BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:38 am
Trust is the bedrock of any meaningful interaction, whether personal, social, or intellectual. But when it comes to religious individuals, particularly in discussions involving uncomfortable truths—like those grounded in determinism—trust can become a complicated question. For me, and perhaps for others, it sometimes feels as if certain religious people deliberately distort their own beliefs or outright deny what they clearly recognize as logical, deterministic facts. Why? Is it a defense mechanism? A desire to maintain their worldview? Or is it something deeper—an unconscious, perhaps even willful, refusal to confront contradictions between their faith and evidence-based reasoning?
You have this recurring flaw in your arguments and rationality: that the masses/proletariat are driven by "evidence-based reasoning"...
They're not. "Evidence-based Reasoning" begins at 110+ IQ levels, and even then, really smart people are also heavily susceptible to emotionally laden arguments and common logical fallacies--because of Confirmation Bias. Confirmation Bias affects even the smartest of the smart. Nobody is immune. So, to me, your beef is with the masses in general, not just "the religious".
BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:38 amFrom a deterministic perspective, we know that all beliefs and behaviors arise from prior causes: upbringing, culture, biology, education, and so on. Yet, this doesn’t erase the suspicion that some religious individuals might actively choose—or, more precisely, be caused by their environment—to obscure their true thoughts or intentions when faced with challenges to their faith. For instance, how many times have we presented clear, rational arguments only to see them sidestepped or met with assertions of "mystery" or "faith"? At what point does this shift from an honest struggle with complex ideas to an intentional lack of intellectual integrity?
Again, Appealing to Authority, the political, non-religious Left use "Trust the Science, Trust the Experts" in the exact same way the political, religious Right use "Trust the Faith, Trust in God".
The masses cede "Authority" to their perceived and socially legitimized, or appointed, Leaders. To the religious, argumentation and rhetoric are matters of their Priestly leaders and authorities. You, condemning the flock, the sheep, for being sheep, does very little, in their mind, to persuade them. In fact, it does nothing. Because religious followers do not perceive
You as a legitimate authority, even if, you were 'right' or 'correct' in your reasoning and argumentation.
BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:38 amThis discussion aims to explore the dynamics of trust in dialogues with the religious. Do they genuinely believe what they claim, even when their statements seem illogical or contradictory?
Yes, they believe in Superstitions. So do the non-religious.
BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:38 amAre they grappling honestly with the discomfort of deterministic truths that challenge their worldview, or are they, consciously or not, protecting their faith at the expense of truth? And if trust requires a shared commitment to intellectual honesty, can we ever fully trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?
They don't know, and don't have answers, which is why they assign their 'Trust' to their local Priest or religious leader, or whatever religious Faith they have.
This proves that the masses are not intended, or simply have no drive for, "individualistic" thinking, or "
figuring it all out on their own".
Do you know the ins and outs of car mechanics? Are you a specialist on jet engines and fighter pilots? Are you a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon?
No, you trust 'The Experts' in the exact same way "the religious" trust their Experts.
BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:38 amI invite you all to weigh in. Have you encountered moments where you felt a religious individual was being less than honest in their beliefs or arguments? How do we differentiate between genuine belief, cognitive dissonance, and deliberate avoidance? Most importantly, what does trust look like in these kinds of philosophical engagements?
In my experience, the non-religious are sometimes
much worse than religious ignoramuses, because non-religious tend to be even worse in their intellectual blind-spots, believing themselves to be 'perfectly rationale' when they're highly selective with confirmation biases.