Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > What does it take to be rational?

Posted by: Mr. Neil Feb 9 2005, 03:31 AM

While this may stun our Christian guests, becoming atheist or agnostic doesn't immediately imply that the individual has become rational. I've come to realize that logic and reason takes practice. Like taking your first steps, you have to stumble and fall a few times before you get it right.

Even after I became and atheist, I was still susceptible marketing tricks and conspiracy theories. When I was a kid, I used to fall for little infomercial scams. Consumer testamony worked for me. Surely twenty idiots claiming to have had their lives changed by product X couldn't be wrong.
I remember this one time, I begged my parents to buy this TV antenna for my room, because my parents never had the wires installed to the upper floors of the house, so I had no cable in my bedroom. The antenna claimed to be some kind of supercharged reciever (no, it doesn't run on AC), and one of the feature was a little miniature satallite-type dish. I say "satellite-type", because it wasn't really a satellite. It was made to look like one, because idiots would see a dish and assume more power. (Augh! Augh! Augh!!!)
Anyway, the quasi-antenna-dish-thingy finally came, and instead of providing the promised clear reception and picture, it actually made it worse! The tuning tobs did nothing of the sort. One turned the dish, and the other seems to have been there for effect.

It only took a couple of tricks like that before I caught on and became skeptical of claims that are too good to be true. Unfortunately, my father wasn't as lucky. As recent as early last year, he was buying stuff from infomercials.
The worst of which were these sell-stuff-from-home scams, such as SMC, where you're supposed to order items from the company and sell them on Ebay. He went through three of these companies, and in each case, the "easy set-up" was more work than any reasonable person would put up with. There were always little sneaky hidden charges and little catches such as "Oops, our charges don't include the website you have to buy before you actually start. So much for that small investment!"
I eventually made my dad see the light by demonstrating to him that Ebay is saturated with SMC crap, none of which is selling. Since then, he's been pretty skeptical of suspicious claims he sees on TV, so I think I've made some progress.

Conspiracy theories make me mad, in part because I used to fall for them myself. Stuff like Roswell and crop circles used to fascinate me. Since the US government isn't exactly known for its overt honesty, it wasn't hard to allow crackpot theories to creep their way in and impress me what seemed like overwhelming evidence.
But there never was any evidence. The most conspiracy theories can offer is to say "This phenomenon is mysterious. Our government lies and are making a typically likely story. Therefore aliens crashed in Roswell."
Remember when everyone thought that there were aliens being held at Area 51? The logic was always that since it was so heavily guarded, there must be aliens inside. Nevermind the lack of evidence. It's all a cover-up!! IT'S ALL PART OF THE BIG LIE!!!!
Well, I slowly overcame my susceptability to conspiracy theories. I think it had in large part to do with maturity, but knowledge also played a key role. After having a few myths explode in my face and having to endure the embarrassment, I started thinking twice about giving credence of every little theory under the sun.
I decided that open-mindedness doesn't mean that you give equal time to each idea but that you give each idea the same healthy dose of criticism, and only those ideas that survive the battery of testing should be allowed to be accepted as true.
I began listening to people like James Randi, who happens to be very good at finding alternate and more reasonable explanations for paranormal activity. And while he admits that he's not disproving the claims of the paranormal, he did have a profound influence on me by showing me that the simpler, more natural explanations are the more reasonable ones to accept.

The point that I'm trying to drive here is that in my experience, people seem to be defiant of rational thinking right up until the point at which they're wiping egg off their face. For example, I didn't want to listen to the people who told me that there was nothing special about Area 51. I had to be embarrassed until it occurred to me that I had to change the way I think about and examine the world around me.
And now today, I get extraordinarily angry with conspiracy theories, such as those for the moonlanding or 9-11 "hoaxes". I hate those people, and I recognize all the same dirty anti-intellectual tricks that made me use to fall for UFO cover-ups.

