices street epistemology. To me, his demeanor is a bit...um...weird, I guess? I can't put my finger on it it. I think it's because he's quiet yet at the same time has a constantly-cocked eyebrow. Or, it could just be the camera angle. But, he has very polite, respectful conversations with people and you can see that some of them really think about things and leave those conversations intellectually affected by them. His channel is called Cordial Curiosity: www.youtube.com/channel/UCiWKxPMKUBFjN3Ny_VxpkYwHere's one that I think you might like, Christine , where the person he's interviewing starts questioning him back about whether or not there is any value to trying to "talk people out of their faith." It's a good conversation, I feel: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gk8AoDejqIA recent one with a non-descript believer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqqLgzZ1FfAAnother one with a young evangelical college student: www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-M1EyhcRS8 |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 15, 2017 21:24:09 GMT -5
Calling Magnabosco's technique proselytizing is a false equivalency, part of the Dirty Half Dozen. Conflate these terms at your peril. It's sloppy and leads to people mistaking the socratic method for proselytizing.
Relativism <> Reality
Opinions <> Facts
Intuition <> Logic
Belief <> Understanding
Accepting <> Critical Thinking
Proselytizing <> The Socratic Method
And those all lead to this one:
Religion <> Atheism
Personally, I try very hard not to believe, but to understand. I'm known for my Snope-quoting responses to Facebook posts, for example. I suppose what I consider a rational acceptance of the current state of the art in the natural sciences could be considered a "belief" by some, but I'd suspect their motives for doing so. OTOH, when it comes to the social sciences, I'd term the same acceptance of the current state of the art as a "belief" myself.
I try to stay as firmly grounded in the right-hand side of the Dirty Half Dozen as much as possible. It makes life work better. Scientifically tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 15, 2017 22:26:23 GMT -5
Great thread, Opty, I'm very glad you started it. I'm starting a new thread because even though the conversation was starting to shift in an interesting direction, I didn't want to take away from the original focus of the Alabama Senate thread, but I did want to continue what I thought could be a really fruitful conversation. I'm of the same mind regarding a lot of what Daniel said in the second video (and dayum, he sure did grow a vocabulary since the first video). But at the same time, he is very young, and I get the sense he is looking for a place to belong. He wants to be a part of a group -- now, the atheist group -- and in some ways, I think he's just regurgitating what he's heard and read. Nearly everyone wants to belong to a group in some sense and many of our beliefs are associated with, if not entirely reinforced by, group membership of some sort. I've watched at least two other videos with Daniel and I agree that he comes across as a tad over-eager, even more so in the vids of him I've seen that were subsequent to the one you're referring to. But, I also think that it's a somewhat natural reaction to have. When a person feels like their eyes have been opened, or that they're finally believing in or living their lives in a way that feels more natural or comfortable to them, there's a temptation to be very excited about it and talk about it a lot (e.g., religious converts and deconverts, vegans, Crossfitters, etc.). I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing. And most of us are at least slightly, if not 100%, guilty of it. And, when it comes to "just regurgitating what he's heard and read," I think, again, that's what most people do when they learn new information. They often repeat it and only understand it on a superficial level until they finally come to understand it on a deeper level and truly make that idea their own. Agree. The point was really that Daniel's deconversion isn't necessarily evidence that critical thinking was involved. I'm not hating on him either, for the record. I do think he was easy pickings. I hereby stipulate that I am cynical.  When was the last time someone from a church knocked on your door? My last was just over a year ago, when I was renting in a town outside the one I live in now (which is, thankfully, much more private and where solicitations are scarce.) They weren't pushy, at all. If you didn't want to talk, they didn't push. Offered a pamphlet. They also tend to be very interested in your life, how you're doing, etc. Not rushing into anything, just full of questions and curiosity. It's much more subtle than it used to be. (Bleck to all of it.) And again, even though I mostly agree with the atheistic viewpoints, the end goal of these conversations seems to be to gently prompt people to get to those viewpoints. Couching it in terms of only asking them to explain why they believe what they do, to encourage them to think critically, is slightly disingenuous, even though I agree that everyone should be asking themselves these