5. Defenses Against Objections - 'Closed Systems'

Even though Christianity has never proven to have the answers for the world, there still being war, hunger . . . suffering, and Marxism has failed miserably, there are still who hold to them.

Christianity is still going strong - people are converting all the time.

Marxism, although few are living by it, except where forced, is still believed in by some. Those few who are still clinging to it, argue there was nothing wrong with it - they were just doing it all wrong - not following Marx's instructions right.

Both sides give all kinds of excuses as to why Christianity or Marxism hasn't worked.

The Christian says God doesn't answer our prayers because sometimes it's better for us to suffer.

The Marxist says their followers were 'bought' off by the western world - that's why their system doesn't work.

The Christians say those who object/criticize their faith are sinners - they are blinded by sin and it is their own pride that prevents them from seeing the light.

The Marxists claim that non-believers are deluded by a 'false consciousness'.
It's the capitalists who distract them from the truth.

Two ways of preventing critical objections from turning people away:

1) not allowing any evidence to count against the theory, i.e., always finding some way of explaining away putative counterevidence; or

2) answering criticism by analysing the motivations of the critic in terms of the theory itself.

Then you get the 'closed system'.

The authors also include the Freudian theories as being defended in the same way.

. . . Christianity, Marxism and Freudian theory can be held as closed systems - - but this is not to say that all Christians, Marxists or Freudians hold their belief in that way.

Why should people want to maintain belief:

Inertia, and unwillingness to admit that one is wrong, must play a large part here.

. . . it takes courage to question or abandon one's life-commitment.

Well, I've always thought that too - even if someone of a particular faith - such as Islam - sincerely wants to change over, for whatever reason - Christianity holds more promise, his benefactors (host country/nation) have convinced him otherwise - it would be hard for a person to turn his back on the faith he has always practiced.

----------------------

I remember being at a school where job-search technique was being discussed. At the meeting, the teacher had us practice shaking hands with each other.

One of the Muslim men at the meeting wouldn't participate in that - he said his religion/culture prohibited him from shaking hands, or practicing any kind of touching with anyone who was not his wife, mother or sister.

He expressed feeling difficulty with this - he knew when he went for job interviews that he was expected to shake hands with a female who interviewed him.

Would that female have accounted for that, respected his faith and practice? Or would she be offended and consider him as being 'far too much trouble'.

What was she supposed to do? Have him come into the office on Monday morning to start work, then inform all the women in the office that they were to be very careful not to shake hands or touch him in any way.

Do we not walk up to each other, at times, tap the others back - maybe a playful punch? Are we to change our own values for the benefit of people from other cultures?

Kinda' hard to do that, I'd say. But just as much as it would be hard for us to get used to these 'new rules', it must be hard for the newcomer to do things he's just not accustomed to doing.

The Hope for Rational Discussion and Evaluation

Why should I believe this?

Why should I accept this authority?

The media of the so-called "global village" seem to bring different cultures together in the sense only of confrontation, not of dialogue.

That seems to be how it is a lot of the time - somebody just comes on the air, reports an incident, moves their eyebrows to denote that there's something important about it - like you ever see the way the newscasters use their facial language when there's been an incident that involves SMOKING?

It's like this is the most horrendous thing that has taken place in the history of man! Somebody was SMOKING!

Seems like the media tells us what to think.

--------------------------

For we can always distinguish what someone says from that person's motivation for saying it.

We can if we think about it - if we keep in mind that it is truly an individual person talking - but often as not, is just one more 'talking head' reading from what a group of individuals wants told.

-----------------------------

Nietzche - scorned the theory of knowledge and moral philosophy . . . displays a double standard at work in his own thought.

How does he know what's 'truth'?

For that matter, what is truth and what is what someone else wants you to think?

. . . the technique of meeting all criticism by attacking the motives of the critic . . .

Someone's motivation m ay be peculiar or objectionable in some way, and yet what the person says may be true and justifiable by good reasons.

Well, to put things in my own words, I see this segment as asking the reader the question of just how easy or difficult it can be to discuss issues thoroughly - in any issue, does everybody get the chance to put their own honest opinion on the table?

Often, there are things a person might want to say, but doesn't because of the general attitude of the room - the environment.

For instance . . . let's say we're at a meeting which has been called to discuss just how much money and resource should a city put into an upcoming Gay Pride event - the parade, the speeches, the get togethers - the policing of the event.

How much should be spent? How much manpower should be assigned to the event?

IF most of the people at the table are 'straights', who are put off by this kind of thing, then the few who are either 'gay' or 'gay sympathizers', aren't going to feel they can speak up and express their own views. They will keep quiet to avoid conflict.

IF most of the people at the table are 'gay' and are people who are all for this event, then the few who are not will not feel free to express their views.