I'm not saying that we should deliberately humiliate Christians and creationists. I'm simply providing a possible explanation for why Christians and creationists continue to cling to the irrational, particularly that the earth is young and that despite all the DNA and morphological evidence in the world, they won't accept evolution.
It seems to be human nature to avoid the rational until absolutely backed into a corner with information that can no longer be ignored.

The best we can do is keep pressing on with our information. Some seem willing to learn although still committed to their ideals. Give them time. Others will just run from what is literally right before their very eyes, the way Jesus Freak did.
I have yet to have a creationist answer questions about the stratigraphic specificity of fossil positions in the geologic column, nor have I ever heard any of them even attempt to tackle angular unconformties.
Eventually, they'll have to stop running from these two pieces of evidence and do one of two things.
1. Admit that the Biblical account of the flood does not have the explanatory power to account for the evidence shown.
2. Consciously delude themselves into ignoring the evidence.

Posted by: EternalDarkness Feb 9 2005, 07:36 AM

Excellent post, Mr. Neil. I remember that, after I de-converted, I ended up falling for a few scams myself. One was a get-rich-quick-if-you-take-our-course scheme, and the other was a phony psychic-astrologer-witch who kept asking for more money so I could receive more benefits from her "wisdom".

In retrospect, I think I fell for those scams because I was so vulnerable and impressionable at that point.

Posted by: LloydDobler Feb 9 2005, 08:12 AM

I'll share my experience here, along the lines of the infomercial scam. There are businesses that do their sales through meetings, which are set up as if they are some secret or exclusive deal. They 'invite' you out of the blue, making sure that you've never heard of their product before. Then they put you through a huge sales pitch for like an hour or two, and the key to the whole deal is that they tell you....

Decide now. If you walk out that door, the deal is off, and you will not be able to come back and get it later.

This sales tactic works surprisingly well, because you simply have no time to check out their information and must make your decision based on what they have just pounded into you in an hour (or more) of sales talk. They work you into a mental frenzy of 'Oh my god this is the deal of a lifetime'. And they have all kinds of smooth answers prepared to justify their policy, reassuring you the whole time that the product is worth it. It's total conspiracy theory style manipulation, playing on your fear of passing up a really good deal.

My young wife and I fell for this (in our 23 year old naivety) twice in one year, and learned well.... IF THEY WILL NOT GIVE YOU TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT - IT IS AUTOMATICALLY A BAD DEAL. Learn from my mistake young XC members. If someone says 'decide now or the deal is off' just smile and walk out knowing you just avoided wasting money. There's the rational thinking part to make this relevant to the topic.

Posted by: atheist_ewtcoma Feb 9 2005, 10:08 AM

I think some people are born to ask or either raised in a environment where questions or encouraged.

Posted by: ericf Feb 9 2005, 10:26 AM

LloydDobler, I have found that my most treasured skill is the ability to just put something down, walk away, and never worry about it again. No regrets from missed opportunity if I am at all unsure. This has not only kept me out of such scams (as I have been invited to a few but never bit) but has made me a valued friend to include when people suspect that something like that might be going on. Because they know that I can usually provide the emotional support they need to walk away -- it is a lot easier when you have someone else.

I think you offered really good advice. Always ask for time to think about things (and make sure they provide enough time... 10 minutes is not time)... and if they refuse... wash your hands of the whole deal and go to the beach or something.

Posted by: Fweethawt Feb 10 2005, 09:09 PM

CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT
Based on the book The Demon Haunted World
by Carl Sagan

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

-Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts

-Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

-Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

-Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

-Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

-Quantify, wherever possible.

-If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

-"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

-Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

Above all - read the book!

http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

Posted by: SmallStone Feb 11 2005, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Feb 9 2005, 06:31 AM)

The point that I'm trying to drive here is that in my experience, people seem to be defiant of rational thinking right up until the point at which they're wiping egg off their face.