sorts of things and thinking critically. It is, imo, a modern-day form of proselytizing. I don't want to be too harsh on Magnabosco. E.g., I watched this interview and really enjoyed the dialogue: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnF6MenyiEQThen again, I don't quite understand the purpose of posting this one--maybe it's to show how ignorant religious people can be: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTztSJ-0yYcI didn't find any videos where Magnabosco learned anything, or came to any sort of genuine understanding. I think he's pretty well set in his beliefs (well, lack thereof). Which is fine, of course, but the Socratic method is a way of challenging each other. The interviews I watched don't seem to challenge Magnabosco's views. You are correct; I really enjoyed that one! I couldn't tell who was the interviewer and who was the interviewee (until I watched the next one). They both communicated a lot of things I've felt/experienced being "the one who doesn't believe" in the family or among friends. Thanks for sharing that. Okay just between us, what a dweeb. Aaaaand what a twit. The first was really good. The second and third.... I honestly do not understand why Nathan thinks this is a good use of his time, which he referred to in the first video as being something he felt he'd wasted in the church. I think he's still angry. I understand why people get angry. But to take that anger and make it a "mission" in this particular way seems useless. That said, I never felt the anger. I sort of slowly drifted, then felt very sad for a time, and now exist in a rather nice (I think) state of ambivalence. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 15, 2017 23:06:41 GMT -5
Agree. The point was really that Daniel's deconversion isn't necessarily evidence that critical thinking was involved. Only from my impression of the "before" and "after" vids of Daniel, he kind of reminds me of me when I was that age. I'm not entirely convinced that he was entirely convinced of his belief in Christianity in the first video. He seemed to just be parroting a lot of the common talking points that youth groups indoctrinate their members with. The blonde guy who was with him in the first vid did seem to me to be more of a "true believer." So, I think he was secretly teetering on the edge before his talk with Anthony (and he pretty much confirms this in their second talk), and it likely didn't take too much critical thinking or convincing after that talk, because it was likely something he'd already been giving serious thought to for a long time. I can't really give solid evidence for why I get that vibe from him and his blonde friend in vid #1, but having grown up in that environment and knowing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people like that, ya kind of develop a radar for distinguishing between the truly convinced and the secretly doubtful. Agreed, but those people who are teetering closer to the middle are the ones that SE would be most effective on anyway. Sort of like independent voters, they're in a place where they could be swayed to either side. August. Before that, May. Before that, January, I think? But, that was in the South. Now I'm up in Canada, and people generally don't proselytize up here. I'd say in all the interactions I've had with people like that, it's been about 60% pushy/aggressive/judgy and 40% polite and "live and let live." We'll agree to disagree on that, but I see where you're coming from. It seems that you take the most exception to the fact that street epistemologists have an agenda. That's fair and they do. Just like religion, the goal is persuasion. But, religious indoctrination is often fundamentally rooted in external coercion ("believe this because if you don't our god will punish you"), and I think that SE is fundamentally rooted more in internal reasoning processes ("if you're someone who wants to believe what is true, make sure you have good reasons for your beliefs"). That's why I find the SE approach to be much less pernicious. He considers his channel educational, so he posts the good and the bad. He's using it to try to teach other people SE, and it's been successful because several dozen people (including Cordial Curiosity) started their own channels because of him. Some of his earlier vids are rough, because he was still learning and honing his skills. He's said that he doesn't want to give people the false impression that all of his exchanges go well, because he doesn't want people to think that if they do SE on their own that people will always be cool to them, so every now and then he'll post a "sub-optimal" exchange (one that didn't really go well) or ones where he had to totally bail because the person was super aggressive or just plain crazy. I've yet to see any of his vids where someone has offered him good reason to believe in a god or gods. He often tells them that he's open to changing his views, but thus far no one he's talked to (that he's actually posted a video of) has offered any kind of an effective argument to him as to why he should believe. And, that's kind of the point. SE posits that "faith" is a "faulty epistemology," meaning that it is a shitty way