Why can't we learn?

[DRMIZER]

Saturday in Phoenix, Arizona police were called by neighbors of a young mother, her three year old daughter and the little girl's grandfather because they heard blood curdling screams coming from their home. When police arrived they observed the naked mother chanting "squeeze the demons out of her", while the grandfather was choking the innocent little girl! All three were covered in blood. The mother and grandfather were performing an exorcism on the helpless three year old girl!

Why in 2007 are people still believing in demons and exorcisms??? Because people who know better are under the delusion that any half-baked idea that is associated with the word religion somehow demands respect! Respect should only be shown to someone or something that deserves it. A belief system that teaches insanities such as the devil and demons being realities, such as followers of the belief system being able to bypass nature and reality and heal the sick simply by placing their hands on them, such as propagating lies such as original sin, etc., etc., etc., deserves absolutely no respect whatsoever! If all freethinkers (Deists) would point out to those under the spell of the superstitious "revealed" religions that God has nothing to do with these insane ideas, the world would finally be able to make real progress!

People who have their minds chained by the "revealed" religions may resist at first, but eventually most of them will be very thankful to you for freeing them of the fear based burden of the Bible and "revealed" religion. And with each person we reach, we're making their lives and their childrens' and grandchildrens' lives much better, as well as making the world a much better place!

see http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21294818.shtml

[Atticus]

So, taking the labels off your argument, you're saying that if all the people who believe X would just talk enough, others would stop believing in 'not X?'

Why do you think that would work? Is there any evidence to suggest this is true?

[DRMIZER]

So, taking the labels off your argument, you're saying that if all the people who believe X would just talk enough, others would stop believing in 'not X?'

Why do you think that would work? Is there any evidence to suggest this is true?This depends. If you tell people that X = ice and ice is hot, they probably wouldn't be so ready to accept it. However, when one has to suspend all logic in a religious system to believe it, who knows? The chances are certainly better than the latter. When X = illogical and dogma = illogical. . .

[Groucho]

I think many of us are just dumbfounded that here, in the 21st century, a majority of people still believe in supernatural things like devils and angels and so on.

These same people scoff at the idea that Zeus could throw firebolts from Mt. Olympus while surrounded by satyrs and nymphs, but somehow don't see their own superstitions as the same thing.

It really does astound some of us, and when we read that these superstitious folks are using their belief in mythology to justify evil acts, it makes us all look like we haven't "learned anything."

[Atticus]

This depends. If you tell people that X = ice and ice is hot, they probably wouldn't be so ready to accept it. However, when one has to suspend all logic in a religious system to believe it, who knows? The chances are certainly better than the latter. When X = illogical and dogma = illogical. . .But this is really a matter of inculcating prejudices. You have a prejudice for the logical and empirical, which you got from your education (which, by the way, you volunteered for, most likely). You can't force that on someone who isn't ready to listen.

[Lumpen Prole]

But this is really a matter of inculcating prejudices. You have a prejudice for the logical and empirical, which you got from your education (which, by the way, you volunteered for, most likely). You can't force that on someone who isn't ready to listen.

Likewise, I suspect that this child was not in a position to objectively evaluate her situation and decide whether or not she should consent to having the invisible demons violently cast out of her body. I don't doubt that these people really, truly believed in such a silly thing (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION) as evil spirits inhabiting a person's body... but should I withhold criticism of an act I consider to be both disgusting and outright embarassing just because these people certainly believed they were doing the right thing? If one of my relatives did such a thing to one of my nieces or nephews (or anyone I knew, for that matter) I would likely have more than a few choice words for them. I do not care if these people mean no harm; this kind of behavior is dangerous and primitive (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION).

[TomAZ]

That unfortunate little girl. One can only imagine the superstitious nonsense that has already been placed in her mind. How sad.