This was pretty much my experience as well. Despite seeing through the xtianity sham at a young age, I was still quite susceptible to pseudo-science of all varieties. Sitchin, Hoagland, von Daniken, Hancock, and on and on and on.

The thing that helped me break it was not so much egg on my face, but education. The egg is implicit in that I guess. Calculus and physics are great destroyers of our faith in our own intuition. Human intuition is a lousy tool for use in examining our surroundings. The combination of watching my intuition repeatedly fail in quantifiable fashion and instruction by a very attentive and capable physics instructor is what finally got me on the right track.

Posted by: Ex-COG Feb 11 2005, 09:57 PM

QUOTE (SmallStone @ Feb 11 2005, 04:04 PM)

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Feb 9 2005, 06:31 AM)

The point that I'm trying to drive here is that in my experience, people seem to be defiant of rational thinking right up until the point at which they're wiping egg off their face.

Why do so many of the "new age", "new thought" or whatever-you-call-them then claim that science, more specifically quantum physics, prove their theories of thought influencing and intuition interpreting experience? Just more pseudo science at work?

One of the things I started doing after leaving christianity was read some books on critical thinking and science, but time is limited and there are many books to be read. So I've only brushed upon the subject. Now, I guess I've got to read up on calculus and physics.

I agree, Mr. Neil; logic and reason takes practice.

Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Feb 11 2005, 10:27 PM

Some very good points here.

My latest "scam" was signing up for a free trial of AOL.

But it was a Catch-22. I was kicked off my old man's computer, I didn't have any way of researching AOL's scams until I signed up for AOL to get internet and check it out.

After signing up I found out that they make it painfully hard to cancel.

Most of the scams I've found in life are ones that people continue to fall into, because they are not obvious:

Your "social responsibility":

You know how it goes. You have a responsibility to pass your benefits onto others. Assuming that others know better than you do how to run your life.
The result? Office Space, where the guy keeps passing his cake on only to find he has none for himself in the end.

The "previous investment":

This one is particularly defeating. Whether it's investing in stock and "holding" until it tanks (turning a short term trade into a long term one) or staying within a marriage only to honor the memory of what you've invested in it thus far (and being miserable the rest of your life) some times you just have to cut your losses, pay the price and move on.

"Us vs. Them":

Evil vs. Good, patriotism; anything that demands that you love (or hate) something for its own sake-- without any justification whatsoever except protecting your standing in the herd. Oftentimes it's more "you vs. yourself" than it is anything else.

I know other pearls of wisdom. I've just picked some of them up on the way, and I think Neil's added to that list.

Posted by: Casey Feb 12 2005, 12:06 AM

Scams? We have had some real humdingers in this country, most of which I've come across involve schemes for beating the Neddies (race horses). There was one real beaut where they'd phone you offering a computerised system guaranteed to pick the winners. All based on mathematics, see? Sure-fire, can't fail.

Well, I'm a bit of a bullshitter myself but I do enjoy listening to experts so I let this bloke carry on for a bit until he got to extolling the profits I'd make from a investment of "Just two grand", which was when I asked him just how it was possible to beat a house percentage of around 18%.

A few more questions revealed he'd never heard of a house percentage, didn't even know what one was. Jesus! and this fellow's supposed to know a thing or two about the mathematics of gambling? I don't recall whether I laughed harder before or after I slammed the phone down on this drop-kick.

I must admit however, that I have been sucked in by books that propose to make one an expert Bridge player. It must be said that these books are based on combinatorial mathematics; what they don't tell you is you can't learn bidding and card-play just from books, because these skills are as much an art as they are a science.

It was about then I discovered Yahoo Games have a Bridge section. That was after poring over quite a few scholarly works on the game, which must have cost me at least a couple hundred dollars. I found, yes you could learn bidding and card-play there, and both for free, along with defensive play.