of establishing whether or not a belief is true. I've yet to hear a rational argument for how or why faith is a good way of determining truth or how it could be a good way, and I doubt anyone in any of his vids will ever be able to offer one. I'm glad you liked it. I don't get the vibe that he's angry at all. I get the feeling that he feels compelled to share what he's learned from SE to the world, ironically in much the same way as religious people feel compelled to do the same (indeed, many of them are commanded to do so by their holy books). As to why he feels it's a good use of his time? It's his hobby. Why do any of us enjoy our hobbies? I don't think there's really a good reason other than "we just do." |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 16, 2017 0:05:35 GMT -5
Personally, I try very hard not to believe, but to understand. Isn't that one of Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People?" "Seek first to understand, then to be understood."  I somewhat agree, though. Belief isn't a discrete, conscious phenomenon. It's generally a lengthy process (of addition or attrition, depending on how you want to look at it). I try as well as I can to understand the other person's position before I engage in a rebuttal (if my goal is a persuasive discussion and not simply shooting the shit). A good test is that if I can't repeat it back to them in my own words in a way that they agree with, then I don't truly understand it. But, that's "perfect world Opty" and not "real life Opty," so I'm not incredibly successful with that approach. Sometimes, my emotions get the best of me. I do try, though, and that's about all I can do; keep trying. I'm sure you'll be shocked, but me too. Technically, it is a belief. It's arguably a "justified true belief," depending on what it is and how convincing the evidence for it is. I try to view my natural sciences beliefs in terms of my confidence in the evidence for them. For every claim about Relativity or evolution that are facts supported by overwhelming evidence, there's also stuff like string theory, which is technically a pseudoscience (from a Popperian viewpoint, yet few people ever call theoretical physicists out on their unfalsifiable, sci-fi bullshit). Now we seem to be getting equivocatingly fuzzy with the term "belief." (and, yes, I'm pretty sure "equivocatingly" isn't a real word, but it worked for my purposes). A belief is simply a premise one has accepted as true. Your beliefs in certain natural science claims can be just as strong as your beliefs in certain social sciences claims, regardless of the strength of the evidence to support those beliefs. As a social scientist, I freely admit that there's a lot of bullshit out there, and it really pains me to see it. For psychology, most of it comes from social psychology, with their idiotic claims about implicit bias, power posing, ego depletion, the power of positive psychology, and the sloppy bullshit of mindfulness meditation research, just to name a few. For those of us who are not in social psych, and try our hardest to do actual cognitive science rather than sexy-sounding-clickbait-that-is-ultimately-worthless-shit, we often consider a lot of social psych to be an utter embarrassment. That's not to say that there isn't some really good stuff in social psych; there absolutely is. But, that field is also largely responsible for the bulk of studies that fail to replicate and make the rest of our field look bad. Other areas of social science are even worse (e.g. sociology, economics, anthropology, etc.) but that doesn't mean that all of the "natural sciences" are necessarily more accurate or replicable with some of their claims. Some areas of biomedical research, for instance, are even worse in terms of reproducibility than psychology.Anyway, sorry to get sidetracked there. My overall point is that we all have beliefs. Even acceptance of a true fact is a "belief." Knowledge itself is nothing but a collection of beliefs in facts. What's important, I feel, is that people's beliefs are justified by support from as much credible evidence as possible. I'm sure you agree but I wanted to expound on my view of it just to lay it out there and see if we're on the same page. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 16, 2017 5:40:53 GMT -5
Yeah, Opty, we're pretty much on the same page. I was painting with a broader brush, but the nuances you point out are valid. (Evolutionary Theory and Relativity vs String Theory, for example) I know my use of "belief" is a bit heterodox, but I also think keeping a clear-cut a line between those two groups of false equivalencies is critical. Used in contrast to the term "understanding," I think my intent is clear. There's a vast difference in "believing" the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and "believing" that the second coming is just around the corner. Putting them on an equal footing by referring to them by the same term gives me the willies, personally. It opens the door to other false equivalencies, like "SE is the same as proselytizing," when clearly, as you pointed out, they are not. I think it encourages people to put appeals to authority on the same footing as the