Do people think?

[MorkandMindy]

I would say from personal experience the answer is very rarely and only if absolutely necessary.

1 Example:

(a) Would you vote for a President known to be a born-again Christian?
(b) Would you vote for a President who was known to be a practicing witch?

Historically Christians killed about 60,000 witches in total and the witches are certainly way behind if it can even be said that any of the institutionalised witch/satanist organisations have ever killed or harmed anyone.

As for a born-again Christian, G W Bush said he listened to his heavenly father when it came to the decision to invade Iraq. He was sure he had the Lord's leading and well, it went badly wrong, lots and lots of dead Iraqis later and I'm not sure just an apology will do any more. Nobody could deny that spiritual leading killed fewer than 100,000 civilians.


History is pretty conclusive that you should choose the witch but pretty well nobody does. It wasn't until 20 years after leaving the Christian faith that I dared to look up the church of satan to find out what it was about.


The fact is we are more prone to superstition than to logic.

 

[Svt4Him]

Historically Christians killed about 60,000 witches in total

Based on this statement alone, I'd say you're putting a pretty good argument up for the no vote.

 

[Paradoxum]

So your question isn't if people have the ability to think, but if or how often this ability is used? Also, by 'to think' you mean thinking rationally or reasonably?

I would say that most people don't think rationally most of the time.

I think the witch argument is unfair though. If witchcraft were the main religion of Europe back then, then it may have been witches killing over 60,000 Christians. It could have been that a pagan religion was made the religion of Rome and that Rome never stopped persecuting the Christians. So anyway, I would vote for the person with the right values rather than based on the name they call their system.

 

[MorkandMindy]

So your question isn't if people have the ability to think, but if or how often this ability is used?

Yes. Based on the responses I've recieved from lengthy debates and discussions about fairly simple ongoing problems I've had with people at work it has become apparent that all that is actually going on is accepting the application of categories.

If I provide a plausible category and claim something goes in it then people agree. If they actually have to evaluate something then they just dodge it.

Also, by 'to think' you mean thinking rationally or reasonably?

Yes, there is an amazing lack of that going on.

I would say that most people don't think rationally most of the time.

Yes, I'm coming to the conclusion that thinking is actually a skill that some people use sometimes, but mainly for things that directly affect themselves, but others don't use even when they really need to.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think the witch argument is unfair though. If witchcraft were the main religion of Europe back then, then it may have been witches killing over 60,000 Christians. It could have been that a pagan religion was made the religion of Rome and that Rome never stopped persecuting the Christians. So anyway, I would vote for the person with the right values rather than based on the name they call their system.

The populations in Asian areas with more advanced religions grew more than those in the warring Middle East and Europe, so I don't think it is a case of all religions are the same and all religions would behave in the same way if they were in charge.

The 'religions of the book' particularly lend themselves to killing, possibly due to the nature of God as portrayed in the book:


Joshua 6.21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. [except Rahab the harlot and her father's household]

Joshua 8.24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. 25And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

Joshua 10 10And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
11And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The populations in Asian areas with more advanced religions grew more than those in the warring Middle East and Europe, so I don't think it is a case of all religions are the same and all religions would behave in the same way if they were in charge.

Eastern religions can be just violent and irrational as Western monotheism. For example:

• Hinduism has its share of problems, such as bride-burning, human sacrifice (practiced by cultists who worship the goddess Kali) and the caste system.
• Buddhists believe that if we suffer in this life, we will be reincarnated as something higher in the next life. This idea has been used to justify forms of self-torture, such as self-mummification (a process which can take over 3000 days, or roughly eight years, and is lethal).
• Hindus and Sikhs have a long history of animosity. Major wars include the Battle of Bhangani (1689), Battle of Anandpur Sahib (1700) and Operation Bluestar (1984).
• Shintoism and Buddhism both have a history nationalism (where religious beliefs were imposed by the state). Before it was officially banned in 1626, many Christians had been killed.

Eastern religions aren't more peaceful than Western ones - we simply know less about them.


[EDIT] To avoid starting a flame war, this was just to point out that Eastern religions also have a strong history of violence - rather than just saying "NO U!" and pretending nothing bad has ever been done in the name of Christianity.

 

[Received]

Beliefs, aside from being attempted representations of reality, are also cultural constituents. Thinking implies engaging with the possibility that your beliefs are incorrect, which could potentially mean shifting to different cultures, or at least concealing any number of beliefs that go against your group (family, friends, faculty) when they unbutton themselves during shared times. Constantly shifting takes work, and the natural attachment is toward stability in interpersonal relations, so for many people it's simply better not to think. After all, thinking is intrinsically difficult, anyways. There are all sorts of cultural, herd-based terms used to signify the person who dares to think and come up with a different conclusion than a shared cultural meme: "heretic", for example, or simply "idiot", etc. Often it's simply a negative affective stance toward heterodox cognitions. Try telling your Tea Party father you've decided to side with Occupy Wall Street. The rage will speak louder than words.

