Indeed. That's one of my biggest problems with religion and why it makes me uncomfortable even though I ostensibly believe that people have their right to spirituality. Ultimately, with spiritual premises, people can come to faulty or unpredictable conclusions even with sound logic, and that somewhat unnerves me.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ultimately, with spiritual premises, people can come to faulty or unpredictable conclusions even with sound logic, and that somewhat unnerves me.

Definitely.

Although, to be completely fair, as toxic as I believe theistic religions to be, religion and politics are far from the only areas with this problem. Cosmologists, trained philosophers, mathematicians, engineers, and physicists all suffer from this same issue. Something as basic as assuming the universe is finite vs. infinite leads to drastically different conclusions in a wide variety of fields, and there's a decent argument to be made for each contradictory assumption

Defining your initial and boundary conditions properly has a huge impact on your results, even if you do everything else right. Edit: so it's even trickier in areas where we don't know what the initial or boundary conditions are

[–] TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're completely correct. Ultimately this is a problem we suffer from in general with a multitude of topics, and I think the only way to really get around it is by trying to be respectful to people who have different beliefs from your own, as long as that respect goes both ways of course. Important to mention though is that it can be a little harder also to argue with spirituality because while we could theoretically eventually come to a solid proof of whether or not the universe is finite, I am unable to disprove the existence of any given deity and I am also unable to prove or disprove any of the specific tenets of that deity.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well said.

I think the only way to really get around it is by trying to be respectful to people who have different beliefs from your own, as long as that respect goes both ways of course.

Absolutely. This brings me to my favorite philosophical topic in recent times, The Paradox of Tolerance, described by Wikipedia as:

The seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

Really, you've probably already heard this before, and I only bring this up because it seems like it's always relevant these days and because it was first described by Karl Popper, who was one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century.

[–] TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely, I'm familiar with the paradox of tolerance but I think it's always good to spread it around a bit more. How I conceive of it is that tolerance is not a principle but a social contract, and when one side breaks that social contract the other side is no longer beholden to it either.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You and I may have had a very similar conversation back on that "other" site, lol. At least that's where I first heard about the "social contract" model as a way to explain why it's not a paradox at all.

[–] TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 3 points 1 year ago

Quite possibly, though I've forgotten where I originally learned it so it's possible we just both learned it from the same place. I'm just glad to see the knowledge becoming more common, it was really annoying during the era when people would be like "Doesn't choosing not to tolerate nazis make you just bad as them?" The answer's obviously no, for so many reasons, but people understanding the paradox of tolerance makes it less common to be asked that.

[–] julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The huge difference with the professions you mention is that in all of them successful participants don't wed themselves to any premise. They can allow for the possibility of two competing premises, or even usefully imagine a world with a counterfactual premise, and accurately communicate the uncertainty or incongruence of their views (it is technically possible for political science to work this way too, but rare to find someone who hasn't picked a "team" outside of academia).

The irrationality and intellectual danger lies not in adopting hypothesis but in granting them the status of dogma.

I would also argue that the potential for real world harm of adopting a wrong premise is way less for a cosmologist or mathematician than for a religious leader or politician. Relevant SMBC: http://smbc-comics.com/comic/purity-3

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be in equal footing. I'm just saying that it's worth remembering that a healthy dose of skepticism and analysis of the baked-in assumptions is valuable in many fields, and pointing out how otherwise reasonable people can end up voting conservative based purely on a single unexamined assumption.

Edit: and I always appreciate a relevant SMBC link, especially one that properly recognizes the power of chemistry ;)