scientific method, and boy is that a disaster waiting to happen. (See also: SJWs and the rise of the militant religious right.) Of course, the flagship of that attitude is "My belief in Intelligent Design is just as valid as your belief in Evolutionary Theory." Well, that's pure bullcrap. I don't (just?) believe in Evolutionary Theory, the way one can believe in religion, or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, without any evidence to support that belief. I understand Evolutionary Theory. I have examined tons of literature, even viewed physical evidence, that convinced me that there are certain valid facts about how this incredibly diverse ecosystem came to be. I understand those facts and how they interrelate, and how those relationships lead to certain logical conclusions that support Evolutionary Theory as a valid worldview. OTOH, I agree that String Theory takes the same sort of unsubstantiated faith as religion. Don't trust anybody who says they "understand" string theory.  Understanding and belief are two very, very distinct things in my mind. One can believe anything with no consideration whatsoever of the facts. There are people who still believe the earth is flat. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 16, 2017 20:04:52 GMT -5
Agree. The point was really that Daniel's deconversion isn't necessarily evidence that critical thinking was involved. Only from my impression of the "before" and "after" vids of Daniel, he kind of reminds me of me when I was that age. I'm not entirely convinced that he was entirely convinced of his belief in Christianity in the first video. He seemed to just be parroting a lot of the common talking points that youth groups indoctrinate their members with. The blonde guy who was with him in the first vid did seem to me to be more of a "true believer." So, I think he was secretly teetering on the edge before his talk with Anthony (and he pretty much confirms this in their second talk), and it likely didn't take too much critical thinking or convincing after that talk, because it was likely something he'd already been giving serious thought to for a long time. I can't really give solid evidence for why I get that vibe from him and his blonde friend in vid #1, but having grown up in that environment and knowing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people like that, ya kind of develop a radar for distinguishing between the truly convinced and the secretly doubtful. I agree about the other guy in the video, for sure (though, down the road, you never know). As far as Daniel, I agree that he seemed not to be all in, even at that point, though there are reasons outside of pure cognition that this might have been the case. Yes. But I tend to appreciate and respect 'being unconvinced' more than 'being able to be swayed.' Sway-ability is a rather weak quality. Easy pickings, as in, they didn't have any loyalty in the first place, so if you sound good.... That sort of thing. Kind of "in" until something better comes along. I levy that criticism on myself, by the way. In my past I've been halfheartedly "in" and easily swayed on all sorts of topics. Imo, it's sometimes only when a person stops trying find a group to belong to, or a proper label to apply to themselves, that cognition can really make a meaningful difference. You're right that it's the "agenda" I dislike. I love education, however. It's funny, I was asking myself earlier, "If I don't like S.E., then what other ways would I approve of in challenging people's beliefs?" And I immediately thought of the classic, disdainful philosophy professor. I love that guy. That guy is awesome. A complete dick, but awesome. Because he makes you think, but at the same time, he doesn't fucking care what you think. I never felt proselytized by that guy. (Just my probably weird opinion.) "Angry" was the wrong word. Maybe... "wronged," and taking it upon himself to try to right a perceived wrong? I did sense some disdain and/or irritation in his expression (but to fair, I was feeling it, listening to his interviewees--maybe it's just me). I'm not sure you can call it a hobby, unless "hobby" is solely defined as "what I do in my spare time." But by that standard, churchgoers knocking on doors is a hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 16, 2017 20:56:56 GMT -5
Yeah, Opty, we're pretty much on the same page. I was painting with a broader brush, but the nuances you point out are valid. (Evolutionary Theory and Relativity vs String Theory, for example) I know my use of "belief" is a bit heterodox, but I also think keeping a clear-cut a line between those two groups of false equivalencies is critical. Used in contrast to the term "understanding," I think my intent is clear. There's a vast difference in "believing" the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and "believing" that the second coming is just around the corner. Putting them on an equal footing by referring to them by the same term gives me the willies, personally. It opens the door to other false equivalencies, like "SE is the same as proselytizing," when clearly, as you pointed out, they are not. I think it encourages people to put appeals to authority on the