[Atticus]

Likewise, I suspect that this child was not in a position to objectively evaluate her situation and decide whether or not she should consent to having the invisible demons violently cast out of her body. I don't doubt that these people really, truly believed in such a silly thing (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION) as evil spirits inhabiting a person's body... but should I withhold criticism of an act I consider to be both disgusting and outright embarassing just because these people certainly believed they were doing the right thing? If one of my relatives did such a thing to one of my nieces or nephews (or anyone I knew, for that matter) I would likely have more than a few choice words for them. I do not care if these people mean no harm; this kind of behavior is dangerous and primitive (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION).No one's suggesting anything of the sort--you can say anything you like to her parents. The question of the thread is whether ideas like theirs would eradicated if enough "freethinkers" spoke up. I suspect not, if only because people believe things because they want to. Just because you talk doesn't mean they'll listen. :sorry:

[DRMIZER]

But this is really a matter of inculcating prejudices. You have a prejudice for the logical and empirical, which you got from your education (which, by the way, you volunteered for, most likely). You can't force that on someone who isn't ready to listen.Yes, you are quite right about someone who isn't ready to listen. It's like trying to change a republican into a democrat. :lol:

I am not prejudiced for logic and imperical evidence. Logic explains and imperically things can be repeated to PROVE the hypothesis. I call it "reason" as much as "they" call it faith.

[DRMIZER]

Likewise, I suspect that this child was not in a position to objectively evaluate her situation and decide whether or not she should consent to having the invisible demons violently cast out of her body. I don't doubt that these people really, truly believed in such a silly thing (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION) as evil spirits inhabiting a person's body... but should I withhold criticism of an act I consider to be both disgusting and outright embarassing just because these people certainly believed they were doing the right thing? If one of my relatives did such a thing to one of my nieces or nephews (or anyone I knew, for that matter) I would likely have more than a few choice words for them. I do not care if these people mean no harm; this kind of behavior is dangerous and primitive (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION).Correct IMO.

[Atticus]

I am not prejudiced for logic and imperical evidence. Logic explains and imperically things can be repeated to PROVE the hypothesis. Your first sentence denies what your second sentence confirms.

[DRMIZER]

No one's suggesting anything of the sort--you can say anything you like to her parents. The question of the thread is whether ideas like theirs would eradicated if enough "freethinkers" spoke up. I suspect not, if only because people believe things because they want to. Just because you talk doesn't mean they'll listen. :sorry:As I explained already. Brainwashing is a terrible tool to use on the young. Countries and cults have used it for years. If people choose to accept ignorance as a belief, it's their choice. However, the more one is open to listening, the better the chance they will eventually get it. I am one of them who got it.

I believe in the God of nature, a creator. Why? Because it is logical and we can see the results of his "accidents" throughout the universe. I totally reject the dogma of men applied to a Creator including devils, demons; healed by the likes of Benny Hinn, et.al. which could be another thread.

[DRMIZER]

Your first sentence denies what your second sentence confirms.
Whateever you wrote.

[DRMIZER]

That unfortunate little girl. One can only imagine the superstitious nonsense that has already been placed in her mind. How sad.Yes it is sad. I would call it abuse.

[::Major_Baker::]

Yes it is sad. I would call it abuse.

you would? how is this different than religious doctrination of children?

The content?

[DRMIZER]

you would? how is this different than religious doctrination of children?

The content?Beating or choking a child in the name of religion is abuse. That isn't religious freedom, obviously. The rule of human laws trump devine intervention. :lol:

[Atticus]

As I explained already. Brainwashing is a terrible tool to use on the young.Right, so the logical conclusion is that we should hold all children in isolation until they reach 18. Anything we say or do in their presence is "brainwashing." Unless you can find a way to reconcile that all the good things you'd teach your children are "education" and all the bad things someone else would teach them are "brainwashing."

By the way, the grandfather who performed the "exorcism" is dead: http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/488938,072907ariz.article

One less objectionable person in the world. :rolleyes:

[::Major_Baker::]

Beating or choking a child in the name of religion is abuse. That isn't religious freedom, obviously. The rule of human laws trump devine intervention. :lol:

I thought we were talking about what she was likely taught, not what was done to her.

[Atticus]

Beating or choking a child is abuse. There, I fixed it for you.

[DRMIZER]

Right, so the logical conclusion is that we should hold all children in isolation until they reach 18. Anything we say or do in their presence is "brainwashing." : I am referring to the classical definition of brainwashing, obviously.
Unless you can find a way to reconcile that all the good things you'd teach your children are "education" and all the bad things someone else would teach them are "brainwashing." Well, if you put it that way, I favor and disfavor home schooling. It's a 2 edge sword which sometimes cuts in the wrong direction.

By the way, the grandfather who performed the "exorcism" is dead: http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/488938,072907ariz.article

One less objectionable person in the world. :rolleyes Amen Brother (Wonder if he went to heaven?)

