Chris
Apparently, Bertvan believes that she is parodying *my* views when she
substitutes materialist terminology in my argument. But, my views are
"materialistic" only in a secondary sense (I think what we call *matter* is
real, but not metaphysically primary). Further, since the details of the
facts upon which I base my claims are largely available on this list, and
in the observational experience of nearly any person over the age of three,
people can judge for *themselves* whether my claims are likely true (or at
least severely veridical).
Bertvan
I usually don't try to psychoanalyze why other people believe as they do.
Their reasons are as valid to them as my reasons for my beliefs.
Chris
This is where Bertvan lets her cat out of its bag. Validity, in her view,
is merely a matter of subjective opinion, and nothing more can really be
said about it. This has been part of her "boilerplate" for the past two
years (that I know of). But logic is no more "flexible" in this respect
than is mathematics. If you believe that 2+2=76, your "reasons" for believe
this may be as "valid" to you as mine are to me (they aren't, but that's a
different matter), it *doesn't* make your claim that 2+2=76 *true* or
rationally justified. It means that you have made a *mistake* and that you
need to reconsider.
The question she continues to evade is *precisely* the psychological one:
Why is absolute *illogic* (seemly) valid to so many people? *Why* do so
many people believe that, if A implies B, and B is true, A must be true
also? *Why* do people believe that if A implies B and B implies A, then B
*must* be true without further consideration needed? *Why* do people
believe that *their* blind faith must be true while someone *else's* blind
faith must be false if it conflicts with their own blind faith? *Why* do
people who believe the philosophical equivalent of the proposition that
2+2=76 continue to do so even after the *invalidity* of their arguments
have been openly demonstrated in great detail? The answer is: Personal
*psychology.* It is *not* mere casual mistakes in reasoning, it is mistakes
in reasoning that are persistently and determinedly held onto despite the
(often bloody) consequences (as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the
Inquisition, and in thousand of other cases. These are not questions to be
brushed aside by mindless parody.
In short, Bertvan's attempt at "refuting" my views on the *psychology* of
belief that flies in the face of blatant facts with the mindless cliche
that "everyone's reasons are good in their view" is a demonstration of the
very type of fact that my post was intended to make some sense of.
Obviously, if you believe that your reasons, no matter how *they* were
established in your mind, are inherently just as "valid" as anyone else's,
then you need not *ever* question your own views, because, by *definition*,
your reasons are as good as reasons get.
The point of my post was to show that some people believe things for
*non-*cognitive reasons (as if she did not already know this) and to show
why, after all possible alleged *reason* in support of a belief has been
demonstrated *invalid*, we need not try to pretend to ourselves or others
that such people might *actually* have sound reasoning behind their
conclusions but simply be unable or unwilling to even vaguely tell us what
this amazing and rationally convincing reasoning *IS*.
No: At the point when their basic premises (if any; if they are not simply
a melange of circular "logic") are demonstrated to be unsound and their
proffered arguments are shown to be invalid, there is nothing left *but*
psychology to explain such beliefs. If you try to make your mind make
*cognitive* sense out of this kind of woozy pseudo-reasoning, you do
yourself a gross disservice, like spending your life trying to make
rational, cognitive, conceptual sense of the claim that 2+2 *does* equal 76
(if anyone tries to "refute" this by playing word games with the
definitions of "2" or "+" or "equal" (or "76"), I will *RIP* the deformed
*head* of his epistemology off, smash it against a wall, and display the
grotesque remains on a pole in the village square).
Here's Bertvan's parody, in all it's glorious emptiness. I could go through
and insert comments, such as, "Is this *true*?" after her claim below that
"Materialists have all had their arguments shredded right in front of their
eyes." Whether or not the conclusion is sound depends on whether the
premises are *true*, not merely on the reasoning that links them to the
conclusion. This is an important principle that she ignores throughout all
of the following, as you can see for yourself, if you have the patience to
go through the whole thing.
Good luck. And, if you do try to read the whole thing, please note that
many of her substitutions do not have the effect of even *seeming* to
support her views; they are simply *nonsense* or simply *irrelevant*, like
criticizing a book a person has written because you don't like the color of
the tree in his back yard. (This could be the start of another piece of
"psychoanalyzing" for me. ;-) (see below) )
Bertvan
This is merely an attempt to point out to psychoanalyzing materialists the
futility
of such efforts.