same footing as the scientific method, and boy is that a disaster waiting to happen. (See also: SJWs and the rise of the militant religious right.) Of course, the flagship of that attitude is "My belief in Intelligent Design is just as valid as your belief in Evolutionary Theory." Well, that's pure bullcrap. I don't (just?) believe in Evolutionary Theory, the way one can believe in religion, or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, without any evidence to support that belief. I understand Evolutionary Theory. I have examined tons of literature, even viewed physical evidence, that convinced me that there are certain valid facts about how this incredibly diverse ecosystem came to be. I understand those facts and how they interrelate, and how those relationships lead to certain logical conclusions that support Evolutionary Theory as a valid worldview. OTOH, I agree that String Theory takes the same sort of unsubstantiated faith as religion. Don't trust anybody who says they "understand" string theory. Understanding and belief are two very, very distinct things in my mind. One can believe anything with no consideration whatsoever of the facts. There are people who still believe the earth is flat. I suppose a good distinction might be between "belief" and "knowledge" which I think could incorporate your idea of "understanding." Any idiot can have any belief they want (e.g., conspiracy theories, accupuncture, homeopathy, juice cleanses, astrology, ghosts, flat-earth, etc.) but they don't truly have "knowledge" unless that belief corresponds to verifiable facts. But, even then, there are people who have knowledge but it doesn't really go far enough, which is I think where understanding would come in. A person can have knowledge "that" (basic knowledge or awareness of the thing) but not knowledge "how" / "why" (depending on how you want to word it). A person likely needs both to have true understanding. But, I also don't think that this level of understanding is necessary for many, if not most, things in life. And, I don't think that most people have true understanding of most things in their life. I have limited knowledge of basic physics, and I understand the broad definition of relativity, but I don't have a deep understanding of all of that. However, I don't really need to fully understand the deeper complexities of relativity to be able to use the GPS in my phone.I'm totally fine being ignorant of all of that. I believe that the mechanisms and processes behind GPS will help me find my destination pretty accurately, and empirical testing gives me great confidence in that belief. And even with evolution, just because of my background in biological (and social) sciences, I know a great deal about it. But my knowledge pales in comparison to an evolutionary biologist or geneticist. But, I also know that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence and I have confidence in the knowledge of experts in the field. That's another reason I hate when people use the word "faith" outside of a religious context. I've had arguments before with religious folks who say, "I have faith in my god just like you have faith every time you drive over a bridge that it won't collapse." No, that's not "faith." I have *confidence* that if I drive over a bridge, it will not collapse and that confidence is based on empirical data and my knowledge of how bridges get made. I can watch hundreds of thousands of cars drive over a bridge and it not fall. I know that the construction company that built it had to be licensed. I know that the architects and civil engineers who designed it had to be formally educated and licensed as well. This, of course, isn't a guarantee that the bridge won't collapse when I drive over it, but nothing in life is certain. Nonetheless, it is still a belief rooted in high confidence that is based on empirical data (which I suppose is also a difference in having confidence and having certainty. I don't believe true certainty is possible for anything). But, GPS and evolution are topics of knowledge that are ultimately inconsequential to my life. I think, as you have pointed out, the types of beliefs that can be the most harmful are those that, when believed by one or many, have the potential to greatly affect (positively or negatively) other people and are not based on deeper knowledge or understanding of topics, and have little if any empirical evidence to back them up. Certain religious beliefs, climate change denial, and anti-vaccine beliefs all spring to mind here. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 16, 2017 21:24:11 GMT -5
