So I would like to make an offer on this blog, to the five readers of this blog.
As so many people never tire of telling me, some things require belief, not rationality [**].
As so many people never tire of telling me, some things require belief, not rationality [**].
Okay, I'm down with that.
I understand the belief versus rationality thing. But there is a certain thing that I find puzzling about the willingness to believe. Here's the offer. If this paradox, which I mention below, is explained away by someone willing to make the effort, I will immediately come around, fall to my knees, and drink the Kool-Aid.
Here's the paradox. I have noticed that there is an inverse relationship between claims and belief. The taller the claim, the shorter the duration of critical thinking assigned to it by human beings.
Here's the paradox. I have noticed that there is an inverse relationship between claims and belief. The taller the claim, the shorter the duration of critical thinking assigned to it by human beings.
Here is an example. If a human being is told that a particular brand of toothpaste is good for his teeth or a particular investment will double his money, he says, "Oh yeah? Show me." If that same human being is told that subscribing to a fuzzy, other-worldly, non-demonstrable, non-repeatable philosophy will save his soul, he says, "Where do I sign up?"
I need someone to explain this to me.
[**] Note that I choose my words carefully and contrast "belief" with "rationality", not "belief" with "thought". Just as it requires thought to rationalize, it requires thought to believe. We are constantly being asked to accept on faith various sorts of claims: marketing claims, spiritual claims, and emotional claims. Sometimes the claims are competing claims. So how--without some thought--does one choose *what* to believe? Even belief, it would appear, requires some sort of deliberation. In fact, if you really want to nitpick, rational people are also believers, only that they demand a much higher statistical significance before they will believe. Put another way, they demand a lower p-value. Even the most hardcore rationalists accept, say, 1% of a claim on faith. The difference between a believer and a rational empiricist is one of degree, not category.
I need someone to explain this to me.
[**] Note that I choose my words carefully and contrast "belief" with "rationality", not "belief" with "thought". Just as it requires thought to rationalize, it requires thought to believe. We are constantly being asked to accept on faith various sorts of claims: marketing claims, spiritual claims, and emotional claims. Sometimes the claims are competing claims. So how--without some thought--does one choose *what* to believe? Even belief, it would appear, requires some sort of deliberation. In fact, if you really want to nitpick, rational people are also believers, only that they demand a much higher statistical significance before they will believe. Put another way, they demand a lower p-value. Even the most hardcore rationalists accept, say, 1% of a claim on faith. The difference between a believer and a rational empiricist is one of degree, not category.
6 comments:
Sougata,
I would recommend "The Book - On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" - by Alan Watts. Basically, the more grandiose the claim, the more that people have to invest to believe in it and that makes them feel superior to us unbelieving beings.Which is why organised religion appeals to the idiots. I have nothing against a person who attempts to "seek" answers by himself and come to his own conclusions, but I loathe rigid attitudes that are formed on ignorance, intolerance and zero understanding.Besides it is an emotional thing - people with lower emotional intelligence are more likely to seek comfort in religion and try conquer the "unknown".
Jyoti
Got a few questions and comments - Am I included in the five readers?? I better be! Also, you've never had to defend or argue about your religious beliefs or lack thereof with me, and I'm family (yup! no way out of it - remember the song - "the more you ignore me, the closer I get" - ?).
Don't feel like writing anymore right now. sleepy and cold.
Love & hugs.
p.s. - Good stuff about Israel and all that.
Jyoti:
Reading suggestion noted.
DS:
Yup, you are duly included.
I wonder do you have kids? I practise religion more as an "escape route" from my kid ;he asks too many questions that I have no answers to!!! Perhaps I am one that belongs to the category of "idiots" as mentioned by the moving finger. It would be interesting to know your thoughts on the role of "rewards" and "punishments" in bringing up kids- just an issue that I haven't found definite answers to....
I practise religion more as an "escape route" from my kid ;he asks too many questions that I have no answers to!!!
Out of curiosity, what questions does your child ask that religion has the answers to? Also, how old is he?
It would be interesting to know your thoughts on the role of "rewards" and "punishments" in bringing up kids
That made me chuckle a little, because asking me about bringing up kids is like asking Liz Taylor about what makes a marriage work.
As an aside and out of curiosity again, what makes you think that what I say on this topic is worth anything anyway?
I have not even a vague idea what the correct proportion of reward and punishment should be in bringing up a child. So I can't define an effective parent. I can however provide a negative definition for you; I can tell you what an effective parent is not. That is not as narrow and good as a positive definition of course, but it'll have to do.
Also, I'll use a personal example because this personal example is someone that I have had a lot of time to observe. I don't have any other frames of reference or examples.
My father was not an effective parent, because he was heavily into the punishment thing. Very few rewards; a lot of punishment. As far as the child is concerned, that gets old in a hurry. I am not saying that there is no place for punishment; I am saying that punishment should not become so common that it loses its novelty and thus its remedial value. My father--otherwise a very intelligent man--didn't quite get this. To defend the absent, and just to lend some balance to all this, I was not an easy child. A lot of the stuff that I got I deserved.
As a child, when I did something wrong he would kick the shit out of me. Which was all very fine, except that he defined "wrong" very liberally :-).
[So there's a piece of wisdom for what it's worth--don't be too generous with what you define as wrong behavior for your child.]
I grew up completely alone and without any meaningful relationships. The reason for this is simple: I disliked my father and unfortunately, defined everybody in terms of my father. My mother was HIS wife, my sisters were HIS daughters. Even my friends were in a certain way defined relative to him because I hated bringing friends home as my yound mind was terrified at the prospect of being accidentally humiliated in front of them. I am happy to say that I did discover my sisters--both of whom I love very much--after growing up. My first meaningful friendships I made in college.
This would be the logical place to make the point that you should avoid being like my father, but I somehow get the feeling that it would be redundant. I suspect that my father is not the norm, and so he should be an easy example to avoid. But then you never know; so I'll say it anyway--don't be like him.
I like the way how I can say almost nothing for seven paragraphs and postpone stating the obvious until the eighth. Next stop politics, you think?
Yes, you're right, I don't think so either.
Sougata,
That was touching. We seem to have something else in common - abusive childhoods. I just took a psychology course and discovered the difference between authoritative parenting and authoritarian parenting. Big difference. On religious issues, I would think that good parenting meant not deceiving one's child with fairy tales, rather encouraging the child to keep an open mind about stuff. On a personal level, no matter how much religiosity I observed, it always left me sceptical and untouched.
Post a Comment