Some thoughts for the day: belief and understanding arguments.

I was thinking about this quote by Upton Sinclair earlier today:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
— Upton Sinclair

I realised that one might paraphrase Mr. Sinclair’s saying and apply it to a different domain of life:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when he believes his salvation depends on not understanding it.

I suppose that could – and perhaps should – be clarified by saying “It’s difficult, if not impossible, to get a man to understand something when he erroneously believes that his salvation and his immortal soul depends on him not understanding it”.

A bit arduous perhaps? Brevity does seem to add to the quote in my opinion.

The point stands and is underscored by every anti-evolution argument, every young earth argument and every anti-science argument raised by every creationists, ever. Arguing with a religious person is challenging if not futile since the religious have a vested interest in not understanding a point, seeing any proof or accepting that an argument against their dearly held beliefs might be correct.

A point well made by another quote:

You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

“Can’t” might be too strong a word but it does seem pretty unlikely that one would be able to reason a person out of a belief that they were not convinced of through reason, logic and evidence.

The bottom line? Convincing somebody of a fact using logic and reason when that person has a vested interest – not suffering terrible torture for eternity being a really good example of a vested interest – in not understanding that fact it futile. Or at least pretty freaking hard.

Arguing with Christians…

It’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around victorious – Anonymous

That, is pretty close to the truth I think. You can’t argue with somebody who refuses to acknowledge the value of evidence, insists that their non-evidence is valid while at the same time insisting other people’s equivalent non-evidence is not, all the while acting – or forcing themselves to actually be – stupid.

A pigeon. You and your theistic argument reminds me of one.

Arguments For God: The Cosmological Argument

I briefly toyed with writing a post about the cosmological argument, taking it apart. Then I watched this video and realised I actually have nothing constructive to add.

For your viewing pleasure, his geekliness, TheAmazingAtheist:

Cosmological argument? What cosmological argument? That is all I have to say about that. (HT Tim Cooley)

Alpaca are descended from a wild vicuna ancestor while the domesticated llama is descended from a wild guanaco ancestor, though at this point there has been a considerable amount of hybridization between the two species.