Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

I understand and I completely agree. Indeed, in this religion subforum I'm usually on the other side of the same dispute, arguing that skeptics and rationalists should pay more attention to the experiences of religion rather than only its narratives, when they ask questions like "why do people believe X?" (Experiences being a larger category that includes all emotions.)

Denying or disregarding experiences ("grace does not exist" or "grace is irrelevant if God does not exist") and regarding experiences as authoritative ("grace proves God exists" or "grace shows Jesus wants to save us from hell") lead to two equally extreme positions.

Currently, the social theories advanced by the Atheism+ forums tend toward the latter error, though with regard to social justice rather than religion. So, I try to show how it's wrong. If the recent prayer thread gets revived, in which some atheists were falling afoul of the former error, I'll be back to trying to show that's wrong too.

When you defend the middle ground, you need a light saber like Darth Maul's.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Agreed.

 

[recursive prophet]

My basic reaction to your post is that calling out abuse and exploitation doesn't create either, but I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

Try reading that post again carefully Qwint, and open your mind just a bit. Do you really fail to see how many at the A+ forum seem to embrace their victim status as a badge of emotional, experiential authority?

Make that a forth on nominating luchog's last post. Glad I read down to the bottom before I hit the button. This may be the most awesome summary I've seen itt, and that speaks volumes.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Damn.

I had to read it a few times

But

That was freakin' awesome.

Yes, luchog, that was awesome. Is there any way to second a nomination?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Just beware the straw vulcan and spock fallacy. Emotions are crucial in our day to day decision making. That's not to say we should be ruled by emotions or forgo reason. Of course not. But we would be adrift in indecision if it were not for our emotions.

The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4

Julia is terrific! I hadn't heard of the straw vulcan before.

 

[Mr. Scott]

You've got four distinct claims/questions here:

1) "Glorifying emotion" should be criticized.
2) "Emotional" and "intellectual" are inherently incompatible.
3) Defending emotional argument is anti-intellectual.
4) Defending emotional judgment is incompatible with critical thinking.

Is that a fair summary of your position? Responding to it will take some time and space, so I want to make sure I understand what you're saying before I begin.

They are not that distinct to me. I see it as various ways to express the same general point with some variety, embellishment, and clarity.

What I'd really like to hear is a defense of the idea that emotions are intellectual tools.

E.g., how would emotion be inserted into a rational thought process to come up with a better solution than rationality alone?

BTW: It is rational to consider that people are emotional. IOW emotions are social tools. It is irrational to behave as if emotions didn't exist. I just don't think an emotional argument should be assumed to trump an intellectual argument.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4

If you don't feel like watching an hour-long lecture, then the talk is summarised in this blog post.

Incidentally, "Galef" sounds like a Klingon or Cardassian name.

 

[qwints]

Randfan made the point above

The basic answer is that emotions are real, and that they interact with our reasoning in complex ways. Think about Shermer's answer for why smart people believe weird things -they're good at coming up with reasons to defend conclusions they came to for non-logical reasons. Then accept that, like most people, you're not able to disconnect your reasoning from how you feel about an issue.

While there are some domains where logical reasoning can be conclusive, many areas of life require normative judgments. As a sentimentalist, I don't think it's possible to make normative judgments without involving one's emotions - you can't determine what's right or wrong from reason alone. Additionally, emotions are real experiences, and empathy is necessary to deal with the world as it actually is.

 

[Krikkiter]

They are not that distinct to me. I see it as various ways to express the same general point with some variety, embellishment, and clarity.

What I'd really like to hear is a defense of the idea that emotions are intellectual tools.

E.g., how would emotion be inserted into a rational thought process to come up with a better solution than rationality alone?

BTW: It is rational to consider that people are emotional. IOW emotions are social tools. It is irrational to behave as if emotions didn't exist. I just don't think an emotional argument should be assumed to trump an intellectual argument.

When law makers sit down to try and correct the inequalities in our societies they generally rely on emotion as a tool to solve the problems... not.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan made the point above

The basic answer is that emotions are real, and that they interact with our reasoning in complex ways. Think about Shermer's answer for why smart people believe weird things -they're good at coming up with reasons to defend conclusions they came to for non-logical reasons. Then accept that, like most people, you're not able to disconnect your reasoning from how you feel about an issue.

While there are some domains where logical reasoning can be conclusive, many areas of life require normative judgments. As a sentimentalist, I don't think it's possible to make normative judgments without involving one's emotions - you can't determine what's right or wrong from reason alone. Additionally, emotions are real experiences, and empathy is necessary to deal with the world as it actually is.

By and large humans did not evolve for formal logic. We have to work at it. Yes, our emotions are critical to our decision making but reason and logic should not be set aside for emotion.

 

[Mr. Scott]

By and large humans did not evolve for formal logic. We have to work at it. Yes, our emotions are critical to our decision making but reason and logic should not be set aside for emotion.

When I saw how much weight was assigned to emotions by Aplussers, it made my face melt.

In my study of behavioral biology, I learned that the emotional parts of our brains are almost identical to those in rats. Human achievement is a result of all the brain power we've accumulated to override our emotions.

Like rats, our reason to be is to maximize feeling good and minimize feeling bad.

Where rationality helps us is to know when to assess how we'd feel in the future to override what we feel now. We don't gorge on candy because we know it will make us sick later. We endure the boredom of brushing our teeth because we don't want the misery of a toothache later, the painful social consequence of bad breath, etc.

Emotions misfire all the time because they evolved chaotically. Fear is the most powerful emotion because it's better to be safe than sorry. However, irrational fear of, say, a fan who asks you for coffee in an elevator may prevent you from anticipating that you might ruin your career as a rational and entertaining speaker and skeptic if you go on a vengeful crusade to persecute rich old white men.

We also have these mirror neuron things, probably responsible for social justice in that we may empathize with the disadvantaged via feeling their pain as our own. To that end, we try to make things better for the disadvantaged to bring about an improvement of our own feelings by proxy. Not always successfully, I might add, since the disadvantaged sometimes turn against the advantaged who lent them a hand.

Because emotions are real, they need to be a part of rational assessments that involve people.

I still don't see emotions as "intellectual tools," but rather just things to keep in mind.

 

[RandFan]

When I saw how much weight was assigned to emotions by Aplussers, it made my face melt.

In my study of behavioral biology, I learned that the emotional parts of our brains are almost identical to those in rats. Human achievement is a result of all the brain power we've accumulated to override our emotions.

Like rats, our reason to be is to maximize feeling good and minimize feeling bad.

Where rationality helps us is to know when to assess how we'd feel in the future to override what we feel now. We don't gorge on candy because we know it will make us sick later. We endure the boredom of brushing our teeth because we don't want the misery of a toothache later, the painful social consequence of bad breath, etc.

Emotions misfire all the time because they evolved chaotically. Fear is the most powerful emotion because it's better to be safe than sorry. However, irrational fear of, say, a fan who asks you for coffee in an elevator may prevent you from anticipating that you might ruin your career as a rational and entertaining speaker and skeptic if you go on a vengeful crusade to persecute rich old white men.

We also have these mirror neuron things, probably responsible for social justice in that we may empathize with the disadvantaged via feeling their pain as our own. To that end, we try to make things better for the disadvantaged to bring about an improvement of our own feelings by proxy. Not always successfully, I might add, since the disadvantaged sometimes turn against the advantaged who lent them a hand.

Because emotions are real, they need to be a part of rational assessments that involve people.

I still don't see emotions as "intellectual tools," but rather just things to keep in mind.

Good post. Agreed.

 

[Krikkiter]

When I saw how much weight was assigned to emotions by Aplussers, it made my face melt.

In my study of behavioral biology, I learned that the emotional parts of our brains are almost identical to those in rats. Human achievement is a result of all the brain power we've accumulated to override our emotions.

Like rats, our reason to be is to maximize feeling good and minimize feeling bad.

Where rationality helps us is to know when to assess how we'd feel in the future to override what we feel now. We don't gorge on candy because we know it will make us sick later. We endure the boredom of brushing our teeth because we don't want the misery of a toothache later, the painful social consequence of bad breath, etc.

Emotions misfire all the time because they evolved chaotically. Fear is the most powerful emotion because it's better to be safe than sorry. However, irrational fear of, say, a fan who asks you for coffee in an elevator may prevent you from anticipating that you might ruin your career as a rational and entertaining speaker and skeptic if you go on a vengeful crusade to persecute rich old white men.

We also have these mirror neuron things, probably responsible for social justice in that we may empathize with the disadvantaged via feeling their pain as our own. To that end, we try to make things better for the disadvantaged to bring about an improvement of our own feelings by proxy. Not always successfully, I might add, since the disadvantaged sometimes turn against the advantaged who lent them a hand.

Because emotions are real, they need to be a part of rational assessments that involve people.

I still don't see emotions as "intellectual tools," but rather just things to keep in mind.

I agree with RandFan. Excellent post.

 

[luchog]

What are you even talking about luchog?

Which "southern African cultures" have those beliefs and how do you know?
Who is "creating a culture of victomhood" and what does that even mean?
How does "Third-Wave Feminism" "treat all women as fragile delicate flowers, perpetual victims little better than children?"

My basic reaction to your post is that calling out abuse and exploitation doesn't create either, but I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

The ironly of that last comment in the context of this thread is almost overwhelming. I can't believe you don't notice it. In any case, I'll address what I can.

Well, here's a quick starter after a brief Google search. I'll address the rest when I have time and am not in quite so much pain.

Anti-vaccination and AIDS/HIV Denialism In Sub-Saharan Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/11/vaccination-fears-developing-world-deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism#Impact_in_South_Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/26/aids-south-africa
http://www.scotsman.com/news/intern...issed-as-devil-s-work-across-africa-1-1140481

A good explanation of the culture of victimhood
http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html
This is amply demonstrated on the A+ forums, where the pecking order is decided in large part by who can claim the most victimization; and is used as a way to silence critics.

 

[Krikkiter]

The ironly of that last comment in the context of this thread is almost overwhelming. I can't believe you don't notice it. In any case, I'll address what I can.

Well, here's a quick starter after a brief Google search. I'll address the rest when I have time and am not in quite so much pain.

Anti-vaccination and AIDS/HIV Denialism In Sub-Saharan Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/11/vaccination-fears-developing-world-deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism#Impact_in_South_Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/26/aids-south-africa
http://www.scotsman.com/news/intern...issed-as-devil-s-work-across-africa-1-1140481

A good explanation of the culture of victimhood
http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html
This is amply demonstrated on the A+ forums, where the pecking order is decided in large part by who can claim the most victimization; and is used as a way to silence critics.

luchog, where have you been? Thank you for the input and links.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I too nommed luchog's post (I think I counted 7 at this point).

 

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>

Glad I read the updates, I'd written a long post about the problems with local governments supporting traditional medicine over western medicine in Africa - you covered it much better with your links. >

A good explanation of the culture of victimhood
http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html
This is amply demonstrated on the A+ forums, where the pecking order is decided in large part by who can claim the most victimization; and is used as a way to silence critics.

Perhaps too fine a point, but I take it a step farther. The pecking order actually determines the validity of the victimhood claimed. Witness Setar able-splaining to an actual deaf person. It's like the Gambino family. If you've made your bones, you can get away with anything.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I too nommed luchog's post (I think I counted 7 at this point).

Yeah, I got in on it earlier, too. I'd like to see something open to argument win the TLA for a change.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Hello everyone,

Just a quick note, partly to remind me where I read to so I can get back to replies.

1, I'm from the US and reside here still. (And yes I have me some privilege, lots and lots of it. Though if someone wants to add rich to my pile I won't say no.)

2, Very briefly on the limerick and that other word. The words in the limerick were gendered, the other word (That gets used a lot) isn't. That is a meaningful distinction. After that those in the thread made a far better case for the sexism, identified as subconscious and unintentional by consensus of the thread) than I can, I was learning while reading. Glob got the banhammer for the contentious way xie conducted themself afterword, see the capricious thread. Which also fielded several comments on use of the aforementioned pejorative.

3, RP I'd be happy to look at what happened with your posting, but my free time is very limited for the next three weeks or so. If you can link to the relevant posts that would make it much easier for me to look them over.

4, There were some really interesting things between this post and where I left a marker I'll be hitting on those when I get back.

5, Woo 15 posts, I can link stuff.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

2, Very briefly on the limerick and that other word. The words in the limerick were gendered, the other word (That gets used a lot) isn't.

The word "wanker" is not gendered.

http://www.socialistrevolution.org/2236/joanna-lumley-wanker-of-the-month/

[...]she’s a wanker!

http://ask.fm/Deanw16/answer/16647041476

She's a wanker

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you are a wanker

He's or She's a wanker.

http://uk.eonline.com/news/102196/bono-slags-chris-martin-as-wanker-and-cretin

[...]he's a wanker.

http://www.insertclevertitle.co.uk/2010/09/14/robbie-williams-is-a-wanker/

He’s a right wanker.

Not gendered. The only "gendered words" were "lady", "she" and "she". Given that the limerick was about a woman who identifies as such, what pronouns would have made the limerick acceptable? And, if simply using gendered pronouns in combination with a swearword which has a sexual root is enough to constitute sexual harassment, then where's the dogplie for this post?

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1615&start=25#p27934

**** that guy. He can **** off and never **** back on again. ever.

I fail to see how that's not worse as, rather than using a word with a sexual root in proximity to a gendered pronoun, it's directing it at a specific person while using a gendered pronoun.

If you want to take the most sexualised possible interpretation (which, it seems, is the only correct interpretation), then the limerick accused someone of unspecified gender who was in the presence of a woman of masturbating occasionally. The post I quoted exhorted the rape of a man.

Or, if the defence is going to be that the man is part of the in-group so doesn't need the same protections as a woman, how about this post?

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7228#p7317

As for Condoleezza Rice, well **** her anyway.

That's a call to rape Condoleezza Rice. Isn't it?

Would the limerick have been okay had it not been about a member of the forum (who didn't find it offensive) but was instead about Condoleezza Rice?

 

[squealpiggy]

2, Very briefly on the limerick and that other word. The words in the limerick were gendered, the other word (That gets used a lot) isn't. That is a meaningful distinction. After that those in the thread made a far better case for the sexism, identified as subconscious and unintentional by consensus of the thread) than I can, I was learning while reading. Glob got the banhammer for the contentious way xie conducted themself afterword, see the capricious thread. Which also fielded several comments on use of the aforementioned pejorative.

"That word" (which was "wanker") was not gendered. Insisting it was so is being deliberately obtuse and one of the problems with the SJW hijacking of common language.

Glob got the banhammer because zrhee was given a patently absurd commandment about the patriarchal nature of all limericks and rightly refused to apologise for it. Failure to immediately grovel before the mighty wisdom of Social Justice Solomon signed their virtual death warrant.

The simple fact is that the limerick dogpile is a hilarious example of Social Justice excess on the Atheism Plus forums. It's beyond parody.