What makes people irrational thinkers?

[Belacqua]

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.

[Deesse23]

What a cheap and dishonest tactic: Instead of showing a methodology to demonstrate the truth of his metaphysical BS claims when being asked, someone rather tries to drag down everything else, so hopefully noone will notice how vapid his thought processes are and what an intellectual coward he is.  Its like calling atheism a belief in order to avoid answering questions about his own religious beliefs.

He has absolutely nothing, and he knows it. In his desperation, he pretends that everyone has nothing as well. How pathetic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Protestant atheists. Good one.

[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?

[emjay]

@Belacqua

I wonder if you could at least answer poly's question regarding how a Five Ways type God, if it were true, would be any less a brute fact requiring no further explanation than that which it attempts to explain... ie why it's not just 'kicking the can' further back so to speak. As, though most of what he says is clearly way above my pay grade, that particular issue is one of my biggest issues with the five ways. Ie I understand that it has more explanatory power for people like you and Neo, who want/need that, in explaining the little bubble of reality we all find ourselves in... and in that sense you may (or may not) indeed see it as kicking the can, but to a more comfortable place... but it still doesn't appear to even address the question 'why/how something rather than nothing?'... because it still asks us to believe that a complex and infinitely powerful being has always existed, just because, with no further explanation required, inside or outside our universe (however you want to define it).

And in addition to this at this point it almost feels like the can gets kicked in the opposite direction, by basically appealing to the necessity of things in the future (ie the the Five Ways considered a necessary explanation for the universe as we know it... and I might add, a very human-centric view of that universe, which not everyone agrees with), to explain the presence of things in the past. Though granted I may have misunderstood you there (and/or elsewhere) so I'm very curious how you would answer these questions and how you would relate the (granted, disputed) necessity of the Five Ways to this bigger question of why/how God came to be/always existed, if you indeed do.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Protestant atheists.  Good one.

It actually is. Back when I used to get locked up on a semi-regular basis, it was common practice for the nick to ask your religious affiliation, so as not to put Protestants and Catholics in the same holding cell.

On one of my bookings for public disorder, I was asked and said, ‘Atheist’. The desk officer looked at me, then back at his form, then back at me and asked, ‘Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?’

Boru

[Belacqua]

people like you and Neo, who want/need that

I can't speak for Neo, of course. But I'm not clear on what it is that you think I want or need. 

I find theology fascinating, though I spend a lot of time reading other things too. (Currently I'm researching the roots of 20th century Japanese "decadent" literature. The authors (e.g. Nagai Kafu) claimed to be following in the footsteps of the European Decadents, but it seems pretty clear to me that they are firmly in a native tradition of eccentric writers and artists. This feeds into a larger thesis that I have, that imported systems provide new vocabulary and fresh enthusiasm, but almost always serve as a means of reviving something old. This applies to things like the importation of Buddhism into America. If this comes together properly I expect to publish something on the topic.)

I enjoy the beauty and wisdom of theology. I acknowledge that it's too hard for me to draw some kind of final conclusion one way or the other. 

it still asks us to believe that a complex and infinitely powerful being

Thomas says that God is absolutely simple, with no parts. It is omnipotent not in the sense that it can do anything (which Thomas doesn't claim) but in the sense that all potencies are activated by it and aimed at it. 

it still doesn't appear to even address the question 'why/how something rather than nothing?'

I think the Five Ways do address that issue. Or at least theology in general does, in that it tries to show that since there is, self-evidently, something, then the existence of this something requires an absolutely simple actus purus in order to exist. I'm not sure in what way this "kicks the can" a step further. The goal is to show that all contingencies require a necessity. This necessity is not a temporal beginning point, but the end of an essential or logical chain. (And as always, getting from this necessary being to the God of the Bible requires a great deal of additional argument.)

But I also think that there's a tendency to put too much weight on the Five Ways, which were not meant as some kind of indisputable syllogism. They are more like a course syllabus, with each step requiring a huge amount of background knowledge. They certainly aren't meant to be self-evident. 

by basically appealing to the necessity of things in the future (ie the the Five Ways considered a necessary explanation for the universe as we know it... and I might add, a very human-centric view of that universe, which not everyone agrees with), to explain the presence of things in the past. 

I think I don't understand either part of this. In what way do the Five Ways ask us to believe something about the future? In what way are they human-centered? Of course not everyone agrees with them, that's clear. 

necessity of the Five Ways to this bigger question of why/how God came to be/always existed, if you indeed do.

Well, the Five Ways are just one sort of shorthand summary of an enormous system. And personally I've never felt they're the most important part. I suspect that modern people point to them because they seem like they ought to be easy to deal with. 

Obviously Thomas thought that God has no beginning and no end, and that this is part of what it is to be a necessary being. 

But I may not be getting your point properly, so I'll be happy to try again if I've missed it.

[brewer]

Debating a god thingy into a necessary existence again Bel? Good for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

...b-b-b-but, gods just have to exist, by definition!

Super appropriate for the thread question, at least. There's your answer. That's one thing that makes people irrational thinkers. We have a tendency to contend that things have to be the way we wish they were. That's the religious impulse, wholly aside from any notion of gods, in the first place.

[Deesse23]

since there is, self-evidently, something

Thats just your metaphysical claim.