[DRMIZER]

There, I fixed it for you.I can't thank you enough. :flowers:

[DRMIZER]

I thought we were talking about what she was likely taught, not what was done to her.Okay, mixed signals.:o
IMO what she was taught about religion must surely be abusive. She was living it. Don't you agree?

[::Major_Baker::]

Okay, mixed signals.:o
IMO what she was taught about religion must surely be abusive. She was living it. Don't you agree?

probably. but the way you phrased it made me think you were referring to the fact that she was brainwashed, or indoctrinated, and only the material she was taught is what makes this different than say, the million of other kids who are taught disinformation in the name of religion.

[DRMIZER]

probably. but the way you phrased it made me think you were referring to the fact that she was brainwashed, or indoctrinated, and only the material she was taught is what makes this different than say, the million of other kids who are taught disinformation in the name of religion.Sorry. :sorry:

[Atticus]

I am referring to the classical definition of brainwashing, obviously.I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Doesn't it have to do with holding someone in isolation so that they hear only one message, thus eventually breaking down their resistance to it and making them think it's the only way?

How (and this is a serious question) does "brainwashing" someone to believe, say--that telling the truth is right and lying is wrong, that sharing is good and greed is bad, that eating vegetables is the right way and eating tons of sweets is the wrong way--how do these differ from other messages. Isn't it all brainwashing and the difference is whether the values or messages involved conform or differ from our own? After all, someone might say that not exposing my child to the benefits of lying, hording, or gorging means I am brainwashing them. :shrug:

[Atticus]

Your first sentence denies what your second sentence confirms.
Whateever you wrote.If you don't get what I'm saying, maybe you should reconsider your sig line.

[::Major_Baker::]

I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Doesn't it have to do with holding someone in isolation so that they hear only one message, thus eventually breaking down their resistance to it and making them think it's the only way?

How (and this is a serious question) does "brainwashing" someone to believe, say--that telling the truth is right and lying is wrong, that sharing is good and greed is bad, that eating vegetables is the right way and eating tons of sweets is the wrong way--how do these differ from other messages. Isn't it all brainwashing and the difference is whether the values or messages involved conform or differ from our own? After all, someone might say that not exposing my child to the benefits of lying, hording, or gorging means I am brainwashing them. :shrug:


What if we used proof as a variable here to define brainwashing. We know sweets are bad for us, and can prove that. We know lying is wrong and in some cases illegal, and we can illustrate that. So this isn't realy brainwashing, this is simply issuing fact.

We cannnot prove that there is an invisible male entity in the sky watching our every move, so does this make it brainwashing when we try to convince our kids that there is?

[Lumpen Prole]

Right, so the logical conclusion is that we should hold all children in isolation until they reach 18. Anything we say or do in their presence is "brainwashing." Unless you can find a way to reconcile that all the good things you'd teach your children are "education" and all the bad things someone else would teach them are "brainwashing."

By the way, the grandfather who performed the "exorcism" is dead: http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/488938,072907ariz.article

One less objectionable person in the world. :rolleyes:

I agree with Atticus here.

[Lumpen Prole]

No one's suggesting anything of the sort--you can say anything you like to her parents. The question of the thread is whether ideas like theirs would eradicated if enough "freethinkers" spoke up. I suspect not, if only because people believe things because they want to. Just because you talk doesn't mean they'll listen. :sorry:

I was not at all implying that such people would listen. Regardless, this does not mean one shouldn't criticize the behavior for what it is: dangerous, superstitious, and primitive. Personally I see more danger in religious moderates resorting to censorship in the face of of those annoying, immature secularists who call like they see it. Disagreement and dialogue is always welcome.

[Atticus]

What if we used proof as a variable here to define brainwashing. We know sweets are bad for us, and can prove that. We know lying is wrong and in some cases illegal, and we can illustrate that. So this isn't realy brainwashing, this is simply issuing fact.

We cannnot prove that there is an invisible male entity in the sky watching our every move, so does this make it brainwashing when we try to convince our kids that there is?Yes, but 'et's remember the forum we're in--philosophy isn't empirical and it questions the idea of how to determine what we know. There are varied ways of knowing. Your argument here is based on empiricism, which is only one way that humans understand things.

BTW, I'm not suggesting I don' accept your view here (clearly, I do, since I'm feeding my kid cheese and low-fat ham as I type this), but it is only one view--and you must admit that the other points are more dicey.

