Is it a character flaw to believe because it feels good?
I pretty much posed this on another thread but somehow on that thread the notion wasn't gaining any traction, eliciting neither agreement nor disagreement.
Is it sub-optimal to surrender credence to emotion? Or is it merely a choice. I listen to heavy metal, you listen to classical. I believe in Jesus, you don't believe anything without evidence. I sit on my sofa wolfing ring dings, you hit the gym five days a week. I lust heterosexually, you lust homosexually. All merely choice? Or is believing in Jesus genuinely sub-optimal, a character flaw?
Here's the implied question. Are 3A wrong to respect other 3A more than we respect born again Christians, all else being equal? Is being a born again Christian simply one more instance of diversity? Or does it imply a lack of some virtue or strength, rightfully triggering disrespect on our part, and a proper distrust due to an accurate assessment of some sort of incompetence?
People who are not 3A aren't what I would categorise as like-minded to me, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it implies a character flaw. It's a choice made by a variety of people, all of whom have different characters. ??? I would consider myself to be naturally drawn to others who I see as like-minded.
People are theists for a variety of reasons, and I don't see the intellectually honest value in umbrella statements, nor do I respect those statements. Saying that theists are incompetent or stupid because they're theists is just as bad as saying that Brazilian southerners are smart and brave because they're Brazilian southerners. Both are ridiculous, meaningless and unimpressive to me.
Besides, I know a few theists who have a lot of real potential, in which familiarity did not breed contempt, quite the opposite actually ;D
But anyways, rant aside...
All else equal, I guess it depends on what you want. Where theism becomes a form of escapism isn't too likely to have any real results if you actually want to get out of a bad situation. It just gives you comfort to deal with it, but...that's it. Some choices have less value when pursing certain known goals. Not to mention they can have an adverse effect, which makes things worse ::)
Even if the average Christian is just another that adds to diversity, it's something that is important though. And something that deserves respect, especially because you get more people thinking outside somebody else's box all the time.
So, yeah...it has more to do with preference for like-minded people rather than more respect for them.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 22, 2011, 03:27:43 PM
So, yeah...it has more to do with preference for like-minded people rather than more respect for them.
Everything I say here should be construed as being qualified by the clause, "all else being equal."
As I've continued to think about this, I've come to see a spectrum that looks like this: Like less --> Admire less --> Respect less as human beings. You seem to be more to the "like less" end of the spectrum. I'm more to the middle, the "admire less" position. I admire such character traits as skepticism, independent thinking, logical consistency, objectivity, and realism. Theistic faith is incompatible with those, and therefore I admire the believer less than the 3A. I haven't yet moved to the far end of the spectrum. I don't respect believers less as human beings. For example, I wouldn't propose we round up believers and make them our slaves, or breed them for our food. That would be failing to respect them as human beings, and that, to me, would be going too far. 8)
If my kids were still little, I would rather a 3A babysit them, as opposed to a believer. Skepticism, independent thinking, logical consistency, objectivity, and realism are all character traits conducive to sound decision-making, and nothing is more desirable in a babysitter than sound decision-making. This is an example of how I would operationalize my "admire less" position.
Again: Everything I say here should be construed as being qualified by the clause, "all else being equal."
(Edited to add a smilie where it was desperately needed.)
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
Here's the implied question. Are 3A wrong to respect other 3A more than we respect born again Christians, all else being equal? Is being a born again Christian simply one more instance of diversity? Or does it imply a lack of some virtue or strength, rightfully triggering disrespect on our part, and a proper distrust due to an accurate assessment of some sort of incompetence?
This is a values question. Actually, it's just a "tastes" question. It's really no different than asking "are Cowboys fans wrong to respect other Cowboys fans more than non-Cowboys fans? Does not being a Cowboy fan imply some lack of virtue or strength? Unless you can point to some specific incompetence that believers generally have (other than the fact of belief itself, which involves a value-judgment on your part for considering it
a priori to be incompetence), then there is no reason to consider the mere fact of belief to be a character flaw.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:23:05 PM
Unless you can point to some specific incompetence that believers generally have (other than the fact of belief itself, which involves a value-judgment on your part for considering it a priori to be incompetence), then there is no reason to consider the mere fact of belief to be a character flaw.
Everything I say here should be construed as being qualified by the clause, "all else being equal."
Lack of skepticism, independent thinking, logical consistency, objectivity, and realism have all been listed by me as character flaws for consideration. Two questions, then, present themselves:
(1) Are these lacks in fact implied by believing in something without evidence?
