Civility & Reason v the KKK & Faith

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
commonsense
Posts: 5125
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Civility & Reason v the KKK & Faith

Post by commonsense »

Greta wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:34 am Saw some nasty documentaries last night - one about Scientology and another about KKK. What struck me is that each group is full of people who don't even attempt for a moment to be even a bit reasonable. Rather, the approach is sheer aggression, denial and refusal to compromise on anything.
Many people mistake the adoption of reason as an inhibition of freedom - if one feels compelled to go along with reason, then one is effectively controllable.
In prison the extreme form of unreason is the "mad dog" approach, where a total lack of restraint and unbridled viciousness intimidates and creates space to operate without interference. It seems that civil society has become so soft and gentrified that it can no longer deal with the mad dog approach - what can a reasonable person do in dealing with the unreasonable? Not much, they are usually intimidated and railroaded.
The first step for reason is sincerity and goodwill. Without those, any other criteria have no power, as is being demonstrated in public life today.
Even sans knowledge of their content, I feel confident in saying that documentaries on Scientology and the KKK, especially if viewed on the same occasion, most certainly should make a rational person feel uneasy.

It seems to me that along with sincerity and goodwill, the reasonable among us need to have an understanding of the unreasonable. That is to say that a reasonable person needs to be able to walk a mile in the shoes of an unreasonable and inflexible person.

Another way to put it is to say that you need to imagine how you might think or feel if you were an unreasonable person, if not in toto at least in regard to a specific issue—like, say, how you might think or feel about dogmatic service to a religious organization.

By mere definition, an unreasonable person does not utilize reason nor think rationally as a go-to methodology. There must be something else that guides an inflexible person: emotions, chief among which would be fear of some sort.

If I were to put myself in the shoes of a fearful person, I would find myself anxious about anything or anyone whom I believe poses a threat to me or my tribe. I would be anxious almost all the time. I would only feel secure when the threat has been neutralized.

Let’s say my tribe consists of all people who believe a certain dogma, among which is the claim that faith is science-based. If I were to be a Scientologist, I would fear those people who would dispute my claim. I would likely be concerned that those people—who are wrong, in my eyes, anyway—that those people might be able to convert my cohorts, or even myself, into anti-Scientologists. Since I do not rely on reasonable argument, I must turn to my emotions. I might feel security in repeatedly stating my dogma as if it were an a prior truth.

Certainly, anything that would support the arguments of the enemy of my tribe would be anathema to me. But I only have blind, loud repetition in my arsenal of defense of Scientology. That and my moronic version of logic.

Rational thought utilizes logic that is different than mine. Anything I cloak in my logic cannot be defeated by reason. I can feel satisfied that I have neutralized this threat. I can feel safe and even comforted.

I am not a Scientologist, but if I were, the preceding might be how I would view the world. Not that this makes sense to me, but just my understanding of how a person who believes that faith is science-based would react to reason.
Post Reply