I'd like to expand a little upon a thesis I've mentioned elsewhere, over a variety of posts. The particular theme in question has again popped up in the thread, "Secular does not equal rational", which began with an argument (not generally contested) that being secular doesn't implicitly mean that you are rational. In that thread, Tricky made the statement that, "religious belief is almost always irrational".
I understand his point, and in many respects I'd agree with it. And I note that he says "almost always", not "always". But I'd nevertheless like to take issue with his statement, and use it to expand upon a theme that is very close to my heart in my current efforts (trying to establish an organization to promote critical thinking in China).
I will begin by stating that I'm talking specifically about critical thinking here. I consider rational thinking and skepticism to to be sub-sets of critical thinking (won't get into definitions here, if you disagree, that's fine, it's largely irrelevant to my argument). For a relatively simple definition, I consider critical thinking to include A) learning and understanding the various fallacies and errors to which the human mind is naturally subject; B) learning the various tools and procedures to examine claims made by others; C) the willingness to apply those tools universally, both to the claims made by others, and to your own beliefs; and D) the willingness to change your own beliefs or ideas when new evidence arises that supports another belief or idea more strongly.
It is important to note that critical thinking does not lead inevitably to correct answers; the conclusions made are only as good as the evidence available. This is one of the reasons why some scientific theories will change or evolve over time; at one point, the evidence we had indicated one theory was correct, but as we accumulated more information and evidence, we found that other theories were a better fit.
So keep this in mind -- coming to a wrong conclusion does not implicitly mean that you are not a critical thinker. In fact, it is guaranteed that every critical thinker on the planet will have at least some wrong conclusions and ideas, by simple merit of the fact that our knowledge -- both as individuals, and as a species -- is limited and incomplete.
So critical thinking is not a conclusion, or an end result. Critical thinking is a process. Picture a gigantic mountain, with the peak representing absolute truth. There are an infinite number of paths surrounding this metaphorical mountain, some leading closer to the peak, some leading further away. The fact is, we'll never reach the peak; but the process of critical thinking will allow us to choose the paths that take us closer to the summit.
Now, as I see it, too much of the religion vs. atheism debate today focuses on the question of what people believe. If you believe the same things as me, you're a 'rational' person; if you believe different things, you're 'irrational'. And this pattern holds true in both directions, religious people considering atheists irrational, and atheists considering religious people irrational.
This pattern holds true in regards to education, too. Arguments on both sides focus on the issue of what information should or should not be taught to our children. Religious people want evolution removed; atheists want anything religious removed (I know that I'm generalizing here, and this doesn't represent all people in either group).
Quite frankly, I think everyone's wrong. The issue of what they believe is far less relevant than the question of why they believe it. For example, there's a huge difference between the person who was raised in a deeply religious environment, where all scientific information they received was grossly distorted, while emphasizing religious education; and the person who went to university, studied biology, has a full understanding of evolution, and then chooses to reject it because "even if the evidence indicates evolution is true, the Bible says it is wrong, and I must follow the Bible".
The former is, arguable, entirely rational, reaching a conclusion that fully conforms to critical thinking, based on the information that and understanding that they currently have. The bigger question that truly determines whether they are a critical thinker is whether, when presented with new evidence that contradicts their current beliefs, they are willing to examine that evidence, or they reject it out of hand. If the former, they have potential to be a critical thinker; if the latter, absolutely not.
As many of the more long-term members of this forum will be aware, I come from just such a background. Born and raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, my father a preacher, myself giving sermons from his pulpit by 14 years old, doing street evangelism at 18, participating in anti-abortion protests, attending one of the most conservative Bible colleges in North America, and ultimately coming to China as a Christian missionary.
No need to go into the story of how I ended up becoming an atheist, I've detailed that elsewhere. But the key point here is that, even as a devout, radical, passionate Christian, I was still a critical thinker. The problem was that I grew up in and was surrounded by people who severely limited what information I received. Based on the information I had at that time, and my personal experiences, I was fully justified in believing that my beliefs were true, and rejecting contrary claims. The overwhelming body of evidence that I was aware of at that time (albeit much of it was, as I later discovered, entirely untrue) led inevitably to that conclusion.