(2) Do these lacks, if they are in fact implied, matter from a competence perspective?
It occurs to me that these questions could be explored in something resembling a scientific manner. The first would be tricky, as we'd need a way to measure the virtues identified. But the second would be easier. Survey people to find out whether they claim belief without evidence or not, figure some way to weed out the ones who are just parroting what they think you or their social circle want to hear, and then put the rest in situations demanding competence and see how they do.
I wonder also if what specifically is believed might matter. Would the Deist exhibit more skepticism, independent thinking, logical consistency, objectivity and realism than the born again Christian? Would one have a measurable difference in competence compared to the other?
Again: Everything I say here should be construed as being qualified by the clause, "all else being equal."
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 08:13:52 PM
(1) Are these lacks in fact implied by believing in something without evidence?
(2) Do these lacks, if they are in fact implied, matter from a competence perspective?
A believer may have an entirely different view of "believing in something without evidence" than you do. If the believer has had experiences that cause him to believe in something, then he personally is not "believing in something without evidence." There are personal reasons for him to believe. Thus, I do not think that you can imply any character flaw or deficiency in a person just by virtue of the fact that they believe. Furthermore, even if you insist that belief in God is without evidence in all cases, there is the matter of compartmentalization, which we all do. A person can be absolutely sane and competent in most areas of life, and then have some irrational exuberance for a losing sports team, for example. The fact that a person believes is no more evidence of incompetence than the fact that a person may be a passionate fan of the Chicago Cubs.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
Is it a character flaw to believe because it feels good?
Having some illusions makes life more enjoyable for most people. If you look at your three year old child with their big eyes and features evolved to make you care, do you say you're not fooling me evolution and go out and steal a grannies handbag? Why listen to music at all what's the point, where's the profit?
If my aim is to enjoy life I think some illusion is necessary, if I'm taking comfort in illusion I probably need to give the theists some slack, but why bother to maintain consistency, is that rational? There's probably a golden mean between cruel reality and intoxicated theism.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 02:08:06 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
Is it a character flaw to believe because it feels good?
Having some illusions makes life more enjoyable for most people. If you look at your three year old child with their big eyes and features evolved to make you care, do you say you're not fooling me evolution and go out and steal a grannies handbag? Why listen to music at all what's the point, where's the profit?
If my aim is to enjoy life I think some illusion is necessary, if I'm taking comfort in illusion I probably need to give the theists some slack, but why bother to maintain consistency, is that rational? There's probably a golden mean between cruel reality and intoxicated theism.
Every world view is probably illusory to some extent, since none of us has yet personally plumbed the depths of reality, whatever that is. So, we get along the best that we can, and try to make sense of the world as it presents itself to us. As long as we are functioning capably, and not hurting others, your idea of "giving some slack" is rational.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 05:58:24 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 22, 2011, 03:27:43 PM
So, yeah...it has more to do with preference for like-minded people rather than more respect for them.
Everything I say here should be construed as being qualified by the clause, "all else being equal."
As I've continued to think about this, I've come to see a spectrum that looks like this: Like less --> Admire less --> Respect less as human beings. You seem to be more to the "like less" end of the spectrum.
I would say so. I just don't really trust theistic psychologists, but that's just another preference of mine.
QuoteI'm more to the middle, the "admire less" position. I admire such character traits as skepticism, independent thinking, logical consistency, objectivity, and realism. Theistic faith is incompatible with those, and therefore I admire the believer less than the 3A. I haven't yet moved to the far end of the spectrum. I don't respect believers less as human beings. For example, I wouldn't propose we round up believers and make them our slaves, or breed them for our food. That would be failing to respect them as human beings, and that, to me, would be going too far. 8)
Well nobody is entirely skeptical all the time. Imagine how much mental energy that would take, to question everything that you sense and think. ::)
Fundies for instance are extremely skeptical of evolution, but they still believe in creationism for their own reasons.
Many liberal theists out there are the so called 'cultural christians', that is, they live like de facto atheists, have never really given any second thought to the question 'does god exist' or couldn't be bothered. They just accept the easy and final explanation that he does and that's that.
The "spiritual" people who don't go to any churches could be seen as more independent thinkers.