To wit: Is lying wrong--objectively wrong? Or is it a value you and I happen to share? Surely it's true that those who don't mind lying for a good cause (say, their own profit) do profit more than scrupulous truth-tellers. And Americans have raised greed past a high value--it's almost an art form.

[Atticus]

I was not at all implying that such people would listen. Regardless, this does not mean one shouldn't criticize the behavior for what it is: dangerous, superstitious, and primitive. Personally I see more danger in religious moderates resorting to censorship in the face of of those annoying, immature secularists who call like they see it. Disagreement and dialogue is always welcome.We should, of course, advocate for our own viewpoints. No one stops us from doing that. It's the way we characterize the views of others that might be a concern.

For example, if you could dig up someone who believes in evil spirits, make them a WS member, and get them to argue with you, you might need to be more scrupulous in your characterization of their ideas.

[::Major_Baker::]

on further reading, it seems a common piece in the definitions of brainwashing are that you are steered away from what you currently believe towards a new realm of thought.

Maybe indoctrination is a more accurate term, as children do not have a basis from which to challenge the ideas they are force fed. And I say 'force-fed' because they generally are impressionable, have no means of challenge, nor the knowlege to do so.

[Atticus]

on further reading, it seems a common piece in the definitions of brainwashing are that you are steered away from what you currently believe towards a new realm of thought.

Maybe indoctrination is a more accurate term, as children do not have a basis from which to challenge the ideas they are force fed. And I say force fed because they generally are impressionable, have no means of challenge, nor the knowlege to do so.Indeed, but again unless we place them in isolation, ANY ideas will be "force fed."

[::Major_Baker::]

Indeed, but again unless we place them in isolation, ANY ideas will be "force fed."

except those they learn on their own, by means of empiricism.

[Atticus]

except those they learn on their own, by means of empiricism.Then they will learn little more than "pain hurts" and "pleasure feels good." Values are not empirical.

[::Major_Baker::]

Then they will learn little more than "pain hurts" and "pleasure feels good." Values are not empirical.

I don't consider religious teachings 'values.' Your values maybe, but not mine, or your childs. Not until you instill them anyways.

Values, in the true sense of the word, most certainly can be empirical. Children learn how to treat others based on reactions and feedback. They are processing the results, which is empirical.

[Atticus]

I don't consider religious teachings 'values.' Your values maybe, but not mine, or your childs. Not until you instill them anyways.

Values, in the true sense of the word, most certainly can be empirical. Children learn how to treat others based on reactions and feedback. They are processing the results, which is empirical.Well, then, your universal, empirical values would say, for example, that

hitting another kid is a good idea so long as the teacher isn't looking.
Stealing is profitable if you don't get caught.
Lying (effectively) is how you get to be powerful.
Revenge is sweet.
Might makes right.
If you can get others to do your work for you, go for it.

And so forth. All these things are empirically true. Frankly, few people who become very wealthy or very powerful attain that status without understanding and acting on these values.

[DRMIZER]

To wit: Is lying wrong--objectively wrong? Or is it a value you and I happen to share? Surely it's true that those who don't mind lying for a good cause (say, their own profit) do profit more than scrupulous truth-tellers. And Americans have raised greed past a high value--it's almost an art form.It could be right or wrong. Example. You're standing in a doorway. Running down the street in front of you is a woman screaming and yelling for help. A hundred feet or so back is a man running fast with a knife in his hand. He stops and asks you, which way did the woman go? Are you going to tell him the truth or are you going to point in another direction to get him off the track? It's referred to as situation ethics.

[DRMIZER]

I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Doesn't it have to do with holding someone in isolation so that they hear only one message, thus eventually breaking down their resistance to it and making them think it's the only way?Isolation and listening to one line of thought could be considered brainwashing. However, isolation, or being alone, does not have to be a part of it. Cults for example may have hundreds of followers.

How (and this is a serious question) does "brainwashing" someone to believe, say--that telling the truth is right and lying is wrong, that sharing is good and greed is bad, that eating vegetables is the right way and eating tons of sweets is the wrong way--how do these differ from other messages. Isn't it all brainwashing and the difference is whether the values or messages involved conform or differ from our own? After all, someone might say that not exposing my child to the benefits of lying, hording, or gorging means I am brainwashing them. This is more or less my definition of brainwashing. "Brainwashing or thought reform is the application of coercive techniques to change the beliefs or behavior of one or more people for political purposes." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing Of course this can include any line of thought including religion, political views, etc.

