Alright, here's something that's been popping up a lot over the last week or so, and it's really starting to bother me...
"I don't like onions, they taste awful." That? That's an opinion. Some people will have conflicting opinions on the subject, after all some people actually like the taste of onions, and that's fine. People might debate a bit on the merits of onions, various cooking methods, varieties, and so on, but at the end of the day...? It's all just personal opinion. Not much can be done about it - although it could possibly change over time on it's own. (I hated yellow mustard as a kid, and in the last year I've fallen in love with it.)
"All species of bear eat bamboo in their natural habitat." That? That is not an opinion. It's a fact. Facts, as we know, can be wrong - this one is, of course, wrong.
Now sometimes the line isn't always clear. One might have an opinion based on the facts available to them. If those facts are wrong? Well, we can see what that might do to their opinion. Pointing out this issue should not really be seen as an attack on the individual, yet that's often how it's taken.
Now that, I just... I don't get it. If I had based an opinion or belief on something incorrect, I'd want to know! It's happened before. I'm sure it will happen again. I'm not perfect, I've believed incorrect information, and I have held beliefs that just plain old did not make sense. When that was brought to my attention? I considered the new evidence, or what was being said to me, and if appropriate I changed my opinion to reflect the new information or ideas.
Evaluation of personal opinions and beliefs is not a bad thing. If you never examine your personal beliefs, how are you ever going to grow, or develop a deeper awareness of them? Of course, this is now starting to get into an issue I wrote about many months back. It's okay to think someone's beliefs are wrong, and it's okay to debate beliefs.
It's not a matter of discussing a particular individual's belief,
and after discussion they still believe in it - that's fine! You can
look at a belief, question it, examine it, get other opinions on it...
and still have that same belief after all is said and done. That's a
good way to form strong, well thought out beliefs.
The problem is when people seem to want to stick their opinions and beliefs up on these untouchable pedestals. They want to share them with the world, but when someone disagrees? No, no, you can't do that. That's not nice. Of course, the same people seem to take no issue with giving out their opposing views. They're just giving their opinion. If you want to disagree with, or discuss that opinion? Nope, can't do that - that belief is way up on that sacred pedestal.
If you only want to hear the people that agree with you, what's the point?
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Monday, December 26, 2011
Pascal's Wager
This might seem like a strange post coming after yesterday, but as I said I don't see any issue with bringing up the issues with a particular teaching or idea.
Yesterday I walked in on a conversation my grandfather and his brother were having. I'm not sure how it started, but within the first few words I knew where my grandfather was going, and why it was wrong. He was bringing up Pascal's Wager.
Pascal's Wager basically says that either God exists, or God does not exist. So it is better to live life as if God exists, since if it turns out there is no God you lose nothing - where an atheist, if they were wrong and there is a God, would lose everything.
Now, anyone who understands that there's more than one religion can see the most obvious flaw here - Pascal's Wager puts forth only two options, but there there are numerous Gods and religions one could choose from. How do you know you'll get the right one? It also assumes that if a God exists, they will punish atheists for not having faith, which is not a teaching of all religions.
If we narrow it down to the options where non-believers will be punished (since if there is a God who doesn't care, taking such a view would mean you still "lose nothing"), we're still left with several options. There's no guarantee that you will choose the right one. A Christian who lived their life believing in God should be "safe" according to Pascal - but if that Christian dies, and it turns out maybe Islam was true? Well, things aren't looking so good for them, after all. (I find that when using that particular example, even in reverse, many are more likely to want to jump on the bash Islam wagon, rather than sticking to the issue. Don't be derailed!)
Now this particular criticism was addressed by Pascal, well, somewhat. Pascal basically calls this argument a "trap" that he won't fall into. That anyone actually interested in knowing the truth would study, and come to his same conclusion that all "pagan" religions (that is, all religions aside from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) come down to superstition and ignorance, and aren't actually worth looking at in any detail. He basically comes to the same conclusion about Islam. Yet, the only reason anyone "rejects" Christianity is because they haven't looked at it in detail. Pretty easy to see why this is a flawed, and indeed hypocritical argument.
This is not the only flaw with the wager, though. It also assumes that an all knowing God isn't going to care that you were essentially going through the motions just to be rewarded, as it's quite hard to force true faith. Of course, many Christians don't actually seem to understand why this is an issue. (Matthew 7:21, anyone? Some scholars see this verse as applying to false faith, among other actions.) Others say faking faith leads to real faith, and that if it doesn't you just "weren't trying hard enough." It's quite hard to explain to such people why that is a flawed view. Of course, this eventually gets more into the issues with a God who would create an eternal hell, worshiping to avoid Hell, and so on. Perhaps that would be better left to another post, for another day, though.
Yesterday I walked in on a conversation my grandfather and his brother were having. I'm not sure how it started, but within the first few words I knew where my grandfather was going, and why it was wrong. He was bringing up Pascal's Wager.
Pascal's Wager basically says that either God exists, or God does not exist. So it is better to live life as if God exists, since if it turns out there is no God you lose nothing - where an atheist, if they were wrong and there is a God, would lose everything.
