What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

So all the science done through the Middle Ages, into about the 18th century, was entirely compatible with Christianity, and usually done by church men sponsored by church men.

This started to change when the modern scientific system got up and running, when Protestantism, Capitalism, and scientific research formed a virtuous circle of mutual reinforcement. The Protestant ideal of self-improvement through hard work and the Capitalist ideal of profit through investment motivated scientific research that could be put to use in technology. The Lunar Men in England would be a paradigm case -- the people whose scientific research led to new methods of porcelain production or carbonated water.

Little by little the scientific part became incompatible with the Protestant part of the equation, as Protestantism turned more strictly to literal and evangelical styles.

The genealogy of science in the West, however, meant that those who did science often retained its ideological grounding. Science per se need not include ideology, and wouldn't if scientists were pure angelic beings. But in the world we have, where science must be funded and motivated by regular flawed humans, the ideological elements remain. Sad to say, as contemporary science demands greater funding, most often from for-profit corporations or the Pentagon, and relies on publish-or-perish for-profit journals for dissemination -- which has given rise to a reproducibility crisis -- the ideological element is as strong as ever.

Anyway, science converted from a Protestant-compatible ambition to a fantasy of pure objective inquiry. But as Freud showed, conversion is often a way to avoid cognitive dissonance while retaining the affective part that one subconsciously wishes to retain. So people who are most committed to a science-only type of metaphysics very often reproduce a Protestant-style moral judgment.

They hold that there is one way to know truth, and only one. That those who reject this way are not only incorrect but morally bad or irrational. That each of us, if we are good people, has a duty to vow allegiance to the one true method. And if we are skeptical or polytheistic at heart (more than one is possible) then we deserve judgment and -- since, alas, Hell is no longer available -- a tongue-lashing and mockery.

There are Protestant atheists and non-Protestant atheists. The most committed science types tend to be strictly Protestant in everything except belief in God.

I disagree with this analysis on several fronts.

First, the main reason that Protestants lead the scientific revolution to the degree they did is that they weren't under orders not to read the most relevant materials. They also, at least at first, had the ideal of thinking and interpreting ideas for themselves rather than relying on authorities to dictate what is the correct interpretation. That said, like all religious believers, they only tolerated questioning to a certain extent. And that lead to a break with the scientific progress eventually.

The main reason 'science' (which wasn't actually using the scientific method at the time) in the middle ages was compatible with Christianity is that it was being done by religious authorities and under the dictates of the church on what conclusions could be drawn. Not to mention that the only people that could 'legitimately' write about certain topics were theologians. Even calling what those in the middle ages did 'science' is a huge misnomer. The only person who actually stepped into a lab (other than the alchemists) to *test* ideas was al Hatham in the middle east. So of course it was ideologically pure. That was a *bad* thing for the progress of science.

I would certainly agree  the reproducibility crisis, especially in subjects such as psychology and medicine. This is why both subjects are only marginally 'science'.

I don't condemn irrationality as a moral failing. I see it as a failure of thought. Most people don't think logically or rationally by nature (see the thread on that). I do find it amazing that people in the modern world continue to make the same basic mistakes as those thousands of years ago AND claim that they are being rational while doing so. Let's face it, Aristotle was wrong about pretty much everything he wrote about. he was a significant and important thinker, but he was wrong most of the time.

I'm curious what you mean by the term 'Protestant atheist'. I reject Protestant theology just as much as I reject Islamic theology and Catholic theology. ALL are based on metaphysics that should be discarded.

---

I am *hoping* for more, by the way. It would be wonderful if there could actually be answers and knowledge as opposed to endless speculation and febrile  imagination.

You are hoping for more as long as it's compatible with your unprovable deeply-held a prioris. But you've ruled out any other kind of answer in advance. 

So it's hopeless.

Do you not see the irony of this?

I am asking you to justify your system, explain how it works and why you can make the conclusions you do. But I am also going to demand that you define your terms and use them as you define them.

So, for example, how to the adjectives 'continent' and 'necessary' apply to 'existence' other than by means of natural causation?