So isolation is the default for the true, committed thinker -- the free thinker, the skeptic -- with the exception of finding solace in others who have no culture (boring), have culture but no attachments to their cultural herd (rare), or are thinkers themselves (the belief that thinking is a worthwhile activity a cultural constituent). You can't change the vast majority of people through reason simply because they're using another standard, and often this standard has a false tarp of rationality around it: group culture. Hence, the only realistic way to change their minds is through meeting them as a group member, accomplished by planting clandestine seeds of rationality in the minds of people who accept you precisely because they at least think you line up with their beliefs in some way. A stranger isn't going to convince a neoconservative that he's wrong; a relative with a shared passion for football is much more likely a candidate.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I would say from personal experience the answer is very rarely and only if absolutely necessary.

You do realize that this seems to say that you, from your own personal experience, think very rarely and only if absolutely necessary? Since the one person that you have had the most personal experience with is yourself I assume that you are commenting about your own proclivities here.

1

Example:

(a) Would you vote for a President known to be a born-again Christian?
(b) Would you vote for a President who was known to be a practicing witch?

Are those the only possible candidates for President?

Historically Christians killed about 60,000 witches in total and the witches are certainly way behind if it can even be said that any of the institutionalised witch/satanist organisations have ever killed or harmed anyone.

What does this have to do with the process of thinking? Do you equate thinking with passivity? Many cultures would equate passivity with lack of mental acuity.

As for a born-again Christian, G W Bush said he listened to his heavenly father when it came to the decision to invade Iraq. He was sure he had the Lord's leading and well, it went badly wrong, lots and lots of dead Iraqis later and I'm not sure just an apology will do any more. Nobody could deny that spiritual leading killed fewer than 100,000 civilians.

You do realize that those that voted for GW Bush may not have been satisfied with his qualifications or philosophy but may instead just have been even less satisfied with either John Forbes Kerry or Albert Gore III to the extent that they felt they had no real choice but to vote no to them which resulted in a GW Bush victory.

History is pretty conclusive that you should choose the witch but pretty well nobody does. It wasn't until 20 years after leaving the Christian faith that I dared to look up the church of satan to find out what it was about.

I think you need some sort of factual evidence to back up any assertion that History is conclusive that we should elect a witch rather than a born again Christian as President. Wouldn't it matter who was the witch and who was the born again Christian?

The fact is we are more prone to superstition than to logic.

Though I tend to agree with this opinion, it is in fact an opinion and not a demonstrable fact as you have stated. Unless you have some actual verifiable evidence I think(Yes I am actually doing that ) you should refrain from claiming your opinions are fact.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Beliefs, aside from being attempted representations of reality, are also cultural constituents. Thinking implies engaging with the possibility that your beliefs are incorrect, which could potentially mean shifting to different cultures, or at least concealing any number of beliefs that go against your group (family, friends, faculty) when they unbutton themselves during shared times. Constantly shifting takes work, and the natural attachment is toward stability in interpersonal relations, so for many people it's simply better not to think. After all, thinking is intrinsically difficult, anyways. There are all sorts of cultural, herd-based terms used to signify the person who dares to think and come up with a different conclusion than a shared cultural meme: "heretic", for example, or simply "idiot", etc. Often it's simply a negative affective stance toward heterodox cognitions. Try telling your Tea Party father you've decided to side with Occupy Wall Street. The rage will speak louder than words.

So isolation is the default for the true, committed thinker -- the free thinker, the skeptic -- with the exception of finding solace in others who have no culture (boring), have culture but no attachments to their cultural herd (rare), or are thinkers themselves (the belief that thinking is a worthwhile activity a cultural constituent). You can't change the vast majority of people through reason simply because they're using another standard, and often this standard has a false tarp of rationality around it: group culture. Hence, the only realistic way to change their minds is through meeting them as a group member, accomplished by planting clandestine seeds of rationality in the minds of people who accept you precisely because they at least think you line up with their beliefs in some way. A stranger isn't going to convince a neoconservative that he's wrong; a relative with a shared passion for football is much more likely a candidate.

Just to be fair, try telling your OWS best friend that you agree with the TEA Party. Is the person that disagrees with me not thinking or just unintelligent? I don't think I have that kind of arrogance myself but perhaps others do. Is it possible that the person that disagrees with me just has a different worldview or mindset and not necessarily an inferior one? Is it possible that one might allow another to have a different opinion without thinking of them as mentally deficient or willfully ignorant?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Paradoxum and Notedstrangeperson - I woke up thinking about the behaviour of the majority Hindus in India toward the Buddhists and that it substantiated your point.

I then went back to my argument from population and another argument that the reason the World became Western dominated was that war was a dominant activity in the Christian World.

I then thought; we are both right, it isn't a clear cut thing, but lost in the statistics.

I then stopped thinking.


Recieved:

'Often it's simply a negative affective stance toward heterodox cognitions.'

That was the conclusion I reached in the thread 'Should the News be Accurate' http://www.christianforums.com/t7617920-3/, 'The mass media news usually constitutes 'common ground' between people, and therefore is automatically true.'

'the natural attachment is toward stability in interpersonal relations, so for many people it's simply better not to think. After all, thinking is intrinsically difficult, anyways.'