As for logical consistency, objectivity, and realism...yeah, well. You can't always have them all ;D
QuoteIf my kids were still little, I would rather a 3A babysit them, as opposed to a believer. Skepticism, independent thinking, logical consistency, objectivity, and realism are all character traits conducive to sound decision-making, and nothing is more desirable in a babysitter than sound decision-making. This is an example of how I would operationalize my "admire less" position.
I would choose a babysitter who didn't preach or try to teach anything, because children are especially vulnerable. If it were a group of adults, such as in a company, I'd be more convinced that they can fend for themselves and a preacher would be more of an annoyance that would be quickly dealt with.
Personally, I think that people should do whatever makes them happy--as long as they're not infringing on other people's rights. So, if someone wants to believe in a religion because it makes them happy, I think that's a good thing. I wouldn't see it as a character flaw, but as a personal preference. My favorite color is yellow, but I don't expect all people to share that as their favorite color.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
A believer may have an entirely different view of "believing in something without evidence" than you do. If the believer has had experiences that cause him to believe in something, then he personally is not "believing in something without evidence."
If I saw Jesus standing in front of me, I would ask this Jesus if every word in the bible was true. If this Jesus said something like, "No, of course not, there are too many inconsistencies," then I would start to consider the possibility that maybe the universe was so bizarre that this Jesus might actually be some sort of real deal, albeit hallucination would still be the likeliest explanation. On the other hand, if this Jesus said something like, "Yes, every word, I wouldn't lie to you," I would know for certain I was hallucinating. If this Jesus ducked the question, I would refuse to proceed unless the question was answered.
Presented with an experience of Jesus, I would put this experience to the test, regardless how it made me feel. If I was too euphoric to do anything but swoon in the arms of my purported Savior, all the more would I doubt and distrust this experience later, for that which takes away my ability to question must be and forever remain my enemy, even if that enemy is my own chemically imbalanced brain.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
The fact that a person believes is no more evidence of incompetence than the fact that a person may be a passionate fan of the Chicago Cubs.
Say this person sincerely believes the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series this year. Not hopes - believes. Still competent?
The beginning of wisdom is understanding the respective roles of emotion and reason. Emotion has the last word in the values realm. Reason has the last word in the beliefs realm. Getting this confused is the beginning of folly.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 23, 2011, 10:34:26 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
The fact that a person believes is no more evidence of incompetence than the fact that a person may be a passionate fan of the Chicago Cubs.
Say this person sincerely believes the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series this year. Not hopes - believes. Still competent?
The beginning of wisdom is understanding the respective roles of emotion and reason. Emotion has the last word in the values realm. Reason has the last word in the beliefs realm. Getting this confused is the beginning of folly.
Again, all of us have some illusory beliefs. If you, as a prospective employer, reject the particular belief of the job applicant as being illusory, whether it is a belief in God or a belief in the Chicago Cubs, then the question becomes one of whether you feel that the person has sufficiently compartmentalized this particular belief, or if it evidences the generally status of the person's psychology. A compartmentalized illusion, whatever it may be, is no evidence of generalized incompetence.
I work in a hospital. Some of the most brilliant surgeons and other specialists here are theists of one sort or another. There is no question about their competence. I don't have a problem with their theism, of course, since I'm one myself. But if you considered that a character flaw (which you apparently do), then the question would be whether you felt that particular flaw was sufficiently compartmentalized to allow the physician to have rational competence in his/her profession. Again, we all have illusory beliefs, whether in romance or sports preferences or whatever.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 23, 2011, 03:30:39 PM
I work in a hospital. Some of the most brilliant surgeons and other specialists here are theists of one sort or another. There is no question about their competence. I don't have a problem with their theism, of course, since I'm one myself. But if you considered that a character flaw (which you apparently do), then the question would be whether you felt that particular flaw was sufficiently compartmentalized to allow the physician to have rational competence in his/her profession. Again, we all have illusory beliefs, whether in romance or sports preferences or whatever.
Interesting. If I were conducting a scientific study, one question I would want to explore is how many of these brilliant surgeons really believe and how many pretend they do for social acceptance. I would also be interested in what precisely the believers believe. Are they Deists? Or do they honestly believe Jesus died for their sins so that if they believe, they won't go to hell for doing what they can't help wanting to do? I would also be interested in whether they believe because they were brainwashed as children before they'd erected their shields of reason.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 23, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 23, 2011, 03:30:39 PM
I work in a hospital. Some of the most brilliant surgeons and other specialists here are theists of one sort or another. There is no question about their competence. I don't have a problem with their theism, of course, since I'm one myself. But if you considered that a character flaw (which you apparently do), then the question would be whether you felt that particular flaw was sufficiently compartmentalized to allow the physician to have rational competence in his/her profession. Again, we all have illusory beliefs, whether in romance or sports preferences or whatever.