But as I got out into the world, I started finding other claims, and evidence that contradicted my beliefs. And rather than reject or hide from it, I faced it head on. This led first to adjusting my beliefs. For example, when I realized that it was ridiculous to believe the world was 6000 years old, I changed to believe it was much, much older, and that evolution did happen...but that it had all been created by God, and that evolution was guided by God.
More evidence led, inevitably, to more changes in my beliefs, until ultimately I realized that I could no longer claim to believe in God.
Thus far, I think that most people will be with me. I'm not proposing anything revolutionary. But there's another aspect to this that I don't often see discussed.
It's not just a matter of having the evidence; it's a matter of having the intellectual tools to properly interpret that evidence. And the plain fact is, for the majority of humans, this is not a natural skill. Quite the opposite. Evolution has shaped our brains, and our various senses, in ways that can actually fool us completely, and lead us to entirely wrong conclusions. Evolution didn't shape us to be natural critical thinkers. There are some people who seem to be natural critical thinkers (I'd consider myself in this category, or I would never have gotten out of the whole religion thing in the first place), but it's far from the norm.
When we look at human history, we see how true this is. The very concept of the scientific method, where theories must be tested in an unbiased, repeatable, quantifiable manner, is an extremely new principle within the context of human history.
The plain truth is that a great many people, even when presented with unequivocal evidence, lack the necessary tools and knowledge to properly evaluate that evidence. Think of trying to convince 15th century doctors of the reality of viruses, without access to microscopes or any other such modern tools...you may be 100% correct in your claim, but if they lack the necessary tools to examine your claims and evidence, it will inevitably be rejected.
Many people lack such "mental microscopes"...a mental tool that allows them to properly examine competing claims, and reach a rational decision as to which claim has the most evidence.
This doesn't mean that all such people are idiots, or hopeless. It means that they need to be taught those tools. Of course, some people will refuse; but others will accept it. And if we institute teaching critical thinking into our education systems -- not teaching our kids what to think, but rather teaching them how to reach their own conclusions -- it would have an even greater impact.
These days, when I meet someone who has religious beliefs, I'll take some time to understand what those beliefs are; but before attempting any sort of discussion or debate with them, I'll inquire further as to the reasons why they hold such beliefs. If that discussion indicates that they lack the tools for critical thinking, then it is a complete waste of time to try to present evidence or arguments for a contrary position -- no matter how correct I may be, they will not be able to examine those claims, or compare them with their own. My time is much better spent in helping them understand more about how their own minds work, the natural errors to which we are prone, and some of the tools they can use to determine the veracity and value of various claims.
Of course, not everyone's interested. But I've actually got my own group of "critical thinking students", people spread across China, who are very interested in this. One of them used to be a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioner, who was adamantly convinced of the scientific validity of his practice. After going through this process, he's almost entirely rejected TCM, and is now contacting past patients and fellow TCM practitioners to inform them of this (it is, in fact, his email to tell me of this decision that inspired this post).
This is a guy who, two years ago, almost everyone here would have called a quack. And someone who, two years ago, would have entirely rejected any claims or evidence that invalidated TCM...because he lacked any training in critical thinking, he simply didn't have the necessary tools. I have not engaged in any detailed discussions of TCM, or the evidence for/against it. I haven't tried to convince him it is wrong. I simply engaged with him as a person that I respected as an individual, and wanted to help better understand the process of critical thinking. Once he'd learned that, he himself was able to quickly see how lacking the foundation of TCM was, and how much evidence indicated it did not work.
I can't claim that I'm changing the world, or even thousands. But I've had an impact. People who once held wildly irrational beliefs, who subsequently rejected them. In fact, one of our more respected forum members here, Orphia Nay, met me years ago in another forum, and at least in part due to my discussions with her, she ended up rejecting a wide array of wooish beliefs, and becoming a critical thinker (I do not claim full credit by any means, I know that there were quite a few other people and processes involved, but Orphia has herself stated that I was a factor in that change). Ironically, it was Orphia who ultimately became a member here first, then later invited me to join in.