----------------------

Say there's a meeting at your office - everybody's obligated to attend. The issue is whether to extend office hours to meet with an expected rise in business.

The owner of the business is, of course, all for the idea - she doesn't have to spend the extra time at the office, of course - her employees will be pressed into that service.

She, a couple of the company's major stockholders, the general manager, etc., are all there.

The employees are expected to give their views.

Most of the employees are family people and don't want to be forced into doing extra time they don't want to do. But they have to be careful what they say - they don't want to offend someone and have their job on the line.

Maybe even one of the top echelon in the company is against the extended hours - he believes it's better to find a way of handling the extra work within the regular hours. He's of the belief that employees should be free to be with their families, or their own personal pleasures on evenings and weekends.

He's not going to feel comfortable saying so with the stockholders who want the extended hours - with people who might even 'pull out' if he doesn't agree with them.

What I'm saying is that something could be put forth as being a statement that EVERYBODY agrees with - the poll was unanimous!

But it's not necessarily so - the results didn't really reflect what people really thought.

OK . . . so it isn't the most 'sophisticated' view of this segment, but those are my thoughts on it.

7. Validity of Statements

'Explaining' and 'Explaining Away' . . .

Consider how Christians try to solve the problem of why God does not prevent suffering, and Marxists the problem of why revolutions did not occur in the West.

What do they mean by that? Revolutions about Christianity? Why would the west have revolutions about Marxism?

Anyway, my take on this small segment is that Christians and Marxists are quick to shoo away these questions by coming back with simple statements like 'God is good'.

Q:

If there is a kind sympathetic God - if he sees the 'little sparrow fall', then why is there so much suffering?

A:

God is good.

I don't really know what statements are used to defend Marxism. Probably the same kinda' thing.

What this segment is telling us is that both sides - Christians and Marxists -should make a better effort in answering questions, when looking to gain supporters.

7.1 Value Judgments

My take on this wee segment is that some 'statements' cannot be taken as factual - they are merely peoples' opinions, not facts.

The author's example - homosexuality is not normal - if you saw this statement somewhere, it could just be one person's (or a small group of people) opinion.

7.2 Analytic Statements

The example used here is the statement all human beings are animals.

In order to prove this wrong, you'd have to consider what the individual means by the word 'animal'.

Eating, sleeping, feeling, defecating - all animals do that - if that's how the word 'animals' is taken by the statement maker, then in his view 'all human beings are animals'.

That one's a 'thinker'.

7.3 Empirical Statements, Including Scientific Theories

Empirical Statements - these are formed by 'what we see'. Investigating and seeing for yourself - it often rains in Vancouver - anyone who has been there can see that for themselves.

So that would be an 'empirical statement'.

If you wanted to prove that it does NOT often rain in Vancouver, how would you prove it? Get absolutely unbeatable evidence that people stand on top of the buildings and pour pailfuls of water, just to make you think that it often rains in Vancouver?

Ha ha!

7.4 Metaphysical Statements

Here I go on that 'metaphysical' word again . . . in this book, I guess it means 'religious', or 'spiritual' - not 'supernatural'.

Well, other than scriptural text, what proof do we have that there's a God? Just a lotta' text where people wrote about it?

Have we seen anything to prove it.

If I have a spiritual vision tonight, I could well say 'OK - I know! There is a God!'

But it could be argued that I just had a vision caused by a migraine, a prescription medication, or maybe just a very vivid dream.

Unless I came up with pictures of the vision - actual prints, or digital images, I'd have no proof. And even if I had same, it could be argued that I manipulated it through the art of creative photography.

Like Kriss Angel walking from the top of one building to another - doesn't prove that he can really do it. It proves that he hires a lot of people to stand down at the bottom and go Ooooo, Ahhhhhh!

