Page 1 of 2

Talking to ourselves

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:00 pm
by JulianTheApostate
Susan Jacoby has a relevant editorial in today's LA Times.
As dumbness has been defined downward in American public life during the last two decades, one of the most important and frequently overlooked culprits is the public's increasing reluctance to give a fair hearing -- or any hearing at all -- to opposing points of view.
...
Whether watching television news, consulting political blogs or (more rarely) reading books, Americans today have become a people in search of validation for opinions that they already hold. This absence of curiosity about other points of view is the essence of anti-intellectualism and represents a major departure from the nation's best cultural traditions.
This forum is a good example of that: largely atheists discussing books about atheism with other atheists.

I'm guilty of her accusation, since I mainly read books and blogs that validate my liberal views. While there would definite value in exposing myself to more opposing ideas, it's so tempting to avoid the resulting challenge to my beliefs.

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:45 am
by LanDroid
That editorial is an excerpt from The Age of Unreason. It emphasizes an undervalued aspect of intellectualism - the ability to entertain and potentially learn from opposing viewpoints.

I don't think Jacoby suggests that atheists must engage and learn from theists - I'm quite sure she considers that matter as settled. However, this brings up a dynamic where many people believe any opinion they hold is a settled matter and the opposing viewpoint deserves zero contemplation. Global warming might be one example where there's not much actual consideration of the evidence - each side seems convinced the other is objectively wrong and therefore cannot be taken seriously.

Jacoby's contrast between the Watergate hearings and the Petreaus testimony was interesting. I remember watching quite a few hours of the Watergate testimony. I admit I watched none of the Petreaus testimony. Jacoby thinks the limited media coverage totally missed the most important points.

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:41 am
by Robert Tulip
Hi Guys
Nice point. Dialogue is a rare thing. Maybe I am strange, but I am a theist who generally has more respect for atheists than for other theists. At least atheists don't generally wilfully believe things that are false. Suggesting I am interested in booktalk just to validate my existing opinions would be a rather superficial take.

I have been taking up this theme of dialogue in a church monthly magazine insights.uca.org.au/ (circulation 15,000). In a running series of letters I have argued that theology must be compatible with science in order to be credible, and various supernaturalists have accused me of promoting a God-free outlook, which I am not. Sadly the magazine has such little respect for dialogue that they do not publish their letters page on the website.

People have to be willing to enter the lion's den if they wish to change the lion's opinion (er, maybe not :roll: )

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:05 am
by Penelope
There is not an equal risk involved.

If one has been a theist all of ones life....and then begin to be swayed by atheist 'doctrine'. There is the most awful sense of loss of direction.

If one has been an atheist all of ones life.....it must be wonderful to be swayed in the other direction.

It is still good to talk though.......because before I stumbled upon this website....I just assumed that there must be a God because some of us seem to have an inbuilt need for a 'pattern and a reason' and one is inclined to believe that everyone else feels the same.

Just as I once assumed that everyone believed in 'human rights' when it is patently obvious to me now, that everyone does not.

I assumed that because I didn't really want to do 'wrong' things.....ie hurt anyone else.....then it was easier for me to be a 'believer'. I assumed atheists must want to do wrong and hurtful things....and that was why they denied God.

Now I know how wrong I was. I have felt quite a warmth, affection and a feeling of kindred spirit with some people on this site. Before our dialogue, I wouldn't have thought this possible.

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:36 am
by DWill
Bravo to JulianThe Apostate. This needs to be said from time to time within any open community, and BookTalk I take to be a community striving for openness. Freethought is the objective here, but some vigilance will always be required to make sure that "free" thinking does not in fact become a restricted type of thinking, characterized by an informally sanctioned viewpoint. Talking to other like-minded individuals can be satisfying, I certainly agree, but that is the trap as well.

The culture wars that have so occupied this society are for me the main obstacle to an exchange of ideas that is truly free. We are polarized in this larger cultural way, not just politically. Reading Susan Jacoby's book, I become uneasy at times. Does she herself really value an exchange of all wiewpoints? I'm not sure. Does her approach sharpen rather than blunt the knife-edge of the cultural divide?

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:07 am
by Ophelia
Julian wrote:
This forum is a good example of that: largely atheists discussing books about atheism with other atheists.
I understand what you're saying.
I don't know if anybody will be interested in my immediate reaction on reading Julian and Will's answer.

I had NEVER heard so much talking about religion before joining Booktalk (well, if you except Catholic school when I was 11)!

I often thought to myself that claiming to be an almost atheist site must be a magnet to encourage religious discussions.

It's interesting to see that the same forum can be seen by different people as atheists talking to themselves. :smile:

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:33 am
by President Camacho
Halle suggests that the brain compartmentalizes most knowledge because just "living" is hard enough on the brain. The brain does this through broad generalizations.

There is a separation between nominal individuals and corporate entities. Every time you say Americans or people or atheists, you are using a corporate entity and saving your brain the trouble of considering every individual as a nominal human being. The brain is economizing and seeks to reduce the many to one.

Ideas, Halle explains, are like the generalizations that our brains make, although a little different. The idea is like the perfect individual of that generalization. The one you create from the generalization (logos

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:51 pm
by Saffron
My dear PC,
I think there was no beer involved in your last post. Go, Mr. President! I also liked very much what DWill had to say:
Talking to other like-minded individuals can be satisfying, I certainly agree, but that is the trap as well.

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:14 pm
by President Camacho
That's what you think. Me an D did some keg stands before posting! :drunk:


I shouldn't have posted here. I didn't realize it was for the read of the month. I haven't read this book, although I've heard good things.

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:19 pm
by Saffron
President Camacho wrote:That's what you think. Me an D did some keg stands before posting! :drunk:


I shouldn't have posted here. I didn't realize it was for the read of the month. I haven't read this book, although I've heard good things.

Au contraire! I have not read the book either.