I see people constantly ask, "How can I respect someone who holds such ridiculous/wrong/stupid/dangerous ideas?" My answer is simple. Certainly, there are some who don't deserve respect -- those who simply refuse to even consider other ideas, who reject any effort to learn the tools of critical thinking, etc. But there are others who hold those beliefs because either A) the evidence they've been exposed to thus far in their lives indicates that their conclusion is valid, and they need someone to help provide them with new, more complete/accurate information and evidence; or B) they may have been presented with that evidence, but have never been taught the tools to evaluate and interpret that evidence.
In either case, I believe very strongly in showing them respect. By showing them respect, I can engage with them in a non-confrontational manner, in fact many times I can be friends with them. And rather than focusing on trying to convince them that they are wrong, I can simply present them with more evidence and information, and help equip them with the tools to better be able to interpret and understand it all. Then just sit back and let them reach their own conclusions.
I'll admit, for some reasons, I often fail to act in this manner in discussions within the JREF; here, I tend to be more dismissive/sarcastic/mocking at times. I'm not sure exactly why, other than perhaps the fact that here, they are all anonymous, faceless figures. I simply can't engage with them on an emotional level, I don't really emphasize with them as individuals. I see simply a stupid claim that needs to be debunked, rather than a person who needs to be engaged with. In real life, my attitude and approach are very different.
It's my belief that if more of our interactions and debates with various 'woos' were of this nature, rather than the tendency to be confrontational and just see how many times and ways we can prove they are wrong, that we'd have a much greater impact.
After all, if we don't train people to be critical thinkers, then even if we are successful in convincing them of one particular truth, there will be many other false ideas and beliefs that they'll still cling to...and we have to address every single one of those, in a confrontational manner. Whereas if we help them to be critical thinkers first, then we won't need to convince them that their ideas and beliefs are wrong -- they'll reach those conclusions on their own.
No, this won't work for everyone. There are many people out there who will reject such ideas wholesale (consider the Texan Board of Education who wrote that they considered the simple act of teaching critical thinking to be wrong); but those people are a lost cause anyway, you're never going to convince them of anything.
However, there are others out there who have very, very wrong ideas...but who are also very, very interested in pursuing truth and greater understanding. And rather than labeling such people as stupid/ignorant/closed-minded/insert-other-epithets because of what they believe, we should be engaging with them in a spirit of respect and friendship, helping them to accomplish that goal -- to find truth.
I understand his point, and in many respects I'd agree with it. And I note that he says "almost always", not "always". But I'd nevertheless like to take issue with his statement, and use it to expand upon a theme that is very close to my heart in my current efforts (trying to establish an organization to promote critical thinking in China).
I will begin by stating that I'm talking specifically about critical thinking here. I consider rational thinking and skepticism to to be sub-sets of critical thinking (won't get into definitions here, if you disagree, that's fine, it's largely irrelevant to my argument). For a relatively simple definition, I consider critical thinking to include A) learning and understanding the various fallacies and errors to which the human mind is naturally subject; B) learning the various tools and procedures to examine claims made by others; C) the willingness to apply those tools universally, both to the claims made by others, and to your own beliefs; and D) the willingness to change your own beliefs or ideas when new evidence arises that supports another belief or idea more strongly.
It is important to note that critical thinking does not lead inevitably to correct answers; the conclusions made are only as good as the evidence available. This is one of the reasons why some scientific theories will change or evolve over time; at one point, the evidence we had indicated one theory was correct, but as we accumulated more information and evidence, we found that other theories were a better fit.
So keep this in mind -- coming to a wrong conclusion does not implicitly mean that you are not a critical thinker. In fact, it is guaranteed that every critical thinker on the planet will have at least some wrong conclusions and ideas, by simple merit of the fact that our knowledge -- both as individuals, and as a species -- is limited and incomplete.
So critical thinking is not a conclusion, or an end result. Critical thinking is a process. Picture a gigantic mountain, with the peak representing absolute truth. There are an infinite number of paths surrounding this metaphorical mountain, some leading closer to the peak, some leading further away. The fact is, we'll never reach the peak; but the process of critical thinking will allow us to choose the paths that take us closer to the summit.
Now, as I see it, too much of the religion vs. atheism debate today focuses on the question of what people believe. If you believe the same things as me, you're a 'rational' person; if you believe different things, you're 'irrational'. And this pattern holds true in both directions, religious people considering atheists irrational, and atheists considering religious people irrational.
