I was reading another forum about beliefs held despite reasoning and knowledge contrary when I came across this post and response.


Was the topic.

This was the response from another poster.


My initial reaction was that this was a profound insight, really thinking about it I am unsure how I feel about that.

I will have to ask my ex-JW friend what finally pushed her over the edge into unbelief.


I posted this here vs the religion forum becuase I do not care about the specific nature of this example as much as I care about the response.

Can someone be reasoned out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason?

If you respond by saying yes please provide an example if you have one so we can get specific, but if not just make your case the best you can.

I find this to be a very interesting facet of epistemology and how we humans achieve beliefs.

i`ll have two eggs (sunny side up) a side of bacon and toast

Only by exposing the truth and even then that is not fool proof. Unfortunately when it comes to religion a lot of it outright defies logic.

Catholics:

Dogma:
God is Good. God is love.

Question:
But if God is everything then is not God Evil as well? God did create 'everything,' right??

Usual Answer:
That is why God made Lucifer/ Satan.

Usual retort question:
But that means if God made them then God had to know what evil was and create it to create an agent of evil. Does that not mean God is playing both sides of the fence?

Usual response:
You have no idea what you are talking about...


NOW FOR THIS:

Jesus said that 'through my word' is the way to salvation. Where in the Bible did Jesus say, "I am the one you need to pray to?" Jesus gives two commandments that in essence are really simple but what does Christianity in general save the few who really do get it?

Make a deity of a prophet.


Now digress to Hari Krishna.

Brainwashing, cult, total bastardization of Bhuddism and all for the member's money.

You can't reason with JW's period. They strongly believe in their *AHEM cough cough* religion. I have dated someone that was a JW and there is absolutely no reasoning as they are completely brainwashed into believing what they are taught. I cannot even fathom how a "religion" can have more rules than a dog has fleas. It's ridiculous that they cannot celebrate holidays or even their birthday and I could go on and on. The only good thing I can say is that they hold strong to their faith which is not something many people can attest to.

BTW why would anyone want to be part of a "religion" where only 144,00 (I think this number is correct but if I'm not I'm sure someone will correct me!) are going to Heaven and are already picked? Doesn't this mean you're NOT going? HELLO?!

Can someone be reasoned out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason?



Why does that person require being reasoned out of their mindset?

Who gains through that?

What is the agenda of the 'reasoning' party?


My reasoning is mine...and although it may appear I have arrived at my beliefs through 'unreasonable' means...

thats the view of the other party.

We spend so much time defending our views....when really one's own reasoning is intimate, exclusive and beyond requiring defense.



Fascinating topic....

I don't agree that our reasoning is beyond defense.
Example:
WACO Texas....was Davids reasoning beyond defense? NO!

1970's South America....was Jim Jones reasoning beyond defense? NO!

UniBomber...again, NO!

As not to go off topic, can we be reasoned out of a choice/view that we did not arrive at through reason?

I will say yes and for my example, albeit a fragile one, take the case of "talking down" a person atempting suicide. You would think that they were led to attemtpting the act through reason, but I feel that it is emotion that leads one to this state. And AS's(attempted suicides) can be reasoned out of commiting the act, usually.

As for people with ingrained religous views and beliefs, that is quite a sticky arena, some people only have these views to hold on to in life and will not allow any type of reason to sway them from their position.

Yes and No.

I would think that the person's overall critical thinking skills would play a determining role, as well as the depth of understanding regarding that particular position. If the position represents the content of a hinge proposition - if an entire belief system rests it's validity upon it - then the liklihood is also decreased.

The inherent difficulty had with completely changing everything(or most everything) that one has held as true can be overwhelming to one in that position. It would cause one to question all that follows. That kind of intensive and invasive introversion is easy to avoid...

Through sheer will alone.

I think that's a hard question to answer because it's difficult to define 'reason'.

When I was a child growing up I was taught that the Bible was the word of God and that Jesus was the Son of God.

Was that 'reasonable'?

Well, my "reasons" for believing it at the time was quite simple and straight-forward. My very own parents whom I trusted were telling me that it's true. It seemed reasonable to me as a child that my parents knew what they were talking about.

Moreover, they took me to church where a lot of people would confirm the myth and even claim that they "knew" it was true. Why should I think a bunch of well-dressed people in a church should like. Even the preachers were authority figures, well respected by the community and they spoke as though they had actually met God in person.

It seemed "reasonable" to me at the time that these people must know what they are talking about.

However, as I grew up I started to realize that these people didn't know any such thing. They would have time when they would 'lose faith' or display doubt. I even saw the preachers doing this because some of my uncles were preachers and they had other preachers over to dinner quit often. So I was always seeing preachers have after-dinner chats and it soon became clear that they all had different beliefs in the details, and they would even confess and talk about how their own 'faith' wavers from time to time.

I think realized that they had all been lying all along.

They would so often tell people that the 'know' the bible is the word of God and that Jesus is the Son of God, but in truth they were merely guessing on faith.

So I realized that they not only didn't know anything, but they also didn't even realize that they were lying to people when they told them that they know this thing that they truly don't know.

So this gave me "reason" to look into the matter myself and come to my own conclusions.

I looked into the story objectively and decided that it's an utterly absurd and contradicting story that can't possibly be true (I won't go into the details of why I came to that conclusion other than to say that they were all based on very sound "reasoning" and obvious fallacies and inconsistencies in the original text.)

