It's amazing how easily people's minds reset. No matter the evidence and sound logic and that they sheepishly have to agree with you, dogma, like old habits, are hard to break. This is what psychologists refer to as 'cognitive dissonance.' It's the idea that a once held belief is challenged by an argument or position that cannot be refuted and the resulting conflict that arises out of it. My experience with people who find themselves in this situation tend to throw out the new information and hold onto their original beliefs. This very thing happened to me the other day with a friend regarding why Atheism isn't a religion....
Now I've blogged about religion before in earlier blogs. But this will be a little bit more in-depth regarding the matter.
Each of us is born to think critically. Children are always asking 'Why' questions because they're trying to establish a way of determine what is true and what is false. Now, an un-indoctrinated child would stop asking 'Why' questions until they come to an understanding. Let me illustrate with an example:
Little Billy: Where's grandmom?
Grandpa: She's in the hospital...
LB: Why is she in the hospital?
G: She broke her leg.
LB: Why did she break her leg?
G: She went outside and slipped on a piece of ice.
LB: Oh..
Now at this point in the conversation, Little Billy has an understanding that ice is slippery. Why does he have this understanding? Where does this come from? Experience. Sensory perception. Reality.
Another line of questioning could be: Why do you go to the hospital when you break your leg?
Obviously, if this question is being posed, Little Billy's never been to the hospital or at least been in one where he remembered. But the point is, 'Why' questions can be asked ad infinitum without having a framework in which things can be allowed to be true or false. No one can really be told what is true or false. That knowledge can only be ascertained through experience, logic and reasoning.
The job of science is to explain or describe phenomenon. They can use mathematical equations and physics to express what is happening, to explain relationships between objects and then try to make approximate predictions in the future. It's not the job of science to explain the 'Why' but rather the 'How.' To many it sounds like a distinction without a difference but it's very analogous to explaining human behavior. If someone asked you 'Why do you workout?' vs 'How do you workout?' you'll come up with very different answers, no? The 'Why' question is about motivation. The 'How question is about processes.
Possible answer to the 'Why' question could be: "I don't wanna get fat so I work out." Again, one could ask more 'Why' questions until you reach the final answer 'That's just the way it is.' You reach a point where everyone has an understanding because each person is also built the same way. Everyone has values and preferences to which they cannot explain on why they hold those values and preferences - but they do. People like chocolate over vanilla, blondes over brunettes, plastic vs. paper...etc. You cannot explain why you have such preferences. You just do. It's just part of reality. Just like Gravity. No one can explain why gravity exists. It's not science's job to answer such questions. How gravity works is something science can explain.
So children naturally ask 'Why' questions because they want to get to the point where they understand something as true and then all the 'Why' questions in between make sense to them. What they're doing is establishing a logical chain to which the original premise is a true statement. The only way to evaluate the premise as true or false is through reality.
On the topic of theism, we are now stepping outside the realm of reality because there isn't a shred of evidence that Zeus ever existed or a Buddha or a God. Just ask enough 'Why' questions and you'll either go in circles or you simply have to 'believe.' I have no problem with that. But to claim that not believing in a god is a belief is a misunderstanding of the word 'belief.'
Belief is an idea that something is real but fails the reality test. In order to hold onto the belief, the believer must reverse the order in which they establish what they believe to be true. They start off with an assertion such as 'God exists' and then seek evidence for which there is none. To then accuse an atheist that they too hold a belief is an attempt to hold them to the same reversal of order as they are. But that isn't the case.
The atheist concludes that there is no God. The theist begins with 'There is a God.' And here lies the crux of why atheism isn't a belief. They too are like the theists in that they begin with a hypothesis that God exists. The atheist treats that statement as possibly true or possibly false. The theist, on the other hand, doesn't consider the possibility that the statement can be false. The atheist begins testing the hypothesis, which is analogous to the child asking the 'Why' questions. It's an attempt to gain an understanding.