This pattern holds true in regards to education, too. Arguments on both sides focus on the issue of what information should or should not be taught to our children. Religious people want evolution removed; atheists want anything religious removed (I know that I'm generalizing here, and this doesn't represent all people in either group).
Quite frankly, I think everyone's wrong. The issue of what they believe is far less relevant than the question of why they believe it. For example, there's a huge difference between the person who was raised in a deeply religious environment, where all scientific information they received was grossly distorted, while emphasizing religious education; and the person who went to university, studied biology, has a full understanding of evolution, and then chooses to reject it because "even if the evidence indicates evolution is true, the Bible says it is wrong, and I must follow the Bible".
The former is, arguable, entirely rational, reaching a conclusion that fully conforms to critical thinking, based on the information that and understanding that they currently have. The bigger question that truly determines whether they are a critical thinker is whether, when presented with new evidence that contradicts their current beliefs, they are willing to examine that evidence, or they reject it out of hand. If the former, they have potential to be a critical thinker; if the latter, absolutely not.
As many of the more long-term members of this forum will be aware, I come from just such a background. Born and raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, my father a preacher, myself giving sermons from his pulpit by 14 years old, doing street evangelism at 18, participating in anti-abortion protests, attending one of the most conservative Bible colleges in North America, and ultimately coming to China as a Christian missionary.
No need to go into the story of how I ended up becoming an atheist, I've detailed that elsewhere. But the key point here is that, even as a devout, radical, passionate Christian, I was still a critical thinker. The problem was that I grew up in and was surrounded by people who severely limited what information I received. Based on the information I had at that time, and my personal experiences, I was fully justified in believing that my beliefs were true, and rejecting contrary claims. The overwhelming body of evidence that I was aware of at that time (albeit much of it was, as I later discovered, entirely untrue) led inevitably to that conclusion.
But as I got out into the world, I started finding other claims, and evidence that contradicted my beliefs. And rather than reject or hide from it, I faced it head on. This led first to adjusting my beliefs. For example, when I realized that it was ridiculous to believe the world was 6000 years old, I changed to believe it was much, much older, and that evolution did happen...but that it had all been created by God, and that evolution was guided by God.
More evidence led, inevitably, to more changes in my beliefs, until ultimately I realized that I could no longer claim to believe in God.
Thus far, I think that most people will be with me. I'm not proposing anything revolutionary. But there's another aspect to this that I don't often see discussed.
It's not just a matter of having the evidence; it's a matter of having the intellectual tools to properly interpret that evidence. And the plain fact is, for the majority of humans, this is not a natural skill. Quite the opposite. Evolution has shaped our brains, and our various senses, in ways that can actually fool us completely, and lead us to entirely wrong conclusions. Evolution didn't shape us to be natural critical thinkers. There are some people who seem to be natural critical thinkers (I'd consider myself in this category, or I would never have gotten out of the whole religion thing in the first place), but it's far from the norm.
When we look at human history, we see how true this is. The very concept of the scientific method, where theories must be tested in an unbiased, repeatable, quantifiable manner, is an extremely new principle within the context of human history.
The plain truth is that a great many people, even when presented with unequivocal evidence, lack the necessary tools and knowledge to properly evaluate that evidence. Think of trying to convince 15th century doctors of the reality of viruses, without access to microscopes or any other such modern tools...you may be 100% correct in your claim, but if they lack the necessary tools to examine your claims and evidence, it will inevitably be rejected.
Many people lack such "mental microscopes"...a mental tool that allows them to properly examine competing claims, and reach a rational decision as to which claim has the most evidence.
This doesn't mean that all such people are idiots, or hopeless. It means that they need to be taught those tools. Of course, some people will refuse; but others will accept it. And if we institute teaching critical thinking into our education systems -- not teaching our kids what to think, but rather teaching them how to reach their own conclusions -- it would have an even greater impact.
