To think or to blindly follow.....

UndercoverElephant

Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces
UndercoverElephant
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
9,058
http://www.2think.org/2think.shtml

"IT IS UNREASONABLE TO THINK THAT SO MANY PEOPLE CONVERTED TO ISLAM WITHOUT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND DEEP CONTEMPLATION BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT ISLAM IS TRUE."

Arriving at a tentative conclusion vs. beginning at a conclusion that must be defended

The above statement in regards to Islam is an example of someone who once forming (or being born with) a conclusion must do everything to defend it. If the author of the web page really believed his statement then it would be 'unreasonable' for him not to conclude that every large or rapidly growing movement or religion is "True". People tend to create their own conclusion boxes. They then make statements that can't be logically defended--but can help solidify the box they are living in. The assumptions that make up the box are not carefully evaluated.

An example of this from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint can be found in the August 12, 1996 issue of Christianity Today. On page 64, Charles Colson, writing about what Christians must do to defend their beliefs against evolution, insists that "Christians must come together, craft a credible apologetic, and then refuse to back down". The author doesn't ask that the evidence be examined or that the Truth be sought. Similar statements have also been made by Mormon leaders.

The author Matt Berry states, "[The search for] Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions must constantly rearrange themselves. The [search for] Truth begins with fearless questions." This all seems so basic and self-evident, but large segments of the population haven't been able to (or don't want to) grasp this fundamental Truth.
Click to expand...

And that is the truth of the matter. In ALL situations. It applies to belief in materialism every bit as much as it does to Islam.
 
Last edited:
JustGeoff said:
[ It applies to belief in materialism every bit as much as it does to Islam.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No belief should be held without an examination of the evidence.

I'm still, however, waiting for any evidence you have to provide either for or against materialism. Repeated citations to incompenent mathematicians and misrepresentations of philosophers don't count as evidence to me, and therefore do not demand detailed examination.
 
I thought materialism boiled down to:

"He (or she) who dies with the most toys, wins"

Does 'materialism' have another connotation of which I am unaware?
 
Oolon Colluphid said:
I thought materialism boiled down to:

"He (or she) who dies with the most toys, wins"

Does 'materialism' have another connotation of which I am unaware?
Click to expand...

That's materialism in a much wider sense. I am talking about metaphysical materialism a.k.a. physicalism.
 
"IT IS UNREASONABLE TO THINK THAT SO MANY PEOPLE CONVERTED TO ISLAM WITHOUT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND DEEP CONTEMPLATION BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT ISLAM IS TRUE."
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but does that statement say anything about whether or not Islam is actually "true"? It only says that it's unreasonable to think that people converted to Islam without thinking about it first. Therefore this statement:

If the author of the web page really believed his statement then it would be 'unreasonable' for him not to conclude that every large or rapidly growing movement or religion is "True".
Click to expand...
has absolutely nothing to do with the first statement.

If you're trying to make an argument about holding beliefs without examining the evidence, this does not seem like the way to go...
 
Happy Dance

If you read the page I linked to you might see what I mean. Although I don't know you - are you a Christian?

The claim is that from inside the islam-box that muslims think inside it seems a good line of reasoning to say its unreasonable to think so many people would have converted if they hadn't thought long and hard about it being true. He has failed to realise that the same statement is true of every other major religion.
 
Esentially what it's saying is "Could X million people be wrong?" The assumption being that the answer must logically be "No". But it is a false assumption. Could X million people be wrong? You bet your boots, they could, and often are. The truth cannot be decided by consensus, and that doesn't just apply to Islam. It applies to the X million xtians, too (and the x million who voted for the shrub. Twice! :duck:).
 
The claim is that from inside the islam-box that muslims think inside it seems a good line of reasoning to say its unreasonable to think so many people would have converted if they hadn't thought long and hard about it being true. He has failed to realise that the same statement is true of every other major religion.
Click to expand...

From outside the box, just based on human behaviour, it doesn't seem unreasonable, either. We're not talking about people born and raised in Islamic culture here, we're talking about conversion. It's not unreasonable to assume that people consider things before deciding to believe them. It has no bearing on the "truth" of those beliefs, however.

Even in the context of the linked page, it's not a good argument.
 
I understand the intent, but I think it's a badly made argument. A better argument would be the one attributed to Hypatia ::
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all."

Most people think that 2+2=4. By agreeing you can be either a follower or a thinker. It depends on how you got there. The real questions are: "What is the quality of your thinking?" and "How do you improve at thinking? By thinking about it or by copying? Or by practice?" I reckon all three.


