What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

I can't speak for the OP, but for me, my athreism is a provisional position, it is not a destination.

This seems very reasonable to me, and wise.

I am completely open to being convinced a god or gods exist, but without rational, evidence based, reasoned argument, and valed and sound logic to support the case that a god exists, how would we go about figuring out if it is true, or likely to be true? As long as theists continue to fail to provide good standards of evidence to support their claims, my atheism will continue.

I think you'll see that there are two points here that can be questioned.

The first is whether or not rational evidence based reasoned argument with valid and sound logic really has failed to support the case that god exists. 

The second is whether such an approach is the only or best way to support the case that god exists. 

Believe it or not there are fascinating, non-crazy, challenging thinkers who disagree with you on both points.

The question isn't what is the best way to support the case that a god exists. That is way too specific. It assumes the conclusion.

The question, as I see it, is how to determine, for *anything*, whether it exists or not. What is the general procedure? Then, we can apply it to deities and dwarves, and Higg's bosons, black holes, and sterile neutrinos.

And, by far, the best procedure in *all* cases is to look for evidence, determine when there *should* be evidence, and always require evidence to exist before concluding existence while also looking for alternative explanations for that evidence.

On that standard, deities come up very short. If the evidence for them was anywhere close to as good as that for dark matter, it would be a revolution in theology.

And let me add, that I don't think theists have a rational reason to believe in gods. It is not that my bar is set too high, it's that theirs is set too low.


Or is set differently. It is hard to imagine, in our place, time, and social class, that sane people could disagree with us, but this is what questioning one's own beliefs consists of.

One of the big trappings of smart people is that they start to think all smart people will agree with them.

[Belacqua]

I'm talking about a person who believes slavery is justifiable and okay to give a brief summery of "Refuse to think for themselves" 

I certainly agree that slavery is bad.

However, I don't know the individual you're talking about, so I don't know whether that person thought for himself or not. It is possible, I think, to think for yourself and end up with a conclusion which I personally find reprehensible. 

In our time, place, and social class, it's probably the majority view that slavery is bad. So I suspect there are a lot of people who think slavery is bad who have never thought about it for themselves. If they currently have a good belief (e.g. slavery is bad) is it still necessary for them to think for themselves? 

Maybe there's a better phrasing I'm not great with words yet. 

You're doing fine. I'm just enjoying the chat.

I care that they're able to make their own choices without getting stuck in what others say rather than looking into it. These are the things that concern me that i am speaking on.

Personally I agree with you.

But if we radically accept that we should question our beliefs, then there is another one we should question. 

Is it really always true that people should make their own choices? What if they're stupid and constantly make stupid choices? 

I think that a lot of people "think for themselves" to the extent that they accept to status quo of their time place and social class, and then congratulate themselves on having thought for themselves.

---

If the evidence for them was anywhere close to as good as that for dark matter, it would be a revolution in theology.

Right. You have a strong belief that a certain kind of evidence is necessary but lacking.

[polymath257]

---

One thing I have learned from teaching math is that logic isn't a natural way of thinking. Even those who have an aptitude have a LOT of difficulty when it comes to coming up with and writing logical proofs. Although we like to claim that logic is the 'laws of thought', in reality, most conclusions most people arrive at are not found through logic.

Instead, people usually have intuitions that they then use some sort of 'reasoning' to justify. But the reasoning is usually NOT the reason they believe. it is the way they justify their intuitions. And their beliefs are based on those intuitions, not on logic or reasoning.

Interesting, i had a teacher who once told me people are not born critical thinkers (I'm undecided) but i like to think they just don't have the tools yet. 
Would you agree or disagree just me being curious?

There is an old line that most people think that they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

Even those who have the tools will tend to apply them in support of their own biases. They may be more likely to reject certain *justifications*, but all that means is that they will use *other* justifications for what they intuit to be the case.

Now, this doesn't mean that logic and reason are useless. It just means that they are not as important as we would like to think when it comes to convincing someone they are wrong. Much better is to find internal contradictions in their system while showing that the contradictions don't arise from other intuitions.

[Belacqua]

One of the big trappings of smart people is that they start to think all smart people will agree with them.

I question whether such people are really smart.

[polymath257]

---

If the evidence for them was anywhere close to as good as that for dark matter, it would be a revolution in theology.

Right. You have a strong belief that a certain kind of evidence is necessary but lacking.

Yes. I do. And I apply that standard for any existence question.

At the very least, in asking about existence, it is good to know what would constitute a false signal. i tis also good to know what sort of evidence is to be expected, so if it doesn't arise, you can make an argument that the non-existence is the better explanation.

Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence. But if I don't see an adult elephant in my living room, that absence of evidence is good enough to conclude there is not an elephant there.

---

One of the big trappings of smart people is that they start to think all smart people will agree with them.

I question whether such people are really smart.

It is a question, I agree. But I am thinking about people who are capable academically, maybe even excel. They are accustomed to 'being right' in their area. By that standard, they are 'smart'.

But, as Aristotle said (I believe), one of the signs of intelligence is being able to entertain an idea that you disagree with.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I agree that people need to be taught the Socratic and scientific methods of thinking.

However, I think human beings have an innate sense of reason, no matter how flawed.

EG A great deal if not all religious reasoning seems to be based on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. ---medicine man is dancing around the fire begging the gods for rain. Within a short time, it begins to rain. Medicine man reasons/concludes that it's raining because his dance around the fire and begging the gods. This is the beginning of ritual, the belief that we can influence the gods in some way by prayer/ritual behaviour/sacrifice.

Perhaps a more succinct way of expressing this view is ; "Religion; Man's attempt to communicate with the weather" (Graffito, Cambridge 2000)

For a specific example . The Azande people of North Central Africa believe all misfortune is the result of witchcraft. From Evans-Pritchard's book*** comes this anecdote: E-P is hanging around in this village, which is what anthropologists do. He notices a bloke having a nap under the village water tower, as he does most days. Wooden supports of the tower collapse, killing the napper. E-P notices that the wood is rotten with termite activity, so the tower could have collapsed at any time. He mentions this to the village elders. The response is something like, "Oh absolutely! The tower could have collapsed at any time. But it didn't. It collapsed when X was asleep underneath. That it collapsed at that time is clearly due to witchcraft"

The wiki article linked below is worth a glance.

***1937 Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande. Oxford University Press. 1976 abridged edition: ISBN 0-19-874029-8

Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard, Kt FBA FRAI (21 September 1902 – 11 September 1973) was an English anthropologist who was instrumental in the development of social anthropology. He was Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Oxford from 1946 to 1970.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Evans-Pritchard

[Belacqua]

That it collapsed at that time is clearly due to witchcraft"

Does Evans-Pritchard pass judgment on whether these people are "irrational thinkers" or not?

It seems to me that if a person grows up in a culture in which witchcraft is a typical explanation, then believing in it is not irrational. Internally self-consistent belief systems which form the basic metaphysics of your society are just things that rational people are likely to accept. 

So if someone in a witchcraft metaphysics culture confronts something inexplicable, they assume it must have a witchcraft-based explanation. And if someone in a materialist metaphysics culture confronts something inexplicable, they will strongly believe that any explanation must be materialist -- or else insist that asking for an explanation is somehow invalid. 

I'm reluctant to say that people from other cultures are irrational, just because they think differently than my culture.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

That it collapsed at that time is clearly due to witchcraft"

Does Evans-Pritchard pass judgment on whether these people are "irrational thinkers" or not?

It seems to me that if a person grows up in a culture in which witchcraft is a typical explanation, then believing in it is not irrational. Internally self-consistent belief systems which form the basic metaphysics of your society are just things that rational people are likely to accept. 

So if someone in a witchcraft metaphysics culture confronts something inexplicable, they assume it must have a witchcraft-based explanation. And if someone in a materialist metaphysics culture confronts something inexplicable, they will strongly believe that any explanation must be materialist -- or else insist that asking for an explanation is somehow invalid. 

I'm reluctant to say that people from other cultures are irrational, just because they think differently than my culture.

"Does Evans-Pritchard pass judgment on whether these people are "irrational thinkers" or not?"

Not as far as I remember, but it's nearly 40 years since I read any of E P's work. I'm basing my comments on what I was taught at university. 

 Anthropologists do not usually pass judgement.  Their task is to learn the meanings within a culture. They are as objective as they can be in the circumstances.

[Anomalocaris]

If you consider what circumstances may have led to the acquisition of the neurological tool kit that supporting thinking, I think you will agree that rational thinking can only be the result of personal experience with the use of that tool kit. In other words, we have no predilection toward rational thinking. It takes a particular way of observing or experiencing the many different outcome of thinking to arrival at a preference for rational thinking.

[The Grand Nudger]

Believing in a thing because other people believe it is explicitly irrational. It's the living embodiment of the ad pop fallacy. Explicitly irrational, but not crazy or disordered....you know, just like here in our witchcraft believing culture...by any other name.