It is an unwritten rule in Filipino Freethinkers that those who participate in the discussions must use reason and avoid citing dogma. And except for the occasional troll, I think this rule has been quite effective. While non sequitur arguments are still employed from time to time, I believe what matters is the attempt at using reason especially for those who, until just recently, have for so long taken for granted the factuality of certain traditional beliefs.
Proud as I am of our small but growing online community, I must emphasize that while we freethinkers practically revere Reason, sometimes what we are actually doing is rationalizing, so I guess it is important to define terms lest we confuse similar but non-synonymous words with one another:
Reason involves conscious explanation.
Reasoning as a process takes proposed explanations, considers them, contrasting them, or fitting them together in order to determine which beliefs or actions or attitudes are best.
Here the definition seems to cover both reason and rationalization, with the latter being defined as:
In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses) is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.
But if we look at the word rationality, we find something specific and determinate:
And here the difference between rationality and rationalization becomes clear. In rationalization, the belief which was “originally arrived at through a different mental process” comes first and then rational arguments are later formed to support this belief. But as for rationality, the data comes first and analysis comes second before reaching a conclusion – if it even comes to that. And here I am reminded of a brief introduction to skepticism:
Skepticism is a method, not a position.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can ‘provisionally’ conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis or the origins of language, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
I think most members will agree that freethought is more related to skepticism than atheism or agnosticism. Along with skepticism, freethought is a method, a way of thinking and forming beliefs; atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, are more like the “positions” at which the freethinker or skeptic arrives.
But to people whose present beliefs are still those formed long before they were capable of rational thought, it is amazing to see how they try to rationalize now in the absence of solid evidence. They start off with a position based on religious doctrine and try to use rational arguments to back up such position. This is very hard to do considering they are performing the scientific method backwards, and I cannot help but admire the ingenuity of those who were able to keep their claims from being falsified outright. Of course, they could not prove their claims, but for one who has no real evidence, a technical stalemate is already a great achievement.
We freethinkers do not claim to be highly intelligent especially in philosophical discourse; we just learned to set aside our biases and let the observable facts speak for themselves. It takes a lot of brainpower to effectively rationalize something as confounding as the presence of gratuitous evil in the same universe where a loving and all-powerful deity supposedly exists; it only takes intellectual honesty and the continuous attempt towards unbiased rationality to become skeptical about such contradictory co-existence which can certainly cause cognitive dissonance in stubborn minds.
This is the first article I read in my first visit of this blog. I'm happy to note that people here "revere" reason, and that implies critical thinking. I take note of the ff:
(1) there's already a bias against religion and religious people in this forum. I'm curious about your "dogma" thing. What is your understanding of a dogma? Can you cite an example of a dogma which was used by religious people here?
(2) Were you trying to define reason and rationality? Using Wikipedia as your source is generally admissible, but I think you should have read more for you to give an accurate definition of reason and rationality. I assume that your group demands critical thinking, right? Then, you should be more critical in selecting and copy posting texts.
(3) The Skeptic Society has to redefine skepticism in terms of the scientific attitude of provisional conclusions. Thus, SS emphasis on skepticism as a method. What is your understanding of Socrates' skepticism ("All I know is that I know nothing")?
(4) Is there such a Christian "freethinker"?
Thank you.
Hi Nomadic Gadfly, thank you for your comments. I'll answer your questions as honestly as I can:
(1) Yes, we freethinkers have a bias against religion because religion (particularly the RCC) represents everything that is against freethought: papal authority, Christian tradition, and Catholic dogma. 'Dogma' means the religious doctrines, an example of which is that there is an insecure, jealous god who does not hesitate in giving eternal punishment to those who refuse to believe in him.
(2) You have a point there. I usually choose Wikipedia as reference because it reflects my idea of what 'authority' – scientific or otherwise – should be: willing to be challenged. While we do not normally go about challenging every one of those scientific claims, it is the willingness to be challenged that's important. Wikipedia often notifies that a certain article lacks citation or appears to be original research and asks the readers to help improve the page. And so if you are not satisfied with Wikipedia's definition of reason and rationality, you are more than welcome to post other definitions from other sources – especially if these definitions contradict those given by Wikipedia. 🙂
(3) Allow me to quote from http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/:
"Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber."
While those words are not mine, they accurately reflect my thoughts on Socrates' type of skepticism.
(4) A freethinker is roughly defined as someone whose beliefs are formed based on science, logic, and reason and not influenced by "authority", tradition, or dogma. A Christian, on the other hand, is someone who believes and adheres to the doctrines of the Abrahamic, monotheistic religion Christianity. As such, I personally think that a Christian freethinker is an oxymoron.
Thank you for your response.
(1) On bias against religion, particularly the Catholic church: its papal authority, traditions and doctrines. These are rather general categories. Can you be more particular? For example, what is a specific issue which you are against on papal authority?
On dogma: You narrowly defined dogmas as religious doctrines. Perhaps, a direct quote from "Second Exodus" might help: "In Catholic teaching, a doctrine infallibly taught by the Pope… A dogma is a smaller subset of Catholic teaching than a doctrine. All dogmas are doctrines, but only some doctrines are dogmas." The key word here in distinguishing dogmas from doctrines is the word "infallibly taught by the pope."
On example of a dogma used by religious people here: "[T]here is an insecure, jealous god who does not hesitate in giving eternal punishment to those who refuse to believe in him." This is not a Catholic dogma. In fact, this is not even a teaching of the Catholic church. Who was teaching such a horrible belief?
(2) On wikipedia. True that wikipedia moderates its content and ask its writer/reader for citations and further clarifications. But it is not enough as a source of information. I don't know if you are have read a dissertation quoting primarily from wikipedia. In general knowledge, like most encyclopedias, wikipedia can be useful.
On your definition of reason and rationality:
You write: "Reason involves conscious explanations" [Direct quote from wiki]
But this statement does not define what reason is. In fact, it only begs another question — "what is a conscious explanation?". The word "involves" must have given you a hint that it is not a definition.
Maybe, you were in a hurry and simply copied the texts from wiki section of "Reason, Reasoning and Rationality". You ignored its description of rationality and simply quoted reason and reasoning. Would you know that wikipedia defined reason at the outset?
"Reason is a mental faculty found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose (specific) reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies."
Next to the section of "Reason, Reasoning and Rationality" you will find the etymological definition of reason.
(3) I already read that from its source.
(4) Where is the oxymoron?
(1) "Authority" per se (in knowledge and truth) – whether papal or otherwise – is against freethought, which states that one's beliefs should be determined by reason, science, and logic, and not dispensed by anyone claiming to be an authority.
As for dogma, thank you for adding to my knowledge with your sophisticated definition. I was simply using the more general definition supplied by Wikipedia: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged."
//“[T]here is an insecure, jealous god who does not hesitate in giving eternal punishment to those who refuse to believe in him.” This is not a Catholic dogma. In fact, this is not even a teaching of the Catholic church. Who was teaching such a horrible belief?//
That teaching, while not limited to the Catholic church, is a teaching of Christianity. You should read the Bible. It's in there. 😉
//I don’t know if you are have read a dissertation quoting primarily from wikipedia.//
I haven't. I also haven't read a rule that blog posts should have the same standards as a dissertation when it comes to references and sources. Oh, you did not actually think that this blog post was a dissertation, did you? 😀
//You write: “Reason involves conscious explanations” [Direct quote from wiki]
But this statement does not define what reason is.//
Let me define the word "define": "to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/define). You might also notice that I supplemented “Reason involves conscious explanations” with "Reasoning as a process takes proposed explanations, considers them, contrasting them, or fitting them together in order to determine which beliefs or actions or attitudes are best." So tell me, Nomadic Gadfly, were the definitions I quoted to differentiate 'reason', 'rationality', and 'rationalization' wrong?