I think it's reasonable to assume that people who change faith thought about their choice -- even if they thought badly, even if they thought in a blinkered "in the box" way.

To claim the majority are just sheep who blindly follow is as much a fallacy as claiming that the majority is always right. I don't think the author goes that far.

The irony comes when the author asks "Have you ever gone through a period of your life in which you later felt like you had been asleep? You suddenly feel wide awake--as if you were previously sleepwalking through life or living a very foggy existence."

Many converts will claim they went through exactly that kind of phase before they "woke up and saw the truth".

HappyDance
We're not talking about people born and raised in Islamic culture here, we're talking about conversion. It's not unreasonable to assume that people consider things before deciding to believe them.
Click to expand...

To be fair to the author, his argument is that people who use the quote about conversion don't apply the same assumption to converts to other religions. Do converts from Islam to Christianity think about whether Islam/Christianity are true? Quite probably. But you won't hear as many Muslims point that out.
 
You've got a funny way of trying to convert people, Geoff.

You compare people who don't agree with you to Islamic loonies, dishonest creationists, Biblical literalists...

Wouldn't it be more polite to at least pretend, for the sake of the discussion, that it is possible there are rational people other than yourself on these message boards? I realise you come from a position of formidable intellectual authority, having passed first year philosophy and started on second year, but isn't it still possible that you might be wrong sometimes?
 
Kevin. There you go with the materialist thoughts again. You have to understand that "Right" and "Wrong" are realist concepts which you think are absolutes due to your inability to think outside the box. Throw away your blinkered assumptions, my son. Grok the wholeness.

By the way, since you're in there anyway, have you seen a dead cat?
 
I am trying to figure out what JG's argument is, a strawman or a false analogy.

Matt Berry said:
"[The search for] Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions must constantly rearrange themselves. The [search for] Truth begins with fearless questions." This all seems so basic and self-evident, but large segments of the population haven't been able to (or don't want to) grasp this fundamental Truth.
Click to expand...

JustGeoff said:
And that is the truth of the matter. In ALL situations. It applies to belief in materialism every bit as much as it does to Islam.
Click to expand...

Ahh, now I have it; it's a tautology.

Yes, JG, blind belief without examinig the facts is silly, but wide-spread. Most of us here, I'm sure, will agree to that.

What else is new?

Hans
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
You've got a funny way of trying to convert people, Geoff.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about converting anybody, Kevin. It is about being aware that all of us have a tendency to think in boxes and we should all think carefully before we engage in backwards reasoning which starts from a conclusion and tries to re-arrange all the questions. It is merely saying that it is a better idea to start from the questions instead.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, JG, blind belief without examinig the facts is silly, but wide-spread. Most of us here, I'm sure, will agree to that.
Click to expand...

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But in the thread about perception there are at least five people claiming that the debate should only be conducted if we all first agree that materialism is true before anybody defines their terms or answers any questions. I posted this article specifically for them, although since it applies on a much more general level and is of relevance way beyond that thread I guessed it may provoke some interesting discussion anyway.
 
JustGeoff said:
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But in the thread about perception there are at least five people claiming that the debate should only be conducted if we all first agree that materialism is true before anybody defines their terms or answers any questions. I posted this article specifically for them, although since it applies on a much more general level and is of relevance way beyond that thread I guessed it may provoke some interesting discussion anyway.
Click to expand...


Can you name them and where they say this? (I've just been reading through the thread and seem to have missed these five people?)
 
JustGeoff said:
I could do. I'm not going to bother, though. I have better things to do. :)
Click to expand...
This tells me that you are not really interested in discussion here. You don't want to share, you want to pontificate about your superior intellect.

Tell me something, Geoff: Have you ever met anyone who you thought could match - or even surpass - your intellect?
 
JustGeoff said:
There's a thread full of people over there who think otherwise and who have proudly stood up and said so.
Click to expand...
Geoff, you must understand that when you start a thread by insulting people, you should not be surprised if they respond in kind.

I do not know of any such people in these threads. I know people (like myself) who have accepted the assumption of materialism, but it is not without thought and it is not without considering the assumptions made by other belief systems and not without hearing and understanding the idea that you and others put forth. I accept the assumption of materialism (accept when I am questioning it) because it is consistant, has few if any internal contradictions, and most importantly because it actually explains things in the universe we live in. It is useful. I cannot say the same for many other assumptive belief systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom