I have a theory, and I want to bounce it off of y’all, if you don’t mind.
The theory is that when people get preconceived notions, philosophies, religions, etc., that they will bend over backwards to rationalize these beliefs. Critical thinking goes out the window, and they will latch on to their beliefs even when clear logic is presented to them. The reason being that the belief is such a part of their internal fabric that they feel personally threatened.
It is easy to understand in some cases - tell someone that gays should be allowed in the Boy Scouts, and this contradicts their religeous beliefs, which calls their religion into a questionable stance, which means that there may be no God, which means that everything that gives them meaningful lives might be ripped from them. This is powerful stuff.
OK, that may be an extreme example, but do you see where I’m coming from?
Not only does it happen with religeon, but we see it with urban legends all the time. And in a million other areas of life. Open Xmas presents on the 24th? Burn in Hell, you Godless pagan!
Does this make any sense, or am I just on a meaningless rant?
Never, ever, ever hit a brontosaurus on the head. they get real mad and might stomp someone. it is too close to the brain, . hit them on the other thin end, that way you have time to go make a sign while the nerve impulses travel up the tail ,through the thick part, to the brain, back through the thick part and to the leg. that way the only thing that gets stomped is the sign saying " Caution . I hit this Apatasaurus a week ago Saturday." But tdn, you understand the theory quite well.
The problem is that rationalizations are as valid reasonable processes as any other. This would seem to indicate that something other than pure reason is necessary to distinguish something that’s reasonable from something that’s merely a rationalization.
I’m not sure if you mean “rationalize” in the sense of “defend something based on the consequences of believing it” or “defend something based on bad use of logic.” I think these are two different things. In your examples you use the first meaning - “If X is true, then Y would be true, and Y is bad, so X must be false.” We’ve seen plenty of examples of the second meaning here, most recently with Pashley’s thread. He attempted (badly) to use logic to “prove” something that’s unnecessary to prove. Some people are so afraid of being thought irrational for some of their beliefs that they feel the need to invent ridiculous logical proofs, which make them look worse than irrational.
I also think the OP hit it on the head – I see it every day. Heck, just look at the creationists around here.
I have a talk that I’ve given a few times about skepticism. I note that most people are skeptical (use critical thinking) much of the time. They are prone to be skeptical when buying a used car, for example, or when hearing a politician from the other party speak. But that critical thinking goes out the window when they hear something that challenges their preconceived notions.
Well, over at LBMB, someone said (and it was agreed with pretty close to unanamously) that “Rationalization = Sin”.
Needless to say, this had to do with rationalizing things like tolerance (that equals sin too, apparantly) and anything which might even hint of the dreaded secular humanism.
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three weeks, 18 hours, 50 minutes and 57 seconds.
871 cigarettes not smoked, saving $108.92.
Life saved: 3 days, 35 minutes.
“Rationalization is more important than sex. When did you last go a week without a good rationalization?” – Jeff Goldbloom (Goldblum?) from The Big Chill
Rationalization is an expression of the pattern seeking behavior of the human mind. Our minds seek to find patterns among seemingly unrelated events. A person should, IMHO, temper his pattern seeking orientation with healthy, pattern busting skepticism.
I understand your point, David, but it didn’t come out quite right. People are skeptical towards politicians of the other party in much the same way as towards things which challenge their pre-conceived notions. They are being selectively skeptical; overly critial toward some things and not critical enough toward others as they dichotomize their world-view.
It seems odd that the word “to rationalize” very nearly contradicts other words with the same root.
ra.tion.al.ismn. The theory that the exercise of reason , rather than the acceptance of empiricism, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the only valid basis for action of belief, and that reason is the prime source of knowledge ad of spiritual truth.
ra.tion.al.izev. 3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one’s behavior.
“Rationalization” appears similar to “denial”. Whether someone is guilty of that depends on there being a convincing argument that they are wrong.
I might agree that “Rationalization=Sin”, but given the plank in their own eye, one wonders how the folks at LBMB define the term.