Yes. But I tend to appreciate and respect 'being unconvinced' more than 'being able to be swayed.' Sway-ability is a rather weak quality. Easy pickings, as in, they didn't have any loyalty in the first place, so if you sound good.... That sort of thing. Kind of "in" until something better comes along. I levy that criticism on myself, by the way. In my past I've been halfheartedly "in" and easily swayed on all sorts of topics. Honestly, I prefer the term "disabused," but not everybody knows what it means and it sometimes either comes off as pedantic or sounding like I'm talking about beating a spouse/child. But, unconvinced, swayed (i.e., persuaded), disabused, it's really all talking about the same general thing. A person believes X, and their interlocutor wants them to not believe X. As an interesting side note, I'm trying to pull together a study right now involving something called " cultural cognition." It's not a perfect theory, but it's pretty interesting, I think. But even education has an agenda (educators want you to learn specific things). And, the approach of the classic, disdainful philo prof isn't too far off from the underlying mechanisms of SE; though the prof is likely more in-your-face about it. Phil profs (the good ones, at least) are trying to teach students "how" to think but not necessarily "what" to think. SE, at least the way I see it, is similar in that it is trying to get people to apply critical thinking to their faith-based beliefs. The SE interviewers never tell the person what to think; they only try to get them to apply critical thinking to an important domain of life that they usually don't. That's actually what some of my upcoming research is gonna be looking at (I hope); why is it that relatively intelligent people apply critical thinking to certain domains in life but intentionally do not apply it to others. It's a fascinating question, in my opinion. Well, both Magnabasco and the Cordial Curiosity guy (sorry, I forget his name) both describe it to people as their "hobby" when asked, so I'm just going by their own words. I also don't think a person has to have been "wronged" (or angry) to want to do something like that. I really don't get your proclivity to view these things negatively, but I'm sure you have your reasons. To me, I think perhaps they see (as many atheists and humanists do) that there is a lot of societal harm that can come from believing things that aren't true and they want to try to change that (in their spare time). Another possibility (and this doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to the first) is that they simply enjoy talking to people about their beliefs and exploring why they believe what they believe (which is also a reason that both of them have given to people when asked). There's an individual difference called " need for cognition" that most people have to varying degrees (I've taken the test and scored very high on it. Shocking, I know). People who are higher in NFC tend to get great enjoyment out of doing cognitively engaging things like learning, doing puzzles, and engaging in intellectual conversations. So, much like a painter truly enjoys painting just because that's something they naturally enjoy doing, a person who has high NFC might truly enjoy these types of SE conversations just because that's something they naturally enjoy doing. Doesn't mean that the painter was "wronged" by pencils or charcoal at some point in their lives, just like it doesn't mean the SE person was somehow wronged by a person who believes differently than them (and, if you watch more of the vids, they do talk to people about beliefs other than religion). Sometimes people find things fun or enjoyable just because they do, and there's really no deeper explanation needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 17, 2017 4:38:39 GMT -5
Sometimes people find things fun or enjoyable just because they do, and there's really no deeper explanation needed. ...and sometimes it's a nefarious plot to destroy religion as we know it. I'm discovering that SJWs and RJWs have extremely thin skin, and the S/RJW hybrids have hardly any at all. They're indignant about everything at the drop of a hat. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 17, 2017 20:29:32 GMT -5
Yes. But I tend to appreciate and respect 'being unconvinced' more than 'being able to be swayed.' Sway-ability is a rather weak quality. Easy pickings, as in, they didn't have any loyalty in the first place, so if you sound good.... That sort of thing. Kind of "in" until something better comes along. I levy that criticism on myself, by the way. In my past I've been halfheartedly "in" and easily swayed on all sorts of topics. Honestly, I prefer the term "disabused," but not everybody knows what it means and it sometimes either comes off as pedantic or sounding like I'm talking about beating a spouse/child. But, unconvinced, swayed (i.e., persuaded), disabused, it's really all talking about the same general thing. A person believes X, and their interlocutor wants them to not believe X. I submit that all of these terms are different, swayed and persuaded being the most like each other. Disabused is defined as being freed from a belief that is untrue, so I can see why you prefer it. I guess it's possible that they just enjoy the conversations, or consider it a study of some sort, and have no desire to have an effect. I think the eagerness with which Magnabasco did the follow up interview, including asking questions as to how he (S.E.)had influenced Daniel, points to more of an end goal. It's not that it's a "bad" end goal, but it's more mission-like by my observations. I don't begrudge them their efforts. A couple more things, based on the clips I watched: (1) there were no interviewees armed with anywhere near