Now while we're on definitions, let me define a term for you: SPLITTING HAIRS – "to quibble; to try to make petty distinctions."
And here's another one: NITPICKING – "Minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding."
(4) Perhaps I made a sweeping statement and should have qualified. Forgive me. What I'm saying is, a Christian's beliefs are to some extent influenced by doctrine, while a freethinker is someone who's beliefs are NOT influenced by doctrine. See the contradiction of terms in "Christian freethinker"? Well maybe there are some people who are actually "Christian freethinkers", people who, while respecting the Christian doctrines, actually think for themselves and even question the rationality of some of the doctrines. However, their 'Christianity' is already in question here, and the more conservative pastors might say that that is not how a "true" Christian should be, and that a "true" Christian should take by faith what Christ has taught. It all boils down to how you define "Christian". If you simply say that a Christian is someone who was baptized into Christianity, then there a lot of Christian freethinkers out there, and that includes me.
great article.this stresses the importance of philosophical discourse now more than ever in our society 🙂
you just inspired me to study philosophy harder 🙂
ratio studiorum ^_^
[…] Read the full post here. […]
pleasantly speechless 🙂 thanks for writing a great article.
["They start off with a position based on religious doctrine and try to use rational arguments to back up such position. This is very hard to do considering they are performing the scientific method backwards, and I cannot help but admire the ingenuity of those who were able to keep their claims from being falsified outright."]
Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga would call this the ‘interpreter’ – try to make sense out of something – however strange and ridiculous it is.
Jonah Lehrer (‘The decisive moment’) wrote a whole book about this : how we decide based on the dopamine reward system. SNeuroscientist in general seems to be sure: counter arguments are just ignored, twisted around, confirming arguments for the own pre-bias desperately retrieved from memory – until some rationalization is found to confirm the own bias and ignore any counter arguments – and voila the dopamine reward system comes to action .
So it takes much more brainpower, willpower and pain to change your bias (pre-conception) and admit that you are wrong. So the difficulty and hard lifting is usually done from freethinkers, skeptics, scientists who are willing to evaluate evidence and change their mind.
Just being the ignoramus sticking your fingers in the ear as soon any counter argument is made and singing lalala – is much easier.
So several atheist posters on RD.Net simply gave up arguing with theist, fundamentalist, flat-earther’s, creationist and the like, who are proselytizing their delusion. I read remarks : I better can try to teach algebra to my dog – he will not understand but is at least listening.
//So it takes much more brainpower, willpower and pain to change your bias (pre-conception) and admit that you are wrong.//
I agree that it takes more willpower, humility, and discipline to change your beliefs, but not necessarily raw brain power because you are not trying to reconcile or fit the evidence and arguments into your pre-conceptions but merely allowing the observable facts to speak for themselves. You are not even trying to reach a conclusion here but merely finding reasons to be skeptical of certain claims.
It is much harder intellectually for the liberal theist (not the fundie) who has an existing belief in God based on what he learned in the Bible, to defend such belief using only science and logical arguments and without quoting scripture – the very scripture on which his belief almost entirely depends.
But as for the fundie, now his job is the easiest because he will simply ignore and avoid all logical arguments and even claim that reason is the work of the devil to confuse our minds from understanding God's words. There is no point debating with a fundie.
"But as for the fundie, now his job is the easiest because he will simply ignore and avoid all logical arguments and even claim that reason is the work of the devil to confuse our minds from understanding God’s words. There is no point debating with a fundie."
I find that a skeptic's best weapon against fundies is sarcasm and humor. They talk bullshit, we're obliged to return in kind, twofold 😉
Haha! I totally agree, Mr. Poe. 🙂
Excellent post!
One word: Brilliance.
Thank you Jong. That was a good read 😀
great post jong 😀