Now, anyone who understands that there's more than one religion can see the most obvious flaw here - Pascal's Wager puts forth only two options, but there there are numerous Gods and religions one could choose from. How do you know you'll get the right one? It also assumes that if a God exists, they will punish atheists for not having faith, which is not a teaching of all religions.
If we narrow it down to the options where non-believers will be punished (since if there is a God who doesn't care, taking such a view would mean you still "lose nothing"), we're still left with several options. There's no guarantee that you will choose the right one. A Christian who lived their life believing in God should be "safe" according to Pascal - but if that Christian dies, and it turns out maybe Islam was true? Well, things aren't looking so good for them, after all. (I find that when using that particular example, even in reverse, many are more likely to want to jump on the bash Islam wagon, rather than sticking to the issue. Don't be derailed!)
Now this particular criticism was addressed by Pascal, well, somewhat. Pascal basically calls this argument a "trap" that he won't fall into. That anyone actually interested in knowing the truth would study, and come to his same conclusion that all "pagan" religions (that is, all religions aside from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) come down to superstition and ignorance, and aren't actually worth looking at in any detail. He basically comes to the same conclusion about Islam. Yet, the only reason anyone "rejects" Christianity is because they haven't looked at it in detail. Pretty easy to see why this is a flawed, and indeed hypocritical argument.
This is not the only flaw with the wager, though. It also assumes that an all knowing God isn't going to care that you were essentially going through the motions just to be rewarded, as it's quite hard to force true faith. Of course, many Christians don't actually seem to understand why this is an issue. (Matthew 7:21, anyone? Some scholars see this verse as applying to false faith, among other actions.) Others say faking faith leads to real faith, and that if it doesn't you just "weren't trying hard enough." It's quite hard to explain to such people why that is a flawed view. Of course, this eventually gets more into the issues with a God who would create an eternal hell, worshiping to avoid Hell, and so on. Perhaps that would be better left to another post, for another day, though.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Critical Thinking
Too many people are willing to set aside critical thinking for convenience. While the issue isn't just limited to the pagan community, that's what I'd like to touch on just a bit today.
Lately I've been seeing a shocking number people willing to accept information, without considering the source of the information. They see something that fits in with their preconceived ideas, and leave it at that. This is a bad place to stop, it's important to consider the source of the information - how reliable is this author, when was this written, was it written for a specific audience?
Let's look at each of those. As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so even the worst sources will be right on occasion. Still, if a source has a record of being wrong quite often, it might be best to question the information they give. Use multiple sources, use good sources. Likewise, we shouldn't be afraid to check on an author's credentials. Do they relate to the topic they're writing about? Are they consistent with their credentials?
It's important to consider when something was written, as sometimes new information has become available in the time since the writing. Let's look at the Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge as an example. He did a number of translations and wrote a number of books until he died in the year 1934, and many of his books are available for free online. Since his time, we've made huge leaps and bounds in translation and method, so there are much better sources now. Still, some people fall back on these older, less reliable sources. They put this incorrect information out there for others. Bad history is a big problem through the pagan community, but it really doesn't have to be if we just took a little care in examining our sources.
We also need to consider the audience the work was originally intended for. This usually won't be an issue, but can be with older works. Sometimes a work claims to be intended for a specific group, but was really targeted at a large audience. Sometimes a work claims to speak for pagans as a whole, but really focuses on one tradition. This sort of thing might not always be obvious, but will usually pop up when looking into the author.
Don't accept something just because it was written in a book, on a website, or anywhere else. Don't be afraid to question. Use multiple sources. Weigh out conflicting information, don't just accept what you came across first. Of course all this is but one aspect of critical thinking, but perhaps it would be best to save some of that for another day, rather than writing one giant post...
Lately I've been seeing a shocking number people willing to accept information, without considering the source of the information. They see something that fits in with their preconceived ideas, and leave it at that. This is a bad place to stop, it's important to consider the source of the information - how reliable is this author, when was this written, was it written for a specific audience?
Let's look at each of those. As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so even the worst sources will be right on occasion. Still, if a source has a record of being wrong quite often, it might be best to question the information they give. Use multiple sources, use good sources. Likewise, we shouldn't be afraid to check on an author's credentials. Do they relate to the topic they're writing about? Are they consistent with their credentials?
It's important to consider when something was written, as sometimes new information has become available in the time since the writing. Let's look at the Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge as an example. He did a number of translations and wrote a number of books until he died in the year 1934, and many of his books are available for free online. Since his time, we've made huge leaps and bounds in translation and method, so there are much better sources now. Still, some people fall back on these older, less reliable sources. They put this incorrect information out there for others. Bad history is a big problem through the pagan community, but it really doesn't have to be if we just took a little care in examining our sources.
We also need to consider the audience the work was originally intended for. This usually won't be an issue, but can be with older works. Sometimes a work claims to be intended for a specific group, but was really targeted at a large audience. Sometimes a work claims to speak for pagans as a whole, but really focuses on one tradition. This sort of thing might not always be obvious, but will usually pop up when looking into the author.
Don't accept something just because it was written in a book, on a website, or anywhere else. Don't be afraid to question. Use multiple sources. Weigh out conflicting information, don't just accept what you came across first. Of course all this is but one aspect of critical thinking, but perhaps it would be best to save some of that for another day, rather than writing one giant post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)