These days, when I meet someone who has religious beliefs, I'll take some time to understand what those beliefs are; but before attempting any sort of discussion or debate with them, I'll inquire further as to the reasons why they hold such beliefs. If that discussion indicates that they lack the tools for critical thinking, then it is a complete waste of time to try to present evidence or arguments for a contrary position -- no matter how correct I may be, they will not be able to examine those claims, or compare them with their own. My time is much better spent in helping them understand more about how their own minds work, the natural errors to which we are prone, and some of the tools they can use to determine the veracity and value of various claims.
Of course, not everyone's interested. But I've actually got my own group of "critical thinking students", people spread across China, who are very interested in this. One of them used to be a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioner, who was adamantly convinced of the scientific validity of his practice. After going through this process, he's almost entirely rejected TCM, and is now contacting past patients and fellow TCM practitioners to inform them of this (it is, in fact, his email to tell me of this decision that inspired this post).
This is a guy who, two years ago, almost everyone here would have called a quack. And someone who, two years ago, would have entirely rejected any claims or evidence that invalidated TCM...because he lacked any training in critical thinking, he simply didn't have the necessary tools. I have not engaged in any detailed discussions of TCM, or the evidence for/against it. I haven't tried to convince him it is wrong. I simply engaged with him as a person that I respected as an individual, and wanted to help better understand the process of critical thinking. Once he'd learned that, he himself was able to quickly see how lacking the foundation of TCM was, and how much evidence indicated it did not work.
I can't claim that I'm changing the world, or even thousands. But I've had an impact. People who once held wildly irrational beliefs, who subsequently rejected them. In fact, one of our more respected forum members here, Orphia Nay, met me years ago in another forum, and at least in part due to my discussions with her, she ended up rejecting a wide array of wooish beliefs, and becoming a critical thinker (I do not claim full credit by any means, I know that there were quite a few other people and processes involved, but Orphia has herself stated that I was a factor in that change). Ironically, it was Orphia who ultimately became a member here first, then later invited me to join in.
I see people constantly ask, "How can I respect someone who holds such ridiculous/wrong/stupid/dangerous ideas?" My answer is simple. Certainly, there are some who don't deserve respect -- those who simply refuse to even consider other ideas, who reject any effort to learn the tools of critical thinking, etc. But there are others who hold those beliefs because either A) the evidence they've been exposed to thus far in their lives indicates that their conclusion is valid, and they need someone to help provide them with new, more complete/accurate information and evidence; or B) they may have been presented with that evidence, but have never been taught the tools to evaluate and interpret that evidence.
In either case, I believe very strongly in showing them respect. By showing them respect, I can engage with them in a non-confrontational manner, in fact many times I can be friends with them. And rather than focusing on trying to convince them that they are wrong, I can simply present them with more evidence and information, and help equip them with the tools to better be able to interpret and understand it all. Then just sit back and let them reach their own conclusions.
I'll admit, for some reasons, I often fail to act in this manner in discussions within the JREF; here, I tend to be more dismissive/sarcastic/mocking at times. I'm not sure exactly why, other than perhaps the fact that here, they are all anonymous, faceless figures. I simply can't engage with them on an emotional level, I don't really emphasize with them as individuals. I see simply a stupid claim that needs to be debunked, rather than a person who needs to be engaged with. In real life, my attitude and approach are very different.
It's my belief that if more of our interactions and debates with various 'woos' were of this nature, rather than the tendency to be confrontational and just see how many times and ways we can prove they are wrong, that we'd have a much greater impact.
After all, if we don't train people to be critical thinkers, then even if we are successful in convincing them of one particular truth, there will be many other false ideas and beliefs that they'll still cling to...and we have to address every single one of those, in a confrontational manner. Whereas if we help them to be critical thinkers first, then we won't need to convince them that their ideas and beliefs are wrong -- they'll reach those conclusions on their own.
No, this won't work for everyone. There are many people out there who will reject such ideas wholesale (consider the Texan Board of Education who wrote that they considered the simple act of teaching critical thinking to be wrong); but those people are a lost cause anyway, you're never going to convince them of anything.
However, there are others out there who have very, very wrong ideas...but who are also very, very interested in pursuing truth and greater understanding. And rather than labeling such people as stupid/ignorant/closed-minded/insert-other-epithets because of what they believe, we should be engaging with them in a spirit of respect and friendship, helping them to accomplish that goal -- to find truth.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=266437&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire