Is it admirable to be intolerant of unsubstantiated assumptions?

[leibowde84]

Often in this forum I see many who make assumptions and, when questioned about their reasoning/evidence for doing so, they get defensive. Obviously, assumptions are a necessary part of human existence. But, when confronted with an assumption, I find it troubling when people refuse to either 1) provide a reasoned, substantiated argument for why they feel making the assumption is reasonable, and/or 2) complain that certain assumptions should not be questioned, usually when associated with religious beliefs/dogma.

My question is this ... is it admirable to be intolerant of assumptions like this, refusing to put-up with them by demanding a reasoned explanation based on facts rather than other unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, using passages from scripture to show that other passages in scripture are true)? Sometimes, when in these kinds of dialogues, I am simply trying to point out that an assumption is based on nothing more than subjective experience and faith. And, far too often, the individual is unwilling to admit this.

Is this form of intolerance something to be desired? Please provide a reasoned explanation for your response.

 

[David M]

I voted no. Because intolerance is different to challenging unsubstantiated assumptions at every opportunity or simply refusing to accept such assumptions without evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

I voted no. Because intolerance is different to challenging unsubstantiated assumptions at every opportunity or simply refusing to accept such assumptions without evidence.

Remember, the OP says "intolerance of assumptions", not intolerance of the people who make them. Honestly, we all make assumptions, many of which we are unaware of. But, I find it honorable in a debate/discussion forum to point out whenever unsubstantiated assumptions are being made that I notice. It seems kind of like a duty to me in a forum such as this.

 

[George-ananda]

Often in this forum I see many who make assumptions and, when questioned about their reasoning/evidence for doing so, they get defensive. Obviously, assumptions are a necessary part of human existence. But, when confronted with an assumption, I find it troubling when people refuse to either 1) provide a reasoned, substantiated argument for why they feel making the assumption is reasonable, and/or 2) complain that certain assumptions should not be questioned, usually when associated with religious beliefs/dogma.

My question is this ... is it admirable to be intolerant of assumptions like this, refusing to put-up with them by demanding a reasoned explanation based on facts rather than other unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, using passages from scripture to show that other passages in scripture are true)? Sometimes, when in these kinds of dialogues, I am simply trying to point out that an assumption is based on nothing more than subjective experience and faith. And, far too often, the individual is unwilling to admit this.

Is this form of intolerance something to be desired? Please provide a reasoned explanation for your response.

I think you have a right to challenge any belief. If you don't feel they met the challenge, then you don't accept the belief. That is not intolerance; that is disagreement. 'Intolerance' can be justified if the belief is causing significant harm to others.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I voted no. Because intolerance is different to challenging unsubstantiated assumptions at every opportunity or simply refusing to accept such assumptions without evidence.

Intolerance isn't always bad. Being intolerant of certain behaviors for example is one of the only reasons why society can function.

 

[leibowde84]

Intolerance isn't always bad. Being intolerant of certain behaviors for example is one of the only reasons why society can function.

Exactly my point. Well-put. I think that unsubstantiated assumptions are often detrimental to society.

 

[LuisDantas]

Often in this forum I see many who make assumptions and, when questioned about their reasoning/evidence for doing so, they get defensive. Obviously, assumptions are a necessary part of human existence. But, when confronted with an assumption, I find it troubling when people refuse to either 1) provide a reasoned, substantiated argument for why they feel making the assumption is reasonable, and/or 2) complain that certain assumptions should not be questioned, usually when associated with religious beliefs/dogma.

I would say it depends mainly on how much of an expectation of influence those people have. Most of all, on how much they expect others to pay the prices for beliefs not their own.

It is one thing to hold a belief. It is another entirely to expect, say, economic policy to conform to that belief.

 

[Jainarayan]

I say Yes, as long as it is done politely in the interest of being productive. There are discussions on some Heathen sites, some extremely heated, about calling out UPG and MUS. There are some people who have no qualms about ripping someone to shreds for their personal beliefs (within Heathenry, I can't speak for other paths). Instead of being civil about it they'll condescend and mock. I think there is no reason for that, even when MUS is involved (MUS=Made Up [digestive by-product]). Educate, don't berate.

 

[Nietzsche]

There should be a "Yes, but only politely if the belief/holder-of-belief in question deserves politeness" because I refuse to be polite to the likes of Hovind, Ham, David Icke, Birthers, anti-vaxxers..

You see where I'm going with this.

 

[Nakosis]

If you're looking for admiration, don't question people's dogma. If you don't care about admiration, go for it.

I go go on forever questioning people's assumptions, no body admires that. If fact I usually force myself to keep quiet just to keep the environment friendly.

