Hypocrisy, Bias and Comfort Zones

[curiosityandthecat]

(This got longer than I had planned.   )

So I see a review for Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism and I send it to GodlessGirl via Twitter. Granted, I gave it a cursory read, but gathered from the quick glance that the reviewer was: a) a Christian, and b) guilty of the same faults he critiques in the book. But, it's his blog, so, whatever. He can say whatever he likes, be it poignant or moronic; s'nothin' to me. Still...

Anyway, when I send out the link to the review, I mention that it's "facepalm worthy". Which, frankly, it is. Strangely (or surprisingly, really) the blog author sees this and responds to me: "facepalm worthy?" SIGH. I reply: "Yep." Thing is, I had a feeling that he has absolutely no idea, not the foggiest clue, why I would say his "review" is facepalm-worthy. His reply: "it really is poorly written book w/ claims based on logical fallacies where 90% have no evidence to back him up." My reply: "Your critiques have no evidence to back them up, either. Just saying. Personal experience notwithstanding." For instance, he will complain about the author making "WACs" (wild-assed claims--funny, coming from a Christian, really), or any number of unreferenced statements, but offers absolutely no evidence for his rebuttal (with the exception of "well, I know science and I'm religious, therefore you're wrong", essentially).

I don't give a crap about the author of the book or this blogger. Just throwing that out there. If the book is poorly written, a poorly written review is doubly stupid. On the same token, I suppose this post about a poorly written review of a potentially poorly written book is... stupid cubed, or something. I don't know; I'm crap at math (or maths, for our friends across the pond).

But this got me to thinking. To some extent, we are our beliefs. It's very difficult for us (people in general) to separate a critique of our beliefs from a critique of us. When I see or hear someone critiquing an honest attempt to point out the problems inherent in religion (or, more precisely, the problems resultant from the religious) I can't help but feel the pang of personal insult. This is immature and egocentric, of course. Doesn't change anything.

We (again, people in general) expose ourselves to things with which we agree. In fact, recent years have shown that the harder you try to convince someone they're wrong, the more you simply reinforce their beliefs, like Chinese Handcuffs, if you will. Rarely do we challenge our assumptions or beliefs because, as I said, in many cases they not only describe us but are part and parcel of our identities. We read some of the things Fundies say (FSTDT, for example) and we can't help but feel pity, incredulity and anger. Why? Because we see ourselves in the target of their ignorant and intolerant rantings. Very seldom will a Christian read a book like Atheist Universe with a truly open mind, ready to change his or her beliefs based on sound arguments. Same deal with us. Rarely will an atheist read some Christian apologetics and be truly converted (I say truly because we all, to some extent and at some time, succumb to one of religion's greatest weapons: fear... be it temporarily).

Now, I have spent probably thousands of hours researching religion in one form or another. Most recently it was to write a thesis on the lives of non-religious teenagers in the United States. I can make some pretty outlandish claims, but, believe me, I've got the statistics and references to back them up. That's not a comfort zone: that's research. What this blogger is doing is not leaving his comfort zone, either. It's akin to watching the news just to have the ability to complain about how violent it is. When a Christian reads a book on atheism (or, visa versa) and, before even picking it up has already decided that they disagree, that is not intellectually honest. It's a lie. I'm as guilty of it as the next guy, and maybe I'm still in research-mode, but it just bothers me when someone passes it off as even-handed.

Just a simple, "To begin this review, let me state first that I am a _________, and will be reading this book through that lens. Any biases I bring are my own." That would change everything.

Anyway, thoughts?

[AlP]

Yeah I agree. And very well written. Thankyou =). The most recent experience I had of that was reading the book Critical Thinking. I was expecting to it to be pretty much a breeze. I had always thought of myself as a rational thinker. I was just going to learn the official names for some things I already knew and some other more advanced things I didn't. Or so I thought. Then came the chapter covering the relativist and subjectivist fallacies. Boy did that sting. I considered rejecting it outright just because it didn't agree with my existing beliefs.

It was a positive thing though I think. Having some authors that I had come to respect slam me in the face forced me to reevaluate. I think I now have a more sophisticated position.

That wasn't the first time and it won't be the last I hope. If I obtain all of my beliefs from sources with a particular bias I am in danger of accepting those beliefs for no other reason than the biases of the sources. I don't like the the sting but I do like to be challenged.

[curiosityandthecat]

It's unfortunate that more people don't like that sting. Why would anyone want their lives to be just one big stroke job, you know?

[Sophus]

Oh goody, I'm first to disagree!  

I'll actually critique just about anything, including my own ideas, to death before allowing me to accept it. Even when I do "accept" it it just means I have a high level of confidence but remain completely open to change. After all many of my beliefs do change, although I cannot quite say how frequently. But I do agree that we all have certain beliefs programmed into our mind. I have a theory that we don't exactly learn new things about the universe so much as we discover what we believe to be true (what our minds are capable of comprehending or accepting). Which basically means that even in an ideal world where everyone has complete intellectual honesty and integrity, we would still differ. Not always due to lack of cognitive ability but lack of perspective. Our "reality" is what we see to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon or perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive depends upon what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality. Which is not to say all "realities" are equally valid.

I would also say there is a difference between trying to ultimately prove a point versus trying to explain a point. In the sense that we can share our thoughts with confidence in the strength of the argument/conviction, without being open to truly considering a response and being able to see it through a different perspective (Perspectivism). When arguing to our "reality" people often are often resistant to change because they like their reality or don't like being wrong for a number of reasons. I suppose you could say reality itself is bias. Whoever is more in touch with it is more likely persuade.

As far as "we are our beliefs" goes: that's why so many people take offense to the critiquing of their beliefs. Which needs to change. If you can have respect for a person but not their beliefs, you can surely separate attack on your convictions from a personal attack on yourself.

I am not my beliefs but rather my beliefs influence a mere aspect of who I am... or what I am.

[curiosityandthecat]

Oh goody, I'm first to disagree!  

[Sophus]

Oh goody, I'm first to disagree!  

Oh I know. It's especially upsetting when they're on the side of an idea that you hold dear.