Interesting. If I were conducting a scientific study, one question I would want to explore is how many of these brilliant surgeons really believe and how many pretend they do for social acceptance. I would also be interested in what precisely the believers believe. Are they Deists? Or do they honestly believe Jesus died for their sins so that if they believe, they won't go to hell for doing what they can't help wanting to do? I would also be interested in whether they believe because they were brainwashed as children before they'd erected their shields of reason.
I know for a fact that some of them are committed Christians and believe in the basic Christian message regarding Jesus. How they feel about hell, I wouldn't know, but you seem to have a very limited understanding of why people become Christians. Some people have an experience of God and their encounter with religion is very positive. It presents no conflict with their reason or their ability to practice medicine or any other profession. I'm beginning to think that the brainwashing is as much on the atheist side as it is among theists.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 23, 2011, 06:02:23 PM
I know for a fact that some of them are committed Christians and believe in the basic Christian message regarding Jesus. How they feel about hell, I wouldn't know, but you seem to have a very limited understanding of why people become Christians. Some people have an experience of God and their encounter with religion is very positive. It presents no conflict with their reason or their ability to practice medicine or any other profession. I'm beginning to think that the brainwashing is as much on the atheist side as it is among theists.
Please don't be discouraged, we do appreciate you being here.
Quote from: PuddingPlease don't be discouraged, we do appreciate you being here.
I agree, you're a valued and respected member here.
Quote from: BruceI know for a fact that some of them are committed Christians and believe in the basic Christian message regarding Jesus. How they feel about hell, I wouldn't know, but you seem to have a very limited understanding of why people become Christians. Some people have an experience of God and their encounter with religion is very positive. It presents no conflict with their reason or their ability to practice medicine or any other profession. I'm beginning to think that the brainwashing is as much on the atheist side as it is among theists.
We're not brainwashed, Bruce. I, for example, came to see myself as an active atheist as I began to realise how much harm religion does. Off my own bat, not in response to any stimulus by others.
OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians. My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.
Quote from: OldGit on December 23, 2011, 06:43:33 PM
OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians. My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.
You know Git that line can be construed as a bit odd but I'm awake when I should be waking so I can't challenge it.
Quote from: OldGit on December 23, 2011, 06:43:33 PM
OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians. My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.
I agree with this. It can be a blurry line where people and their beliefs are concerned. I respect some of the people, but not their beliefs. I usually see the two as separate, but I guess many of them don't.
I think I saw a statistical study in which it showed that doctors are more likely to be theistic. I'm guessing it has more to do with the kind of work than any inherent character flaw.
What exactly do you see as a character flaw, Pharoah Cat?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 23, 2011, 06:02:23 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 23, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 23, 2011, 03:30:39 PM
I work in a hospital. Some of the most brilliant surgeons and other specialists here are theists of one sort or another. There is no question about their competence. I don't have a problem with their theism, of course, since I'm one myself. But if you considered that a character flaw (which you apparently do), then the question would be whether you felt that particular flaw was sufficiently compartmentalized to allow the physician to have rational competence in his/her profession. Again, we all have illusory beliefs, whether in romance or sports preferences or whatever.
Interesting. If I were conducting a scientific study, one question I would want to explore is how many of these brilliant surgeons really believe and how many pretend they do for social acceptance. I would also be interested in what precisely the believers believe. Are they Deists? Or do they honestly believe Jesus died for their sins so that if they believe, they won't go to hell for doing what they can't help wanting to do? I would also be interested in whether they believe because they were brainwashed as children before they'd erected their shields of reason.
I know for a fact that some of them are committed Christians and believe in the basic Christian message regarding Jesus. How they feel about hell, I wouldn't know, but you seem to have a very limited understanding of why people become Christians. Some people have an experience of God and their encounter with religion is very positive. It presents no conflict with their reason or their ability to practice medicine or any other profession. I'm beginning to think that the brainwashing is as much on the atheist side as it is among theists.
I don't think it's brainwashing as much as jumping on the bandwagon of an idea that allows people to stick two fingers up at perceived historical authority. If one were to draw a Venn diagram with two overlapping circles one theist, one atheist and an overlap of 'undecided' I'm sure the undecided group is growing smaller and movement is towards atheism. I think this is the case because the atheist camp simply didn't have sufficient critical mass to be considered a plausible world view for non-intellectuals. In the past to be an atheist was something you really had to want to be nowadays it's OK in many places and trendy in others.
To my mind as long as a person does their job efficiently and effectively I don't care what their world view is. It only becomes a subject for discussion if they raise it or it affects their routine work performance. In the medical profession the key issue would be the extension of a poor quality life where the patient wishes to die. Then one could end up walking through an ethical minefield where the doctors view could be diametrically opposed to that of the patient.
Quote from: Tank on December 23, 2011, 07:34:05 PM
In the medical profession the key issue would be the extension of a poor quality life where the patient wishes to die. Then one could end up walking through an ethical minefield where the doctors view could be diametrically opposed to that of the patient.
Fortunately, that issue is usually taken care of by Advance Directives that tell the physicians what the wishes of the patient are regarding end-of-life issues. I'm on the ethics committee here at my hospital, and we attempt to respect patient autonomy with respect to those decisions. I'm not aware of any Rambo-doctors here who want to keep a terminal/irreversibly ill patient alive at all costs. Generally the problem comes from family members who want momma alive no matter what, or who have some legal/financial interest in keeping her alive. In palliative care situations such family members are sometimes referred to as "sea gulls": they fly in from the coast, make a lot of noise, and crap on everyone. While the sanctity of life is generally observed here, it appears to me that when it's a person's time, no one here wants to go against that person's wishes to be allowed to die in peace.
My thinking on this topic has very suddenly forked in two different directions at once, each tine of the fork a quantum leap, as represented by two new threads, one of which I started, the other of which I was fortunate enough to encounter and be enlightened by:
In the Media section: Theists should see this.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8860.0
In the Philosophy section: What do you value more than happiness?
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8973.0
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 23, 2011, 08:32:44 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 23, 2011, 07:34:05 PM
In the medical profession the key issue would be the extension of a poor quality life where the patient wishes to die. Then one could end up walking through an ethical minefield where the doctors view could be diametrically opposed to that of the patient.
Fortunately, that issue is usually taken care of by Advance Directives that tell the physicians what the wishes of the patient are regarding end-of-life issues. I'm on the ethics committee here at my hospital, and we attempt to respect patient autonomy with respect to those decisions. I'm not aware of any Rambo-doctors here who want to keep a terminal/irreversibly ill patient alive at all costs. Generally the problem comes from family members who want momma alive no matter what, or who have some legal/financial interest in keeping her alive. In palliative care situations such family members are sometimes referred to as "sea gulls": they fly in from the coast, make a lot of noise, and crap on everyone. While the sanctity of life is generally observed here, it appears to me that when it's a person's time, no one here wants to go against that person's wishes to be allowed to die in peace.
My son in law is a nurse and spent a couple of years on geriatric wards and witnessed at first hand many deaths. He has a very pragmatic view of death now and has expressed similar thoughts to yourself as far a 'sea gull' families are concerned.
Quote from: OldGit on December 23, 2011, 06:43:33 PM
OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians. My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.
I suppose that's an ideal but it's not very practical.
Atheists get pretty annoyed when we're told we can't have morals without god.
Do we say if you are sane and balanced you shouldn't be a christian?
Don't sane and balanced christians provide a way for other christians to give up the craziest, ugliest aspects of religion?
Reasonable christians said evolution, a sun centric solar system, contraception was OK, they helped dispel fear.
There's the cherry picking arguement, I don't push it because mostly I just want theists to avoid the dangerous stuff.
We could leave religion to the extremists, this may well reduce its respectability but not necessarily it's popularity, it sounds a bit dangerous. Could a few sane and balanced christians please take it as your duty to be the last to abandon ship?
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
Is it a character flaw to believe because it feels good?
As long as there was no real harm coming of it, I'd say no, it isn't a character flaw to believe something because it makes you feel good.
QuoteHere's the implied question. Are 3A wrong to respect other 3A more than we respect born again Christians, all else being equal? Is being a born again Christian simply one more instance of diversity? Or does it imply a lack of some virtue or strength, rightfully triggering disrespect on our part, and a proper distrust due to an accurate assessment of some sort of incompetence?
I don't think I'd call it wrong, just a instance of natural bias for someone like-minded. I'm not sure all things can be equal in this instance tho, since it leaves out things like chemistry (of the "those two actors in that buddy movie have great chemistry" kind) which can skew in reality things that on paper are equal.
Character flaw? If one looks up the definition of (literary) "character flaw" and "flaw" one may deduce that the three main religions god itself suffers from both. Those that do not see this gods' character flaws and flaws and rather see it as "perfect", well, what can one deduce from that?
Just askin'...
Would - not using critical thinking faculties be a character flaw?
From wiki:
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."
Again...just askin"...
Quote from: Gawen on December 28, 2011, 06:26:21 PM
Would - not using critical thinking faculties be a character flaw?
From wiki:
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."
Not using critical thinking faculties might result more from ignorance or lack of education than character. People of minimal education can have good character, unless we depart from the normal use of that term. But assuming, arguendo, that not using critical thinking skills is a character flaw, are you assuming that all religious faith results from the failure to think critically? Just askin'.
From wiki:
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."
QuoteNot using critical thinking faculties might result more from ignorance or lack of education than character. People of minimal education can have good character, unless we depart from the normal use of that term.
It would seem the ignorance or minimal education would fall under one or more of the attributes above.
QuoteBut assuming, arguendo, that not using critical thinking skills is a character flaw, are you assuming that all religious faith results from the failure to think critically? Just askin'.
Possibly. A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all or non-corroborated evidence seems to me to be a character flaw - if critical unbiased, unprejudiced thinking will assuage that belief. If not a character flaw, then some other flaw.
It's a difficult but fascinating topic, really.
If a God wants adulterers and/or homosexuals (the suspects are otherwise upstanding individuals) stoned and the community stones them, is this a character flaw? What if the community does not stone them?
If a person in this day and age supports slavery because (amongst other reasons) his god condones it but does not hold a slave, is this a character flaw?
If a person rabidly supports a head of state that has killed hundreds of thousands of individuals but the person hasn't lifted a finger to kill anyone because his god says killing is wrong, except in the case of adultery, is that a character flaw? What if a person supports the head of state but does not think the killings are necessary?
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."
Interesting isn't it?
Quote from: Gawen on December 29, 2011, 12:35:20 AM
A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all or non-corroborated evidence seems to me to be a character flaw - if critical unbiased, unprejudiced thinking will assuage that belief. If not a character flaw, then some other flaw.
Religious faith in general is not classified as psychotic under the standards set forth in the DSM IV, so I'm not seeing how you get from "religious faith" to "character flaw" under the above analysis. Are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? This analysis suffers from the same flaw as Egor's argument about consciousness/reality. It attempts to establish a point by definition and assumption. There is no basis currently to categorize all religious faith as psychotic.
Quote from: Gawen on December 29, 2011, 12:35:20 AM
From wiki:
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."
QuoteNot using critical thinking faculties might result more from ignorance or lack of education than character. People of minimal education can have good character, unless we depart from the normal use of that term.
It would seem the ignorance or minimal education would fall under one or more of the attributes above.
QuoteBut assuming, arguendo, that not using critical thinking skills is a character flaw, are you assuming that all religious faith results from the failure to think critically? Just askin'.
Possibly. A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all or non-corroborated evidence seems to me to be a character flaw - if critical unbiased, unprejudiced thinking will assuage that belief. If not a character flaw, then some other flaw.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 03:08:38 PM
Quote from: Gawen on December 29, 2011, 12:35:20 AM
A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all or non-corroborated evidence seems to me to be a character flaw - if critical unbiased, unprejudiced thinking will assuage that belief. If not a character flaw, then some other flaw.
Religious faith in general is not classified as psychotic under the standards set forth in the DSM IV, so I'm not seeing how you get from "religious faith" to "character flaw" under the above analysis.
I didn't say religious faith was a character flaw. I said "possibly." But then...
QuoteAre you a psychologist or a psychiatrist?
Nope. Because I'm not either of those doesn't mean I can't talk about it.
QuoteThis analysis suffers from the same flaw as Egor's argument about consciousness/reality. It attempts to establish a point by definition and assumption. There is no basis currently to categorize all religious faith as psychotic.
Perhaps not all religious faith, but certain types of it seems to me to fit the definition of "character flaw".
Quote from: Gawen on December 29, 2011, 06:43:17 PM
Perhaps not all religious faith, but certain types of it seems to me to fit the definition of "character flaw".
Well, I think we can agree on that.