Yes, I've noticed that both in myself and other people.


Grasping the after wind

'You do realize that this seems to say that you, from your own personal experience, think very rarely and only if absolutely necessary?'

Yes, I was an Evangelical Christian for 10 years. I was aware from the start that there seemed to be a lack of content in the belief system, basically we didn't know what we believed and so argued a lot, but it took ages before I realised it would never deliver on any of it's promises.

'Are those the only possible candidates for President?'

Yes. But both have campaign funds of over a billion dollars so both are considered suitable candidates by the big money, so actually there is hardly any difference between them so my comparison on further consideration is pretty silly.

it is in fact an opinion and not a demonstrable fact as you have stated

Yes, I'm going to have to use accurate terms such as 'assertion' here. This means using precise language here which at work no one would even understand.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The OP uses something like a generalisation concluding from some believers to the whole group. I think it's a bit hasty.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The OP uses something like a generalisation concluding from some believers to the whole group. I think it's a bit hasty.

Yes, I used to post as well-balanced and as accurate OPs as I could and they all sank without responses

while the half-wit 'Science is a religion' threads turned into 'rockets' that gained 30 posts a day for weeks.


So I decided to compromise and take an important and meaningful point as the OP and then make it provocative enough to make people disagree and therefore think about it. But I didn't craft this OP all that carefully because it was well past my bedtime.



I think the overall question is a good one.

In practical terms it is affecting me at work because there is a conflict and management are not interested to the point of making any effort to understand it, they just want it to go away whatever the consequences of it resolving itself. They are hoping to avoid thinking and just hope the situation will take care of itself and dictate the required actions if any.


My own tendency not to think is having an effect on the overall strategy of the way my life is going each day. I tend not to waste time like a lot of people I know do, and to gather knowledge and skills and help my children do the same, but the crucial actions are the ones I never seem to get right. I guess it may be a matter of staying in my comfort zone and only slowly expanding it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks for the comment. The first thing I thought of readingt he OP was Drew Westen's Political Bias study.

"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1100937...ical-bias-affects-brain-activity-study-finds/

 

[AlexBP]

I think you need some sort of factual evidence to back up any assertion that History is conclusive that we should elect a witch rather than a born again Christian as President.

I was going to write a response to MorkandMindy's original post but grasping the after wind has said exactly what I wanted to say. There's no logic at all in the argument in the original post. Who we vote for as President has nothing to do with what unrelated people did many centuries ago.

 

[MorkandMindy]

... Who we vote for as President has nothing to do with what unrelated people did many centuries ago.

Indeed, what many Christian voters fail to grasp is that what supposedly happened in another continent almost two thousand years ago has nothing at all to do with whom to vote for as President.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

^^ looks like they might then be commiting the Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MorkandMindy]

^^ looks like they might then be commiting the Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this fit in with my observation that people do not in general think, but instead pigeon-hole things?

They don't have a simple category they like, so they search the past for a simple category they do like for example:


Israelis are killing Palestinians. That's OK because in the past some German Chancellor and some Polish and Russians killed lots of Jews, so it is OK for Israelis to kill Palestinians, though they mustn't kill anybody else like Americans or present day Germans.


Converting present day Israelis into persecuted Jewish concentration camp victims allows the reasoning to sort of work through use of a category fallacy which is in this case a Genetic fallacy.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Does this fit in with my observation that people do not in general think, but instead pigeon-hole things?

It might be related, but it is a slightly different point. With the genetic fallacy someones argument IIRC is rejected because of the source it comes from, rather than the content of the reasoning itself. People might stereotype and categorise, but it does not automatically follow that they will be lead to commit this fallacy because of that particular habit of mind.

 

[Ayersy]

I would say from personal experience the answer is very rarely and only if absolutely necessary.

1 Example:

(a) Would you vote for a President known to be a born-again Christian?
(b) Would you vote for a President who was known to be a practicing witch?

Historically Christians killed about 60,000 witches in total and the witches are certainly way behind if it can even be said that any of the institutionalised witch/satanist organisations have ever killed or harmed anyone.

As for a born-again Christian, G W Bush said he listened to his heavenly father when it came to the decision to invade Iraq. He was sure he had the Lord's leading and well, it went badly wrong, lots and lots of dead Iraqis later and I'm not sure just an apology will do any more. Nobody could deny that spiritual leading killed fewer than 100,000 civilians.


History is pretty conclusive that you should choose the witch but pretty well nobody does. It wasn't until 20 years after leaving the Christian faith that I dared to look up the church of satan to find out what it was about.


The fact is we are more prone to superstition than to logic.

To be honest I'd be inclined to vote for neither, though it obviously does depend on their policies. If they are letting their beliefs affect their political decisions, then they are both as bad as each other.

 

[AlexBP]

Indeed, what many Christian voters fail to grasp is that what supposedly happened in another continent almost two thousand years ago has nothing at all to do with whom to vote for as President.

This does not in any way address what grasping the after wind said to you. He said this:

I think you need some sort of factual evidence to back up any assertion that History is conclusive that we should elect a witch rather than a born again Christian as President.
​

If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to respond.