So I was able to change my belief using "reason".

The question now is whether or not my original "reasons" for believing the lies in the first place was also based on "reason".

Was it ever "reasonable" to believe the religious people in the first place. If it was, then there was never a time when I didn't use "reason" to make my decisions.

If it wasn't, then clearly I had come to the original belief without 'reason' and finally 'reasoned' my way out of it.

You'd have to decide on your own whether believing a lot of well-dressed liars in a church, as well as beliving parents and preachers is a 'reaonable' thing to do. I realize now that it's not reaonable because behind the scenes even they confess that they merely have faith and don't truly know anything. But when I was younger it seemed 'reasonable' to believe them when they lied and claimed to actually 'know'. They didn't make it clear that they were merely guessing.

So you'll have to define 'reason'.

Is it "reaonable" to believe something just because a whole bunch of other people claim that it's true?

If it is, then a lot of people who believe things on 'pure faith' have indeed arrived at their belief via 'reason'. They just look around and think, "Hey if this many other people believe it, it must be true". And so to them, that's "reasonable".

So it may be possible to get to those people though the same "reasoning" that got me to see the flaws in that kind of original false reasoning. And I think it's fair to say that the original reasoning was indeed 'false' reasoning. The reason being that the people lied. They often claimed that they "know" that the Bible is the word of God, etc., etc., etc., when in fact they don't "know" any such thing.

Disclaimer:

Like the OP, I only used a religious example because that's the best example I could think of for this topic, but this could apply to anything that is "faith based".

Why is not the question. Can is the question and perhaps how if you have an example. Why is only important in the context of the belief, so without an example why is not important at all.


________

Great post Abra, that was exactly what I was looking for, just an honest introspection, or example.


Excellent point. If we have our own self image wrapped up in an idea then it can be undesirable to change that, and even if its desirable, it is exhausting to reevaluate ourselves, not just an idea.

___________________

Very interesting example!

at first we believe, to reason what we know, or believe, because we were afraid not too, as who dare inquire of the wisdom of the parent, at least not with any good acceptance from the parent, of possible error...

next, the human learn to believe, or to reason what to believe, because it want's to be and do better, as who dare wish for any "bad karma", and guilt seems to ever present, and god know's, as sure, who wants a evil or bad karma manifestation to greet them in a dark corridor...

to come back to grab at the heels while falling...

last we believe only what is proven to be wise beyond a perponderance of ANY doubt, as the best reasoning only rely upon total proof without destroying, or ignoring, or denying, any other words as untrue, and simply how they are the most true, which could only be based upon a bar that can be agreed upon, as sane and logical knowing, amoung all, NOT JUST SOME...

it is sane to believe the sky is blue, as known and agreed upon facts show the proof of color...

then, we know what we know based upon logic that can debunk every word in the universe back to it's original intent, or motive when spoken, which is to be as written...

Of course it is possible to reason someone out of a position that wasn't arrived at via reason.

If you think of reasoning as using your mental faculties to reach judgments, conclusions or inferences then we can see that reasoning is not without flaw. Perhaps your OP was referring more to a flawed conclusion... but anyway...

All of Socrates' dialogues are demonstrations of people being walked through the reasoning process to arrive at more valid conclusions than ones that they started with.

Any time someone takes advice and changes their position because their council "makes sense" is accepting the reasoning of another.

The excellent post from Abra demonstrates how we almost inherently accept the expertise of individuals as a validation of their reasoning structures.

When you say "out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason?" I can only assume that you mean people who make choices or accept beliefs based on some emotional quality (e.g., faith). But it should be recognized that reasoning can also be used to obfuscate issues. In fact, people will usually use rationalizations to support emotional or biased positions. You can see this in just about any argument that supports racism (or any other prejudice). This would simply be another way to use reason to change another's opinions.

The art of Rhetoric is supposed to be a way to use logic and reason to illuminate truth. It is a two-edged sword that can also sway people who cannot or will not examine an issue completely.

(just my quick thoughts, good topic)

Can someone be reasoned out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason?
.
YES if that someone is a reasonable person.(i.e. not dogmatic)

Apparently, Abra hasn't been dogmatic enough, if he could reason himself out of the Dogma! (only through being disillusioned with the dogma due to some unfortunate experience... I presume)

Consequently, a content dogmatic CAN NOT be reasoned out of a position...

AHA, to the heart of the matter.

People are either accepting of reasoned responses, or are not. But no one is soo black and white, we are all shades of Grey, some people hold a handful of ideas that reasoning cannot touch, they are quick to admit that when probed.

So overall my understanding is that the answer to the original question is yes, and no. I also believe that as we change, sometimes our stance on these ideas can become more reasonable.

HAHA, I love those kinds of questions.


Excellent counter example. Yes reasoning alone is not enough. Incomplete data mixing it up with a few well placed logical fallacies makes rhetoric a powerful tool for deviant agenda's.

This is where critical thinking skills comes into play. Proper critical thinking skills allow you to ask the right questions, be able to spot logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, appeals to consequences, ect and many times just ask the right questions to uncover the agenda behind the rhetoric.

The propper answer would rather be "YES, BUT it would depend on someone's REASONABILITY!

I always say, you cannot reationalise with an IRrational person.