Now, back to the thread subject. :confused:

[Atticus]

It could be right or wrong. Example. You're standing in a doorway. Running down the street in front of you is a woman screaming and yelling for help. A hundred feet or so back is a man running fast with a knife in his hand. He stops and asks you, which way did the woman go? Are you going to tell him the truth or are you going to point in another direction to get him off the track? It's referred to as situation ethics.Did he pay me? Offer to share her once he dragged her back? Situational ethics, same same.

[DRMIZER]

Did he pay me? Offer to share her once he dragged her back? Situational ethics, same same.Shame on you!:p

[whatever]

Well, then, your universal, empirical values would say, for example, that

hitting another kid is a good idea so long as the teacher isn't looking.
Stealing is profitable if you don't get caught.
Lying (effectively) is how you get to be powerful.
Revenge is sweet.
Might makes right.
If you can get others to do your work for you, go for it.

And so forth. All these things are empirically true. Frankly, few people who become very wealthy or very powerful attain that status without understanding and acting on these values.

I think you give the human race too little credit. All of those things maybe true, but there are competing "values" that they can also learn empirically.

- Hitting another Kid and seeing how he hurts gives me a bad feeling (unless that kid is a sadist, of course)
- When people steal from me, I feel bad and curse the thief, do I want to be like those people I hate?
- Depending on the person, revenge can be quite empty. A long-sighted person (perhaps a kid would not be capable of this until he has grown older) will realise that revenge tend to conflict with self-interest, in most cases.
- True, power is important, but any good leader knows that weilding that power properly is the key to keeping it. That's an empirical lesson more than anything else. The last point is like this point. Alot of adults never learn these lessons - that you have to be fair, to show your subordinates that you are willing to do the things you ask them to do, that you value their contribution (and before the leader has to learn that having people to help is so much better than doing it himself, so he must not take it for granted) etc; and that's why a good leader (I mean "good leader", not just the CEOs of today) is something of a rarity.

It's harder to learn the good lessons, so a lot of people stop at the thing you listed, but I think we as a species tend to respect the people who manage to live by the good lessons. I think we respect those values without even being told that they are good, for example: Kids can judge, on their own, whether their parents are fair, or bias. If you are bias, you lose some of their respect.

[Ethos]

We do learn, however there is a generational conflict between passage of knowledge and values. Basic universal information (mathematics for instance) is also universally accumulated and moved (hopefully) equally through society as a whole.

Beliefs are moved homogeneously, not universally. The less diverse a group of individuals becomes, the harder it is for that group to maintain the generational adoption of religious (or other) beliefs.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

Exactly. For a forum to function as such we must know where each other stands on any given issue. Atticus must state his position as a monotheist, which could easily upset an atheist or polytheist for the same reasons that describing theism as superstitious upsets a monotheist. But from an atheistic perspective religion is by definition superstition. So in using the word "superstition" we are not being intentionally provocative but rather defining our own position on the matter at hand. By limiting our ability to accurately define our stance Atticus and co. undermine the very idea of what a forum is. It would not be unreasonable for me to argue that instituting such a limitation is offensive itself, in which case Atticus and co. would be guilty of the very thing they're crusading (pun! :flowers:) against.

Are we done talking about this yet?

[Atticus]

Exactly. For a forum to function as such we must know where each other stands on any given issue. Atticus must state his position as a monotheist, which could easily upset an atheist or polytheist for the same reasons that describing theism as superstitious upsets a monotheist. But from an atheistic perspective religion is by definition superstition. So in using the word "superstition" we are not being intentionally provocative but rather defining our own position on the matter at hand. By limiting our ability to accurately define our stance Atticus and co. undermine the very idea of what a forum is. It would not be unreasonable for me to argue that instituting such a limitation is offensive itself, in which case Atticus and co. would be guilty of the very thing they're crusading (pun! :flowers:) against.

Are we done talking about this yet?No, because as moderators we define what the forum is. You can participate or not, but you can't change the way the rules are interpreted. We're having this discussion because some members refuse to accept the fact that the R & P forum is will be moderated as we have outlined.