All you needed was a very thick skin in order to endure the insults you got from experienced players until you learned. I must say, I thought I knew how to swear, but their expressions were more inventive and descriptive than I was accustomed to using. I did however get the odd word of praise too, were it not for that I should have given up the game.

Conspiracy theories? The best one I ever heard was the one where Harold Holt (a former Prime Minister) hadn't drowned in the surf. Oh no. He was picked up by a Chinese submarine of all things! Did the people who put this canard about know just how hard it is even for Special Forces troops to make an underwater sub RV I wondered?

On a lesser scale we had Peter Sawyer and his paranoid ravings about the Deakin Centre in Canberra. This place, a telephone exchange, was miraculously transformed into a collator's office for domestic Intelligence, a la Gestapo or Stasi. He'd started off by writing a book exposing how people cheated the welfare system. This was quite accurate as a number of such were in fact arrested for fraud, but after a disagreement with his bosses he just went downhill.

I followed his books and articles for a while, the more paranoid he became, the more amusing he also became, but then I'm a cynical bastard. Then there was Jeremy Lee and his New World Order Conspiracy theories. Still, our wowsers love the man and so don't mind forking out $60 to $75 (AUS) for his video-taped ravings.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's some crop circles I must check out.
Casey

Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Feb 12 2005, 12:35 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Feb 11 2005, 05:09 AM)

Above all - read the book!

I cannot stress this enough. That book is an attack manual against any and all kinds of bullshit, everything from the afore-mentioned Crop Circles and Atlantis Crystals to the Inquisition, Creationism, and the Burning Times.

Not only does it show you how to debunk said baloney, but it exposes all new areas where you have been lied to.

In closing, I can only say this: It should be required reading for *ALL* board members here... not just the "atheists" or "freethinkers."

Merlin

Posted by: SmallStone Feb 12 2005, 06:20 AM

QUOTE (Ex-COG @ Feb 12 2005, 12:57 AM)

It doesn't follow that just because things appear to be one way at one scale that they are that way at other scales. Until we have a cohesive set of equations that are predictive at every scale, this is rank speculation in my opinion.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Feb 12 2005, 06:29 AM

QUOTE (jjacksonRIAB @ Feb 12 2005, 01:27 AM)

"Us vs. Them":

Evil vs. Good, patriotism; anything that demands that you love (or hate) something for its own sake-- without any justification whatsoever except protecting your standing in the herd. Oftentimes it's more "you vs. yourself" than it is anything else.

That's another bad habit that was hard to kick. It took an illegal invasion of Iraq to destroy the blind pariot within me.

Don't get me wrong. I love America, but I love it for the ideals that the founding fathers set forth. I no longer have this chauvinistic idea that America needs to be better than everyone else.

Posted by: ChefRanden Feb 12 2005, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Feb 12 2005, 08:29 AM)

QUOTE (jjacksonRIAB @ Feb 12 2005, 01:27 AM)

Not to start another political argument

but the founding fathers were not angels in disguise spouting the wisdom of the ages. The idea of liberty was a scam from the get go. Just ask the original inhabitants of the land of liberty about liberty. Liberty means the liberty to take whatever you can. The war in Iraq is a logical outcome or extension of what the fathers founded.

(Anybody that wants to tell me I'm nuts use a pm so this thread doesn't get shut down.)

Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Feb 12 2005, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Feb 12 2005, 02:29 PM)

QUOTE (jjacksonRIAB @ Feb 12 2005, 01:27 AM)

Actually, I can agree with this. While I may be the 1% on this board that agrees with the war, I can certainly see the manipulation that the Government and Press did to make it possible. Carl Sagan made an excellent point in his book about the first Gulf War: We didn't hear much about Saddam until we were attacking him. We should have been better informed about both his actions and the other "evil dictators" in the world.

Making Saddam look like the only evil ruler in the world was wrong. That doesn't mean we should leave him alone in peace, but America deserves to be informed and educated better.

Merlin

Posted by: Reach Feb 14 2005, 04:39 AM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Feb 12 2005, 01:45 PM)

Not to start another political argument

I agree with you, Chef. That brings to mind this quote from Heart of Darkness.

The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea -- something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to...

Joseph Conrad (Teodor Josef Konrad Korzeniowski), Novelist, 1857-1924

Posted by: Reach Feb 14 2005, 05:00 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Feb 9 2005, 03:31 AM)

I've come to realize that logic and reason takes practice. Like taking your first steps, you have to stumble and fall a few times before you get it right.

What does it take to be rational?

As you know, doing anything well takes time and practice, discipline, attention to details, completing assignments... processes upon processes. I think it takes some self-restraint, self-control and the ability to turn off or turn down the emotions, an understanding of hormonal changes within the body, the cyclical nature of the same and a way to shut down their influence, as required. I think it takes some humility to accept being wrong and to learn from those mistakes. I think it takes a whole lot of maturity. Rational thinking IS a discipline.

I would add that it takes a certain kind of raw tenacity to hold on to the rational in a world that is charged with the emotional and the sensory. Inundated with sensual advertisements and announcements at every turn, I think it is the lazy thinker (What an oxymoron!) among us who never comes to the point that you have. Being guided by emotions is easy and "natural," exercising one's mind is just that -- exercise!

Posted by: Mr. Neil Feb 14 2005, 05:21 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Feb 14 2005, 08:00 AM)

I think it takes some self-restraint, self-control and the ability to turn off or turn down the emotions, an understanding of hormonal changes within the body, the cyclical nature of the same and a way to shut down their influence, as required.

Emotions are extremely difficult to fight, and I know that about as much as anybody. My best friend's mom died five years ago, and she was sort of like a second mother to me. She was a good friend.
I would love to think that she's still alive, but logic and reality tell me that she isn't. Emotion cannot change reality. When I hear Christians telling me that she's still alive and has an eternal soul, I almost want to palm them in the face. And I hear them say stupid shit like, "Don't you want to believe that she's still out there somewhere?" How dare they patronize me on something like that!?
While emotion has no control over what I believe, I'm afraid it does still have a powerful influence over how I react to things. Even though I can control my actions, the rage sometimes is still very real.

I am vehimently opposed to this sort of idealism. I have way too much respect for the people who've died in my life than to play make believe and pretend that they're still around on a cloud somewhere.

It's not like I enjoy thinking that not only am I not going to see certain people again but that those people simply no longer exist. No one would be stupid enough to endure that kind of burden unless they were not absolutely certain that life is finite and our physical bodies are the extent of who we are.

Like I said, I would love to think that my friend's mom was still alive somewhere. I still have a hard time accepting that she's gone.

Posted by: Reach Feb 14 2005, 05:43 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Feb 14 2005, 05:21 AM)

Emotion cannot change reality.

The loss of a beloved friend or family member is a tremendous burden to bear and it is understandable that some seek out a way to appease themselves and mitigate the grief they carry with some sense that the dead one is still "alive and well and kicking, out there somewhere." I think that in some regards, the belief of an afterlife, without knowing one exists, is a bit of a cheapshot, fosters an atmosphere of denial of the reality and finality of death and is the stuff that fairy tales are drawn from, pure fantasy. I think that that belief also prevents one from processing thoroughly the grief that is attendant in such a loss. A bit of intellectual laziness is implied here. Of course, I hope there is some great paradise in the sky for all of us. I hope... but I doubt it. I hope... but it should not be such a belief which alters the way I choose to live this life, which I know is real, on one plain anyway.

Emotion cannot change reality but our emotions can sure manipulate us if we don't keep an eye on them, and keep them in order, in check, consistently. From what I've seen in people and the way they deal with life's myriad of events and challenges, either we are in control of our emotions or they are in control of us. It's that simple.

On a side note, I am sorry for your losses, Neil, this one friend being just one of them.
Reach