the debate skills I've encountered in my own conversations with people on topics of religion. It seems apparent the people interviewed had not critically thought about their beliefs, even on a very basic level, things like: What is faith? How is it different from science and physical evidence? Why do I believe what I do? And in conjunction with that point, (2) Though showing this lack of thinking will undoubtedly be helpful to some (if not the interviewees, then maybe observers of the interviews), this is not a religion-specific phenomenon. This sort of unthinking acceptance can apply to all sorts of non-supernatural beliefs. The focus of it on religion, combined with non-thinking people as the subjects, sort of purports to give (but doesn't) the "whole picture" of how people arrive at and maintain religious beliefs, imo. (I'm really talking about god-beliefs here--not religious dogma) Having thought on all of this over the last couple of days, I'm less "negative" about S.E., so there's that. I also wanted to mention something I remembered in thinking about all of this: one of the most convincing experiences I had in my own "deconversion" (along with philosophy professors and the like) was the moment at the end of the debate on evolution between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm. The moderator asked each of them, regarding their positions: "What would change your mind?" Ken Hamm said, "Nothing." Bill Nye said, "Evidence." That juxtaposition was a pivotal moment for me. After a debate like that, the idea of having "faith that nothing can change" was very.... unsatisfactory. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 17, 2017 21:26:22 GMT -5
I'm guess it's possible that they just enjoy the conversations, or consider it a study of some sort, and have no desire to have an effect. I think the eagerness with which Magnabasco did the follow up interview, including asking questions as to how he had influenced Daniel, points to more of an end goal. It's not that it's a "bad" end goal, but it's more mission-like by my observations. I agree that they do have an agenda/goal, but I don't feel they're as "in-your-face" or judgmental about it as many religious proselytizers are. They also approach the conversations from the opposite perspective of many, if not most, of the "come to Jesus" conversations that believers have started with me. Rather than saying, "these are my beliefs and I'm here to tell you why you should believe them too," the SE practitioner generally takes the approach of, "tell me about your beliefs and why you believe them." I can't speak for the SE people, but I think that's mainly their point. They want to talk to everyday, regular people because most regular people don't really give much critical thought to their beliefs. An SE-type of conversation would likely be a waste of time on seasoned apologists, preachers, and theologicians. I agree with some of the sentiment here. There's a bias in the critical thinking literature that religious and/or political conservatives are less-critical thinkers than non-religious and/or political liberals - that they rely more on intuitive thinking and less on analytic thinking than liberals/nonreligious - and I think that's utter bullshit. There's published research that purports to give evidence to support this idea, but I find a lot of it methodologically biased and unconvincing. There are a lot of religious people who are very deep, critical thinkers. Francis Collins, for example, is head of the NIH and led them in mapping the human genome. He's also a born-again Christian. I also think that it takes quite a bit of analytic reasoning processes to be an academic theologian or professional apologist for religion (like William Lane Craig). I think that their conclusions are often derived from biased processes, but they are still processes deeply rooted in analytic thinking. Hell, many historical deep thinkers and people who advanced scientific thought centuries ago were members of the church. Being religious didn't preclude them from being able to study astronomy and physics. I'm not saying that one example debunks an entire trend but I do feel that it illustrates the point that people are likely "selectively critical thinkers," meaning that they apply certain rules for how they evaluate information to some topics or domains of their lives but not to others. There are several reasons why, and whether the process is intentional or not is something I don't know (but I'm working on it!), but I don't want to turn this post into a pedantic treatise on the varieties of analytic thinking.  Mine took place over several years, but I do remember watching an interview with Sam Harris on, I think it was The Colbert Report (might've been Daily Show, but I'm pretty sure it was Colbert), back around 2006 or so, and he was promoting one of his books and there was a back and forth between him and Colbert about the Bible as a source of morality, and Harris responded with something to the effect of, "How can the Bible be a source of morality when it gets the entire issue of slavery wrong?" For whatever reason, that really stuck with me. I'd already been having doubts (as I had occasionally) and had started reading up more on Biblical history and contradictions in the Bible, but for some reason that statement during that interview just jogged something in me, and I realized that I couldn't explain away that glaring problem with the Bible. Then, I started watching/reading more of Hitchens, read two of Harris's books, and started watching YouTube clips of The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty hosting. Dillahunty's clips were really good for me to watch because given that he was once a devout Baptist on his way to becoming a preacher, he knows the Bible better than 99% of Christians already, so he was not only able to counter people's claims with logic, but he could recite specific passages from the Bible and deconstruct them on the spot. The fact that he was a bit of a dick to some of them was something I taught myself to ignore, but most of the ones he was a dick to totally deserved it because they'd said something bigoted or were being intentionally intellectually dishonest. There are many other conversations he had with believers that were very cordial and interesting too. I never really liked any of the other hosts on that show, but Dillahunty's stuff was good for me back then. But, yeah, "how can the Bible be the source of perfect morality when it gets the entire issue of slavery wrong" was a turning point for me, and kind of lit a fuze on a pile of gas-soaked rags in terms of my skepticism. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 18, 2017 5:53:04 GMT -5
"Selective Critical Thinking" explains a lot to me. My atheism and anarchism have developed pretty much in parallel, so I struggle mightily to understand those progressive atheists I know, and there certainly are a ton of them. I see church and state as two sides of the same appeal to authority game, requiring the same suspension of logic, the same obedience to authority, the same promise of long=term gains for short-term sacrifices, the same lifestyle imbalance between the people and their "leaders," but wholly absent some form of supernatural approval that might justify one's participation. "Selective Critical Thinking" explains it.  |
|
|
|
Post by ben on Dec 19, 2017 1:04:06 GMT -5
Hi folks, looks like I've been away too long. Yes, I know the news (Roy Moore lost, US EMbassy going to Jerusalem, bla bla bla) and I see all the threads on them, but it's too much for me to read up on the discussions right now. I should save these for a long reading session on the Lifecycle. This place is so much more interesting than Facebook where many of my friends are the "progressive atheists" of Sunday Assembly Atlanta and Atlanta Freethought Society, and then there's all those writers who try to out-progressive one another. So excuse me if this is not-quite-in-context. I did peep at a couple of those videos, and I'm reminded of this one, brought to my attention by someone in one of the above-named groups: www.youtube.com/watch?v=18CVCLx-iCkBut what prompted me to post here (before reading any content) was the thread title, which reminds me of this, written by the author of "The Adventures of a Parapsychologist" which showed me that most of the people in that field (but not that author, who was often-called "psi negative"), had a belief that their field of study was true, which in itself isn't so horrible, but that belief adversely affected whatever "scientific studies" they were doing. Anyway, here's the author "flouncing" from the field. I've posted this several places before, so some of you may have read it before, but it may be worth another read: www.susanblackmore.co.uk/chapters/why-i-have-given-up/ |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 19, 2017 2:23:39 GMT -5
Hi folks, looks like I've been away too long. Yes, you have. Drop by more often! That one seemed vaguely familiar to me, so I think I might've watched it before, but I watched it again and it was rather frustrating, but kind of expected. People who have been a part of a very strongly group-reinforced belief or belief system will often fight tooth and nail (in a cognitive sense) to hold onto those beliefs and deny and rebuff any threats to them. It's called "directionally motivated reasoning," and it can be incredibly frustrating for people on the opposite side of the argument. The belief isn't just a belief, it is a requirement for their membership in that group (e.g., religious faith, church, political party, etc.) and membership in that group is part of their personal sense of identity, therefore the person comes to view the specific belief(s) itself as an integral part of their core identity as a person. Threaten that belief and you're threatening the core of who they are, or at least that's how they react to it. Interesting article. I hadn't read that one before so thanks for the link. Susan Blackmore is interesting (in the same way that gross videos of people popping pimples is "interesting") because her pendulum has kind of swung from being a sloppy-thinking uber believer all the way over to being a sloppy-thinking, uber skeptic. |
|
I'm of the same mind regarding a lot of what Daniel said in the second video (and dayum, he sure did grow a vocabulary since the first video). 