I like my assumptions questioned, a lot of people don't.

 

[Laika]

My question is this ... is it admirable to be intolerant of assumptions like this, refusing to put-up with them by demanding a reasoned explanation based on facts rather than other unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, using passages from scripture to show that other passages in scripture are true)? Sometimes, when in these kinds of dialogues, I am simply trying to point out that an assumption is based on nothing more than subjective experience and faith. And, far too often, the individual is unwilling to admit this.

Is this form of intolerance something to be desired? Please provide a reasoned explanation for your response.

Voted No. I've been on the wrong side of this too many times to consciously want to do it to another person. it is absolutely humiliating and very painful to be told you are wrong because someone thinks the truth is obvious to them and is perplexed at the fact you don't agree with them. I have that battle playing out in my head anyways as the social pressures of going against the tide takes its toll, even when I think I'm right. So ultimately, it's a war of attrition as it is not about the truth but about conformity. someone whose was genuinely intrested in the truth would not be afriad to entertain bad ideas because doing so gives us the ability to learn from them. I think such people grossly under-estimate how much you can become emotionally involved in your ideas and how often our sense of self-worth and self-esteem is measured by trying to live up to them. the sense that you are living a lie or following a lost cause and to be expected to justify it based on being percieved as a threat to the conventional wisdom is a deeply painful one as you are forced to chose between other people's respect and your own.

I feel genuinely quite sorry for many of the believers on RF who, whilst often taking the wrong side of an argument, are humiliated for their the sincereity of their beliefs because they do so on the basis of ignorance. if I wasn't an atheist I would defend them and I often do so anyway. there is very little intellectual basis for me to do so other than it "feels" wrong but it angers me especially when 'reason' and 'science' are touted as reasons to dismiss their beliefs as it is a betrayal of the promise that those powers can enlighten us all and that we have an obligation for mutual understanding if that is to be achieved. both our differences and our mistakes are oppurtunities to enrich us and it is sad when we encourage people not to take it by putting them on the defensive. I don't think we should judge people by how wrong they are, but by how willing they are to change when they realise they've got it wrong. it takes patience and effort, but by god its rewarding when it pays off.

if the purpose of dialogue is to share ideas as a commonwealth or a marketplace of ideas from which all parties (could) benifit from exposure to different ideas, we need to create an environment where people are not ashamed to admit they are wrong and can indeed learn for their mistakes. I agree that there are certian occassions where its become futile, but thats because the person feels they are under attack and its gone beyond questioning their ideas. I sincerely believe it is possible to prove that god does not exist and whilst I can't with any confidence do it, I would not expect someone to accept that proof without a fight because there is more at stake that just the truth of what the world is but the truth of who we are as people and our place in it. there is a legitimate scope for an emotional reaction in response to such questions even when reason tells us we are on the wrong side of the truth. being wrong sucks. if we make it easier for people to let go of their ideas it might make it easier for everyone. we not right all the time as it is.

 

[leibowde84]

Voted No. I've been on the wrong side of this too many times to consciously want to do it to another person. it is absolutely humiliating and very painful to be told you are wrong because someone thinks the truth is obvious to them and is perplexed at the fact you don't agree with them. I have that battle playing out in my head anyways as the social pressures of going against the tide takes its toll, even when I think I'm right. So ultimately, it's a war of attrition as it is not about the truth but about conformity. someone whose was genuinely intrested in the truth would not be afriad to entertain bad ideas because doing so gives us the ability to learn from them. I think such people grossly under-estimate how much you can become emotionally involved in your ideas and how often our sense of self-worth and self-esteem is measured by trying to live up to them. the sense that you are living a lie or following a lost cause and to be expected to justify it based on being percieved as a threat to the conventional wisdom is a deeply painful one as you are forced to chose between other people's respect and your own.

I feel genuinely quite sorry for many of the believers on RF who, whilst often taking the wrong side of an argument, are humiliated for their the sincereity of their beliefs because they do so on the basis of ignorance. if I wasn't an atheist I would defend them and I often do so anyway. there is very little intellectual basis for me to do so other than it "feels" wrong but it angers me especially when 'reason' and 'science' are touted as reasons to dismiss their beliefs as it is a betrayal of the promise that those powers can enlighten us all and that we have an obligation for mutual understanding if that is to be achieved. both our differences and our mistakes are oppurtunities to enrich us and it is sad when we encourage people not to take it by putting them on the defensive. I don't think we should judge people by how wrong they are, but by how willing they are to change when they realise they've got it wrong. it takes patience and effort, but by god its rewarding when it pays off.

if the purpose of dialogue is to share ideas as a commonwealth or a marketplace of ideas from which all parties (could) benifit from exposure to different ideas, we need to create an environment where people are not ashamed to admit they are wrong and can indeed learn for their mistakes. I agree that there are certian occassions where its become futile, but thats because the person feels they are under attack and its gone beyond questioning their ideas. I sincerely believe it is possible to prove that god does not exist and whilst I can't with any confidence do it, I would not expect someone to accept that proof without a fight because there is more at stake that just the truth of what the world is but the truth of who we are as people and our place in it. there is a legitimate scope for an emotional reaction in response to such questions even when reason tells us we are on the wrong side of the truth. being wrong sucks. if we make it easier for people to let go of their ideas it might make it easier for everyone. we not right all the time as it is.

I think you misunderstand my question. I'm not even necessarily talking about disagreement. I feel this way sometimes when my fellow Christians have absolute faith in the Bible, but obviously have never taken the time to study the history behind it. No one should hold beliefs that they have no support for. It's too dangerous.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

we need to create an environment where people are not ashamed to admit they are wrong and can indeed learn for their mistakes.

That would require a questioner to take the humble approach of Socrates. Unfortunately, it often happens that people who question the position of others do it no so much to deconstruct it and get closer to the truth as to peddle their own views, which they regard as the absolute truth.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find respect for, and the skillful application of, reason and truth to be admirable. However, I rarely find the way people actually go about trying to do this to be admirable - and, often, I find their goals to have little to nothing to do with either reason or truth at the end of the day.

 

[icehorse]

polite but persistent

 

[jojom]

Go ahead and assume whatever you like, just don't expect me to necessarily go along with it.

 

[Laika]

I think you misunderstand my question. I'm not even necessarily talking about disagreement. I feel this way sometimes when my fellow Christians have absolute faith in the Bible, but obviously have never taken the time to study the history behind it. No one should hold beliefs that they have no support for. It's too dangerous.

well, if you think about it, we all have a large number of beliefs that we don't back up. the nature of knowledge is a social product that is shared from one person to another and one generation to the next. very often, this can take the form of chinese whispers and something is lost through time, but we rely on other people as a source of information. many believers and non-believers will have been brought up as such; they retain the same beliefs as their parents or their peers and build on them. however, that may not always be the most solid foundations on which to live.

the danger is not faith itself, but with the enourmous passions it stirs up that are not based on rational or logical grounds. Whether its over abortion or gay marriage, etc, it is very frightening when you're confronted with a fanatic. I can't disagree with that. though in 99% of cases the fanatic demands absolute conviction but is unable to provide it; there is an underlying insecurity in their beliefs that makes them feel defensive and as they feel under attack all the time- they rationalise those emotional problems as a basis for aggressive assertions of faith. [If you haven't read it, Eric Hoffer's The True Believer has some amazing insights].

However, the truly frightening fanatics are the ones who can reason. you end up sitting there frozen as this person ruins your sense of what is real, right and wrong, etc. Even with the most rational grounds to believe something, if we come accross someone who is so certian of themselves, so utterly convinced and without doubt- its both a terrifying and awe-inspiring sight. the raw power of belief. the emotional side of us feels threatened and says... "how can this person be wrong; they seem so sure?" Doubt can be a really painful experience when it is not simply doubting a set of ideas but doubting our ability to know the truth. the failure to come up with workable ideas may be felt as a personal failure (and this is why intolerance ussually backfires as people try to defend themselves and not just their beliefs). As humans, we tend to respect the power of conviction often more than the truth as the emotional role of ideas means they must necessarily be fulfilling if they are to be worth believing in and developing. much of the story behind fanatcism is the need for strong convictions because a person feels inwardly very weak. the unstable inner diseqilubrium between passionate conviction and insecurity is what makes it so dangerous.

At heart we are still animals, and we take a very large number of social cues without realising. What frightens us is being on the 'wrong side' of people who confident in their beliefs and can be quite dominant in the conversation. they aren't born this way but learn it and that can be through having a belief system. these tend to be the people who end up setting the 'norms' of behaviour in communities and so going up against them is unnerving as we are somewhat hard wired to respect this kind of authority [I think the term may be charismatic authority, although it can often be much quieter and more subtle]. faith, particularly blind faith, short circuits this process and gives people the ability to appear to be this confident and to make decision, to convince others. but the truth is ussually the most vocal proponent of their ideas is the most insecure and therefore they often get it horribly wrong.

[you can take my own insecurity of my beliefs and the length of my posts in this thread as a case in point. ]

That would require a questioner to take the humble approach of Socrates. Unfortunately, it often happens that people who question the position of others do it no so much to deconstruct it and get closer to the truth as to peddle their own views, which they regard as the absolute truth.

yeah. it is very hard as its a two-way process as well. we tend to look for things that confirm our beliefs and its debatable whether that's just being selfish or being human given the limits of our understanding.