Of course, merely pointing out a person's *motivation* does not mean that
his claims are false. But, if you show that they *are* false, that his
arguments are invalid and or based on false premises, and he *still*
insists on his claim of a materialistic universe, then something
non-cognitive is going on, and it is well that we be aware of this.
We see the same pattern repeated many times. Materialists have all had
their arguments shredded right in front of their eyes (figuratively
speaking), but not a one of them has said, "Oh, yes, I see clearly now. I
will go see if I can find something better or give up my claims." Instead,
they become "Stepford Intellectuals," robots for the cause, re-iterating
arguments that have long since rotted in the bright light of observable
facts and clear logic, sometimes making bizarre attempts at patching them
up (without removing the basic fallacies).
The basic error is the attempt to make matter primary, and matter
(the entirety of whatever exists) a secondary that is either subject to,
or knowable by their own mind, *without* the need for independent
*cognitive* validation. But, since the pre- conceptual realization that
matter is primary is never really killed or fully suppressed, the person
is (pre- conceptually) aware that the beliefs he has imposed on reality by
means of his mere choice and feelings are not reliable and may be crucially
wrong. Thus, he is in a state of anxiety about his relationship to the
world, a state that he tries to assuage by ever more diligent faith in his
*chosen* (not cognitively validated) beliefs.
Because he is in a cognitive quandary about all the basics of
philosophy (or would be if he considered them at all), and
because his mind is largely furnished with more or less blindly-
accepted conventional materialistic beliefs, he has no rational idea that any
purpose in life exists or what it might be. But, his anxiety and
confusion drives him to deny any purpose. Having stocked his
own mind with philosophical nonsense, and being
psychologically deeply insecure, he will normally seek
something more stable, more reliable, something as pitiful
as himself to vest his happiness in. Commonly, it will be his supposed
ability to understand the universe, but not always. Some
people will make remarks like, "I believe in God but I
believe everything that happens has a materialistic cause." -- by
which they mean a purpose determined by Homo sapiens or the laws of physics.
(Quantum physics is best passed over quickly.) Some will take up causes such
as professional Darwin defenders.
But, in all of these cases, such people are seeking the security they cannot
find in a universe with unanswerable questions. They cannot live with such
insecurity.
Why is it not logically possible? Because they are *seeking* this
concept of materialism to satisfy *their* need to deny a purpose in life.
They fear the existence of something they might not understand and thus are
driven to declare nothing incomprehensible can exist.
Why does it *matter* that unanswerable questions might exist ? Clearly,
it matters because one already *has* a need to live in a predictable universe.
This is a serious philosophical error. It is not correctable by
means of a little tweaking here and there. It puts the person in
a situation that is impossible to resolve without abandoning the
situation entirely and starting over.
But few will start over. Instead, they remain not-so-blissfully
driven to defend materialism.
If they find what they take to be a purpose in life (i.e their own mastery
of the universe), any threat to that belief may
very well be taken as a threat to their philosophy, or,
psychologically and usually subconsciously, a threat to their
very lives (because they have invested themselves such faith in their own
intellectual superiority , and cannot imagine a life without it).
Since the person has already given up reason in a *quite*
fundamental way in the process of accepting the notion that
faith in their own intellectual processes is a magical way of knowing things
or a magical way of making the world match one's beliefs, it is a relatively
small
step to give it up with respect to any scientific issue that seems
to involve their imagined lack of purpose in life. If "ID" (or
anything else) seems to threaten them (i.e., their " superior intellectual
processes"),
they will automatically (or very nearly so) adopt virtually *any*
rationalization that seems to support their view of their view that purpose
in life cannot exist.
Thus, one may come across Darwinists proselytizers who openly
admit that all they have going for their belief materialsim is faith, but,
since they have faith in materialism (and, of course, faith in the
materialism is faith), it doesn't bother them that people of other
religions *also* have faith, but in a quite different God than materialism.
Why?
Because, like those others, they have faith that *their* faith is
sound, while the faith of the others is wrong (and, of course,
that's exactly how the *others* feel about *their* faith as well).
The *absolute* absurdity of such a position seems almost
*never* to sink in, because they have faith that it's *not* absurd
when *they* do it (which, of course, is the *same* faith those
*others* have in *their* faith).
With reason *this* far gone, it is no wonder that materialists,
and the like are willing to forego it with respect to something as
relatively unimportant as science, if doing so will appear to
protect or promote their "purpose," their precious world-view
that gives their lives (in their view) some sort of "feeling of ability to
control the universe."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 05 2000 - 20:34:15 EST