WildCityWoman wrote:5. Defenses Against Objections - 'Closed Systems' Even though Christianity has never proven to have the answers for the world, there still being war, hunger . . . suffering, and Marxism has failed miserably, there are still who hold to them. Christianity is still going strong - people are converting all the time. Marxism, although few are living by it, except where forced, is still believed in by some. Those few who are still clinging to it, argue there was nothing wrong with it - they were just doing it all wrong - not following Marx's instructions right. Both sides give all kinds of excuses as to why Christianity or Marxism hasn't worked. The Christian says God doesn't answer our prayers because sometimes it's better for us to suffer. The Marxist says their followers were 'bought' off by the western world - that's why their system doesn't work. The Christians say those who object/criticize their faith are sinners - they are blinded by sin and it is their own pride that prevents them from seeing the light. The Marxists claim that non-believers are deluded by a 'false consciousness'. It's the capitalists who distract them from the truth. Two ways of preventing critical objections from turning people away: 1) not allowing any evidence to count against the theory, i.e., always finding some way of explaining away putative counterevidence; or 2) answering criticism by analysing the motivations of the critic in terms of the theory itself. Then you get the 'closed system'. The authors also include the Freudian theories as being defended in the same way. . . . Christianity, Marxism and Freudian theory can be held as closed systems - - but this is not to say that all Christians, Marxists or Freudians hold their belief in that way. Why should people want to maintain belief: Inertia, and unwillingness to admit that one is wrong, must play a large part here. . . . it takes courage to question or abandon one's life-commitment. Well, I've always thought that too - even if someone of a particular faith - such as Islam - sincerely wants to change over, for whatever reason - Christianity holds more promise, his benefactors (host country/nation) have convinced him otherwise - it would be hard for a person to turn his back on the faith he has always practiced. ---------------------- I remember being at a school where job-search technique was being discussed. At the meeting, the teacher had us practice shaking hands with each other. One of the Muslim men at the meeting wouldn't participate in that - he said his religion/culture prohibited him from shaking hands, or practicing any kind of touching with anyone who was not his wife, mother or sister. He expressed feeling difficulty with this - he knew when he went for job interviews that he was expected to shake hands with a female who interviewed him. Would that female have accounted for that, respected his faith and practice? Or would she be offended and consider him as being 'far too much trouble'. What was she supposed to do? Have him come into the office on Monday morning to start work, then inform all the women in the office that they were to be very careful not to shake hands or touch him in any way. Do we not walk up to each other, at times, tap the others back - maybe a playful punch? Are we to change our own values for the benefit of people from other cultures? Kinda' hard to do that, I'd say. But just as much as it would be hard for us to get used to these 'new rules', it must be hard for the newcomer to do things he's just not accustomed to doing.

Hi WCW, this is an interesting post. The characterization 'open-closed' presents a useful typology to analyse the sociology of belief. My view is that the quality of openness is a philosophical attribute, a virtue that can govern assessment of claims. Of course, it stands in tension with tradition, which judges that rival claims must pass a strong conservative test. Many accepted claims are integral to the traditional world view, so a closed system will not accept new ideas if they seem to lead to an unraveling of their conventional outlook.

I was recently reading a comment on the Book of Daniel, about his dream where he told Nebuchadnezzar that four empires were predicted by the statue with head of gold, body of silver and bronze, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadne ... n_Daniel_2 Now, the interesting thing here is that believers focus on the head of gold without noticing the feet of clay. For example, Christian creeds make many statements which are now known to be false. If the creed is the epistemic foundation for the institution, then any falsity in the creed functions like the clay mixed with the iron in the feet of the toppling statue.

Openness enables us to look at the assumptions of our beliefs, adapting to evidence. The trouble is that institutions are intrinsically closed because confidence supports their power, and so hardens to dogma, while openness undermines confidence through skepticism and critical thought. Openness was a key value of the scientific revolution and the modern enlightenment, but as with all such social movements, assumptions about the meaning of openness can become rigid, producing new forms of closure.

Regarding Marxism, your comments are interesting, but I am less sympathetic to Marx than to Christ, primarily on this openness question. Marx was very dogmatic, especially regarding the proletariat as the vanguard of the revolution, and his ideas set up systems which produced mass terror and death on a scale unimaginably larger than can be attributed to any of the ideas of Jesus.

My MA Hons thesis discusses openness at http://www.geocities.com/rtulip2005/Tul ... hics_I.htm

RT
Marx was very dogmatic, especially regarding the proletariat as the vanguard of the revolution, and his ideas set up systems which produced mass terror and death on a scale unimaginably larger than can be attributed to any of the ideas of Jesus.

This is not entirely true... Jesus' temper tantrum in the Jewish temple where he called the Jewish bankers vipers has been used as justification to persecute and kill Jews for centuries. Jesus (if he existed) never spoke out against slavery, indeed he even supported the beating of servants, this has contributed to the long and ghastly persistence of slavery over the centuries.

Marxism was terrible, there is no denying it, but Christianity has been doing its damage for thousands of years, no one, short lived system such as Marxism can hope to compete with that.

Later

Oh, I wouldn't say I'm sympathetic to Marx - don't really known that much about his work, actually.

I was more or less going by what I reading in the book under that heading.

I certainly couldn't see his theories working; it might have prevented a lot of suffering in that people wouldn't grieve for what they didn't have (and others seemed to have), I'd agree with that, but I think it would be a dull life.

People are naturally inclined to 'get' and it was probably so from the first time somebody traded a few beads for a few shells.

The trader ran home and yelled - look what I got!

Trading, earning things - I think the quest has always been in us.

I'm not that swift on this kinda' thing, Robert - I haven't studied things such as Marxism, Communism, all that closely.

I am enjoying reading through these segments. I'm not making very good time, I'm afraid, but maybe that's 'cause I'm blathering too much about it as I'm going - ha ha!