If you always start with the position, 'Everything is possibly false' and then try to apply that to religion, you will have a very difficult task ahead of you. In order to hold on to a religious belief is to temporarily suspend that position and say to yourself, 'Everything is possibly false except for X, Y and Z.' In fact, that is exactly what they do. Ever have a debate with a Christian? It's astounding in some cases. Some employ excellent critical thinking skills in attacking other religions and even science. It only makes you wonder why they can't apply the same techniques on their own religion.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Racism will never die...
The recent George Zimmerman trial tends to bring back to the forefront of society's hot topic regarding racism in the US. The colloquial meaning of racism is often a euphemism for discrimination. Racism involves the power to subjugate one race under another. Under this meaning, racism has been long gone because since a majority of Americans are categorized as white and if need be, simply enforce their numerical advantage over all other races. While one can make the argument today that all the minorities could band together and perhaps negate the 'white' power, that wasn't always the case. Especially a hundred years ago where the majority was clearly white. The fact that such a progression could have been allowed is proof of one of two possibilities: Either democracy failed to maintain the white advantage or...enough white people weren't racist to allow equality for minorities. But I digress because we're not talking about the power to subjugate. We're really talking about discrimination.
There's nothing wrong with discrimination. In fact, it's essential to discriminate in order to survive. We have to have a means to discern differences. It can mean the difference between life and death. You need to know which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous. Discrimination also allows what people and children do naturally....establish pattern recognition. Again, many liberals think they can draw a line in the sand somewhere regarding discrimination. Somehow it's okay to determine there's a difference between kale greens and collard greens and mustard greens but somehow bad to determine differences between Asian people vs Black people vs Latin people.
Now most people would not disagree with much with what I just said since these things are pretty self-evident and that isn't where their point of contention would lie. Where it would lie would be in how certain races are being treated. That they should be treated 'equally'. But even people who make such arguments will draw another line. They won't apply those rules to themselves. I look at their circle of friends and people they date and there are obvious patterns. Take a look at your facebook friends and the pictures they post with their friends. Be honest and see how equally distributed their friends' races are. Skewed? I'd bet good money that they are.
So the next line of defense, after they concede they can't show evidence of 'equal outcome' within their personal lives, is giving an 'equal chance.' The 'Equal Chance' line of argument essentially means each encounter with a new person, there are no preconceived biases. That also goes out the window because that is to deny you have a memory. No matter how equal you want to be, walking down a dark alley alone as a black person in a hoodie approaches you, you are going to be prepared for the worst scenario. Even though you may not outwardly act on it, it's impossible to claim non-bias. It is simply a survival-mechanism to prepare yourself. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying and not interested in seeking truth.
What is left from the argument is to have a the 'Benefit of the doubt' approach. You don't act on your bias but you acknowledge it. At that point, the argument is no longer a position in opposition of the one I've put forth but one in agreement.
What happens next is the definition changes from 'discerning differences and pattern recognition with a certain expectation of outcome' to 'acting on that bias without giving the benefit of the doubt.' A counter to this is to go back to the previous retort of accusing the liberal of not dating a certain race or not having enough Mexican friends. They will ultimately say they do give everyone an equal chance but they just don't prefer certain types of girls to date or guys to date. What they've done now is taken the person in question and evaluated them against their own personal values (tidiness, how they dress, blonde or brunette, has broad shoulders, language barrier, etc.) and established a level of compatibility in relation to social interaction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
The problem is liberals draw another line in the sand saying personal social interactions are okay to do this 'compatibility test' but if you're an employer you're not allowed to do this when screening for employees. Why not? Is this not also a social interaction? If I want to barter my apples with someone who has oranges, isn't that a social interaction? I would argue such transactions are social because they involve another person. Isn't friendship simply two individuals who voluntarily help each other at random intervals? I seriously doubt a friendship exists where one person only gives and the other always receives. No one wants to be friends with anyone who doesn't 'give back.' So what is that? It's a acknowledgement of someone voluntarily giving and in return an expectation of the other to also voluntarily give. All relationship interactions are, in one form or another, an exchange.
There's no line in the sand. It's really all the same. You or I picking a new friend vs. an employer picking an employee. We are all testing for compatibility. There should be no double-standard.
Since it's in our nature to discriminate and the fact that minority leaders like Jesse Jackson will always frame any situation where it's between a white person and a black person as a racial issue, the topic of racism will never die. You can't even criticize a black president without being called a racist, even when you have criticized a white president. THAT is bias - always jumping to the conclusion everything is racially motivated. But the reason why that is the case is the black leaders want to maintain their position of power and leadership. A problem always need to exist for these people to have a job. The last thing people like Jackson want is racism to die.
There's nothing wrong with discrimination. In fact, it's essential to discriminate in order to survive. We have to have a means to discern differences. It can mean the difference between life and death. You need to know which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous. Discrimination also allows what people and children do naturally....establish pattern recognition. Again, many liberals think they can draw a line in the sand somewhere regarding discrimination. Somehow it's okay to determine there's a difference between kale greens and collard greens and mustard greens but somehow bad to determine differences between Asian people vs Black people vs Latin people.
Now most people would not disagree with much with what I just said since these things are pretty self-evident and that isn't where their point of contention would lie. Where it would lie would be in how certain races are being treated. That they should be treated 'equally'. But even people who make such arguments will draw another line. They won't apply those rules to themselves. I look at their circle of friends and people they date and there are obvious patterns. Take a look at your facebook friends and the pictures they post with their friends. Be honest and see how equally distributed their friends' races are. Skewed? I'd bet good money that they are.
So the next line of defense, after they concede they can't show evidence of 'equal outcome' within their personal lives, is giving an 'equal chance.' The 'Equal Chance' line of argument essentially means each encounter with a new person, there are no preconceived biases. That also goes out the window because that is to deny you have a memory. No matter how equal you want to be, walking down a dark alley alone as a black person in a hoodie approaches you, you are going to be prepared for the worst scenario. Even though you may not outwardly act on it, it's impossible to claim non-bias. It is simply a survival-mechanism to prepare yourself. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying and not interested in seeking truth.
What is left from the argument is to have a the 'Benefit of the doubt' approach. You don't act on your bias but you acknowledge it. At that point, the argument is no longer a position in opposition of the one I've put forth but one in agreement.
What happens next is the definition changes from 'discerning differences and pattern recognition with a certain expectation of outcome' to 'acting on that bias without giving the benefit of the doubt.' A counter to this is to go back to the previous retort of accusing the liberal of not dating a certain race or not having enough Mexican friends. They will ultimately say they do give everyone an equal chance but they just don't prefer certain types of girls to date or guys to date. What they've done now is taken the person in question and evaluated them against their own personal values (tidiness, how they dress, blonde or brunette, has broad shoulders, language barrier, etc.) and established a level of compatibility in relation to social interaction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
The problem is liberals draw another line in the sand saying personal social interactions are okay to do this 'compatibility test' but if you're an employer you're not allowed to do this when screening for employees. Why not? Is this not also a social interaction? If I want to barter my apples with someone who has oranges, isn't that a social interaction? I would argue such transactions are social because they involve another person. Isn't friendship simply two individuals who voluntarily help each other at random intervals? I seriously doubt a friendship exists where one person only gives and the other always receives. No one wants to be friends with anyone who doesn't 'give back.' So what is that? It's a acknowledgement of someone voluntarily giving and in return an expectation of the other to also voluntarily give. All relationship interactions are, in one form or another, an exchange.
There's no line in the sand. It's really all the same. You or I picking a new friend vs. an employer picking an employee. We are all testing for compatibility. There should be no double-standard.
Since it's in our nature to discriminate and the fact that minority leaders like Jesse Jackson will always frame any situation where it's between a white person and a black person as a racial issue, the topic of racism will never die. You can't even criticize a black president without being called a racist, even when you have criticized a white president. THAT is bias - always jumping to the conclusion everything is racially motivated. But the reason why that is the case is the black leaders want to maintain their position of power and leadership. A problem always need to exist for these people to have a job. The last thing people like Jackson want is racism to die.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)