[Lumpen Prole]

Yep, wrong thread. :p

Also Atticus I am done discussing this. But because I am such a nice guy I took the liberty of consulting a thesaurus for a list of synonyms. If it would help feel free to choose which is least offensive and I will use it!

false belief, fear, irrationality, notion, shibboleth*, unfounded fear


I'm partial to 'shibboleth' myself.

shib·bo·leth /ˈʃɪbəlɪθ, ‑ˌlɛθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[shib-uh-lith, ‑leth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
3. a common saying or belief with little current meaning or truth.

[Lumpen Prole]

Oh and, Ethos... yes, wrong thread. Didn't really make a difference though. :angel:

[Atticus]

Yep, wrong thread. :p

Also Atticus I am done discussing this. But because I am such a nice guy I took the liberty of consulting a thesaurus for a list of synonyms. If it would help feel free to choose which is least offensive and I will use it!

false belief, fear, irrationality, notion, shibboleth*, unfounded fear"Notion" is the word I use most often.

[Lumpen Prole]

Notion? Ok. What if I think a particular notion is irrational or, to put it bluntly, silly? Should my arguments go no further than, "Atticus, I kindly do not share a friendly agreement with that... notion."

"What notion?"

"You know."

"Why don't you agree with it?"

"I can't say, that would be rude!"



This is so childish I feel compelled to go play hop-scotch because it would be more worth my time.

Apart from the self-contradictory... notion that I should not be allowed to call your beliefs superstitious (I believe that they are, by defintion) all I ask for is consistency. I do not want anyone to ever say things like, "George Bush is a poor president," "Gay marriage is immoral," "My favorite color is orange," "I believe Jesus was the son of God," or "I think Mitt Romney has a better haircut than Obama because..."

[Atticus]

This is so childish I feel compelled to go play hop-scotch because it would be more worth my time. I quite agree. I've been feeling like a high school teacher trying to explain the classroom rules for some time now.
Apart from the self-contradictory... notion that I should not be allowed to call your beliefs superstitious (I believe that they are, by defintion) all I ask for is consistency. I do not want anyone to ever say things like, "George Bush is a poor president,"belongs in another forum "Gay marriage is immoral," when preceded by "In my opinion" and followed by "because my notion of morality is..." it's not such a problem. Just as saying "gay marriage is moral because..." is acceptable. "My favorite color is orange,"Statements about one's own beliefs don't show disrespect to others. "I believe Jesus was the son of God,"statements of personal belief don't impinge on others, just as saying "I don't believe Jesus was the son of God" is perfectly acceptable or "I think Mitt Romney has a better haircut than Obama because..."not really a belief now, is it? It's not even an idea.

[lawman]

Swerving this back toward the actual thread topic:

Dr. Mizer:
What the mother and grandfather were doing in this case was, without question, child abuse. Whether it was inspired by their religious beliefs is entirely beside the point, and frankly I don't give two hoots in hell whether or not they could ever be convinced to change those beliefs. Whether they were inculcating those beliefs in the child is secondary, as well -- the important thing is that the child be removed from the custody of the people who did this. (Unfortunately the article doesn't tell us that; indeed it says that at press time there was still "no word on the condition of the little girl.") Once she's out of that house and in the hands of responsible caregivers, any parental attempts to indoctrinate her would of course be moot.

Atticus:
I submit that it's misleading to say that Dr. Mizer, or anyone, is "prejudiced" in favor of logic and empiricism. I would say, rather, that he -- and I, and many others -- have made informed judgments in favor of logic and empiricism. "Prejudice" is another matter entirely -- Merriam-Webster defines (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=prejudice) it (emphasis mine) as "(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." For my own part, and I find this to be true of most other skeptics/empiricists as well, I have drawn my philosophical conclusions based upon considerable examination of what sort of propositions about reality work, and what sort don't. To accuse people of mere "prejudice" and thus of hypocrisy -- i.e., of supporting logic without logical grounds for doing so -- is unjust and presumptuous.

(Yes, I'm aware that some radical deconstructionist scholars insist that reason is merely a cultural construct that doesn't explain the world any better than anything else. I don't think that's what you were getting at, however. FWIW, though, I don't buy those arguments either. If that case can be made at all, IMHO Tristan Tzara did a better job of it than any contemporary scholar ever has.)