 

[gnostic]

Often in this forum I see many who make assumptions and, when questioned about their reasoning/evidence for doing so, they get defensive. Obviously, assumptions are a necessary part of human existence. But, when confronted with an assumption, I find it troubling when people refuse to either 1) provide a reasoned, substantiated argument for why they feel making the assumption is reasonable, and/or 2) complain that certain assumptions should not be questioned, usually when associated with religious beliefs/dogma.

My question is this ... is it admirable to be intolerant of assumptions like this, refusing to put-up with them by demanding a reasoned explanation based on facts rather than other unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, using passages from scripture to show that other passages in scripture are true)? Sometimes, when in these kinds of dialogues, I am simply trying to point out that an assumption is based on nothing more than subjective experience and faith. And, far too often, the individual is unwilling to admit this.

Is this form of intolerance something to be desired? Please provide a reasoned explanation for your response.

If an assumption is wrong and unsubstantiated, and I am aware of this, I would disagree and say why it is wrong.

I don't think that's being intolerant, to disagree with someone who made unsubstantiated claims.

There are matters that can have right and wrong answers, and there other cases where there are no right and no wrong answers.

But why should people who make unsubstantiated claims, be treated as if their claims were right?

I don't see the logic in that.

If the person who made a mistake or error in judgement, he should recognize that he was wrong AND learn from it. There is nothing worse than he keep making the same mistake, over and over again.

If that person can't learn from his or her mistake, that's really their problem, not mine.

I think the only intolerance come a guy, who refused to recognize his unsubstantiated claims being "wrong", and not learn from his mistake. That's showed no growth, intellectually and emotionally; instead it showed persistent ignorance and petty immaturity.

 

[ether-ore]

My question is this ... is it admirable to be intolerant of assumptions like this, refusing to put-up with them by demanding a reasoned explanation based on facts rather than other unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, using passages from scripture to show that other passages in scripture are true)? Sometimes, when in these kinds of dialogues, I am simply trying to point out that an assumption is based on nothing more than subjective experience and faith. And, far too often, the individual is unwilling to admit this.

Is this form of intolerance something to be desired? Please provide a reasoned explanation for your response.

I say it is not admirable. In your example, you are equating intolerance with demanding a response that would be acceptable to you. Yet you point out that you never get an acceptable answer. You keep doing the same thing over and over as if expecting a different result. My question is that if you believe intolerance is acceptable, then why are you bothering to tolerate a dialog with someone who will not likely provide an answer acceptable to you? If I am in a proselytizing mode (as you seem to be with your question) and I run across someone who does not want to hear what I have to say, I accept (tolerate) their choice.

My question comes from wondering why there are so many atheists in a religion forum? People of faith will never be able to give empirical evidence or any evidence apart from the testimonies of the prophets and apostles as recorded in scripture or their own personal religious experience. For the person of faith, truth is objective and their point of view only appears subjective to you. It seems to me that the only reason for an atheist to be in here is to say to a theist: 'hey stupid, you're believing a bunch of crap'. You're not going to convince them anymore than they are going to convince you. But it is fun isn't it?

 

[Augustus]

The problem is that we all make unsubstantiated assumptions, and more to the point, we all have to make them to create our worldviews and ideologies.

It's perfectly acceptable to attack various limited assertions that can be shown to be false, but when we start looking at overall guiding ideologies and worldviews, all of them rest on subjective preference.

Being a Muslim or Christian is no more irrational than being, for example, a humanist or a libertarian. All make assumptions about the nature of humans, normative ethics, etc. and they are simply based on a personal preference rather than any actual evidence. Most western ideologies are simply derivatives of Christianity anyway, and they didn't become any more 'factual' by ditching the god component.

Valuing a human life higher than that of a pig requires a god or a baseless assumption. Opposing slavery is based on another assumption. Individual liberty trumping group cohesion is probably more likely to be false than true if it could be analysed scientifically - either way it's still just an assumption. We could solve lots of the world's problems by killing 3 billion people, what, other than a personal subjective morality makes this wrong? In terms of the survival of both humans and countless other species, it makes sense. What actual evidence do you have to show that the most powerful countries shouldn't simply do this? [I'm not actually proposing this, it's just to make a point]

People tend to view other's beliefs as being irrational and not based on evidence, they rarely apply the same scepticism to their own views though. people should be free to discuss differences in opinion without it being a problem, but if you wish to attack someone you need to make pretty sure you aren't in a glass house throwing stones (which we all usually are).