[DRMIZER]

Swerving this back toward the actual thread topic:
Dr. Mizer:
What the mother and grandfather were doing in this case was, without question, child abuse. Whether it was inspired by their religious beliefs is entirely beside the point, and frankly I don't give two hoots in hell whether or not they could ever be convinced to change those beliefs. Whether they were inculcating those beliefs in the child is secondary, as well -- the important thing is that the child be removed from the custody of the people who did this. (Unfortunately the article doesn't tell us that; indeed it says that at press time there was still "no word on the condition of the little girl.") Once she's out of that house and in the hands of responsible caregivers, any parental attempts to indoctrinate her would of course be moot. Thank you. Of course you are correct. The latest information on this event can be found here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/national/main3109660.shtml Aparently a final decision has not be reached on the future care of the child. CBS picked up the story. I initially found it in the local paper.

[Atticus]

Atticus:
I submit that it's misleading to say that Dr. Mizer, or anyone, is "prejudiced" in favor of logic and empiricism. I would say, rather, that he -- and I, and many others -- have made informed judgments in favor of logic and empiricism. "Prejudice" is another matter entirely -- Merriam-Webster defines (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=prejudice) it (emphasis mine) as "(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." For my own part, and I find this to be true of most other skeptics/empiricists as well, I have drawn my philosophical conclusions based upon considerable examination of what sort of propositions about reality work, and what sort don't. To accuse people of mere "prejudice" and thus of hypocrisy -- i.e., of supporting logic without logical grounds for doing so -- is unjust and presumptuous.Ahh, but I'm using prejudice in a different way--as in instilling preconceived ideas of how information should be precieved. For example, a scientist is trained to examine ONLY empirical evidence to eshew other kinds of knowledge as a waste of time (no, I'm no swerving back to religion) while in my field (the study of language and literature) we inculcate a tolerance for ambiguity that invites multiple perspectives and doesn't insist that one answer push out all the others. These are different prejudices because they determine how we will judge the material at hand.

[lawman]

Ahh, but I'm using prejudice in a different way--as in instilling preconceived ideas of how information should be precieved. For example, a scientist is trained to examine ONLY empirical evidence to eshew other kinds of knowledge as a waste of time (no, I'm no swerving back to religion) while in my field (the study of language and literature) we inculcate a tolerance for ambiguity that invites multiple perspectives and doesn't insist that one answer push out all the others. These are different prejudices because they determine how we will judge the material at hand.
I don't think that's the sense one gets from your remarks. Of course science, as a discipline, instills a "prejudice" (although IMHO the term isn't really a good fit) in favor of the scientific method, a specific process of forming hypotheses and testing them empirically, while other fields (like your own) have different processes for formulating and analyzing propositions.

But, that said, you weren't talking about someone's attitudes within the parameters of a specific field of knowledge; you were talking about attitudes in general. I submit that scientists are not typically in the habit of submitting other areas of their lives or personal philosophies to the same procedural rigor as their work. That's not to say that they forego logic, however.

Moreover, neither do you, I'd wager, either inside or outside your field. Granted there are quite a few different schools of thought in literary studies, but most of them certainly embrace empirical evidence (e.g., you want to know you're working with an accurate copy of a text) and logic (in the analysis of that text, regardless of the specific mode). "Ambiguity" is not in any way incompatible with logic, as any logician (or quantum physicist) could tell you.

And why do we all do this? Not because of any "prejudice," but because logic works, as most of us learn to at least some extent while we're still in the single digits. As for the unfortunate few who never learn this, well, psychologists have lots of words to diagnose them.

[Atticus]

I don't think that's the sense one gets from your remarks. Of course science, as a discipline, instills a "prejudice" (although IMHO the term isn't really a good fit) in favor of the scientific method, a specific process of forming hypotheses and testing them empirically, while other fields (like your own) have different processes for formulating and analyzing propositions.

But, that said, you weren't talking about someone's attitudes within the parameters of a specific field of knowledge; you were talking about attitudes in general. Actually, no. Please look again. I was suggesting that the rejection of dogma in favor of logic and evidence is a way of organizing one's thoughts about the world. It was, for centuries, the preferred way. Your argument about science is well-taken, but many elements of dogma to not interfere with science. Suggesting that rationalism rule over dogma in all things (which is what I think was being suggested) is in fact a prejudice in the sense I mean it. (BTW, "prejudice" is a commonly used term in this context; I've used it in several arguments on this board without incident, though I'll be happy to use a less ambiguous term if you've got a suggestion). I submit that scientists are not typically in the habit of submitting other areas of their lives or personal philosophies to the same procedural rigor as their work. Right. They may even submit those things to dogma, which was my point.

Moreover, neither do you, I'd wager, either inside or outside your field. Granted there are quite a few different schools of thought in literary studies, but most of them certainly embrace empirical evidence (e.g., you want to know you're working with an accurate copy of a text) and logic (in the analysis of that text, regardless of the specific mode).The same things are true in religious studies. A Biblical scholar wants to make sure she's working with an accurate text also. "Ambiguity" is not in any way incompatible with logic, as any logician (or quantum physicist) could tell you.
But the assumption of logic in the sense we're using it is that there is one, best answer to a given problem. In that sense, ambiguity may exist, but only because insufficient evidence exists to eliminate it. In other fields, however, ambiguity involves embracing simultaneous, incompatible notions that sit side-by-side. My own understanding of religion requires me to accept ambiguity over dogma, for example. Dogma goes wrong when it takes logical arguments to ridiculous lengths, for example, and forces consideration of questions more and more separated from any practical concern (e.g., "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?").

[lawman]

Actually, no. Please look again. I was suggesting that the rejection of dogma in favor of logic and evidence is a way of organizing one's thoughts about the world. It was, for centuries, the preferred way.
I'm really not getting your point. Are you seriously putting forward a defense of dogma? The centuries during which it was dominant (IMHO a better term than "preferred," as it's not as if people had any real alternatives) are known as the Dark Ages for a reason.

But the assumption of logic in the sense we're using it is that there is one, best answer to a given problem.
Not at all. That's only an assumption when you're working with the rigorous logic of mathematics (and sometimes not even then). In a philosophical sense, logic doesn't necessarily support (much less mandate) the notion of any single capital-T Truth exclusive of all others. And while philosophy doesn't necessarily rely upon the empirical realm in a strict sense (whether it ought to is a question for epistemology), it does unavoidably utilize logic.

You brought all this up in the first place in reaction to an assertion that dogma represents illogical thinking. Do you really take exception to that proposition?

[Atticus]

I'm really not getting your point. Are you seriously putting forward a defense of dogma? The centuries during which it was dominant (IMHO a better term than "preferred," as it's not as if people had any real alternatives) are known as the Dark Ages for a reason.I'm suggesting that there are a number of ways of looking at the world. As an intellectual exercise (which is what we do, often in a forum called "Religion and Philosophy") it is possible to practice a different kind of cogitation. I would not suggest it in any other forum, where we debate the practical implications of policy. That's why, as with this case, we should set aside (as a practical matter) the grandfather's concerns about demons and instead prefer to call his actions child abuse--but knowing we set aside religion when we do it.
You brought all this up in the first place in reaction to an assertion that dogma represents illogical thinking. Do you really take exception to that proposition?Dogma is largely based on traditional principles of logic. The problem with it comes in that it doesn't reflect empirical experience.

By the way, we do the same thing in the law, do we not? Judges don't decide what's best based on individual circumstances. They look at competing arguments about precedents and make decisions based on those texts. Sometimes they are lead to conclusions that look rather strange and convoluted to the untrained observer, but they follow a set of principles and logic to get there. That's what dogmatists do also.

[DRMIZER]

Your argument about science is well-taken, but many elements of dogma to not interfere with science. Suggesting that rationalism rule over dogma in all things (which is what I think was being suggested) is in fact a prejudice in the sense I mean it. True, rationalism, in the context of this thread, "rules" over dogma. The definitiion I use here is from Webster's.

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 a : doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
Dogma is largely based on "traditional principles of logic".

Traditional principles of logic, .i.e. dogma, would be prejudicial thought. . .the opposite of reason.

Rational is: 1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>.
Opinion without adequate grounds vs. having reason or understanding.

Ex. Most reasonable people can understand the difference between rationalism and dogma without being prejudiced..

[Atticus]

Ex. Most reasonable people can understand the difference between rationalism and dogma without being prejudiced..You have missed my point entirely. To try explaining it again would only involve repeating myself, which I don't care to do.

[heel31ok]

I don't consider religious teachings 'values.' Your values maybe, but not mine, or your childs. Not until you instill them anyways.

Values, in the true sense of the word, most certainly can be empirical. Children learn how to treat others based on reactions and feedback. They are processing the results, which is empirical.
You do not do what is right or treat people right for the feedback and reactions. you do it because it is right no matter how others will react. that is not free thinking nor open thought. That is mindless action and reaction. That is not independent thought and action but dependent upon reaction from others.