Knowlege nesessary for critique, but not for agreement?

When one states their disagreement with a certain religion/philosophy/ideology, those who defend it are quick to point out that an attacker's opinion is based on generalised, simplified concept that is not shared by all adherents of a given idea. They would point on obscure points of doctrine that are debated in the most thoughtful and sublime way by adherents of a given idea even now.

In no way this one thinks that it is wrong! Quite the contrary, it leads to most interesting discussions and greater understanding. And of course arguing against a simplified version of idea does not lead to truth. But there is one thing that this one can't help but notice - that more often than not, it is the opposition that is required to learn all the finer points before they are allowed to criticise, while no such learning is required for adherents to accept the idea in the first place.

For example, there are quite a lot of people who are religious simply because they grew up in a religious family. All they know about religion they know from a particular opinion of their parents and community, media and local church. They never ever heard about the finer points of doctrine, they did not read obscure documents, and only know the interpretation their Sunday school taught them, and that is what they base their lives at. But unless they do something to cause a great public outrage, a validity of their claims to belong to certain religion rarely questioned.

Yet when a non religious person states their negative opinion on religion based on exactly the same - personal experience, experience with family and community, media and lots of Popcultural Osmosis - they are immediately (and, again, rightly) called out on their mistakes. Yes, it might be technically wrong to form a negative opinion on religion based on that - but isn't it equally wrong to form a positive one in exactly the same way?

In most situations, an opposite is true - a dismissal does not require much reasoning and familiarity, it is acceptance that needs to be carefully considered. Yet when it comes to ideology, the standard appears to be different.

This one hopes that she does not comes out as some sort of ranting anti-religion fanatic, it certainly wasn't this one's intention. Also, if this one causes any offence, please accept my apologies in advance.

The topic is not focused only on religion, it's just easier to think of examples. The same can apply to any number of ideologies, from communism to feminism. Those who attack feminism based on their dislike for some rather obnoxious and vocal feminist, for example, are rightly called on being ignorant of writing of those feminists who do not share an obnoxious attitude - while quite a lot of feminists are ignorant of that too and happen to agree with the obnoxious one, yet for some reason it is still enough for accepting an idea. Yes, they might get criticised for representing the idea badly - but not for accepting it on such shallow ground to begin with.

I disagree with you on one, and only one point. I don't think it's right to be called out on such a thing. What I mean by that, is that generally when you're having these conversations, we're talking about..well...tropes, to put it simply. We're discussing the larger concepts. When an outsider/non-believer whatever is discussing religion, generally they're discussing the larger tropes that we see in our society about religion. Even if they're not accurate to what that individual actually believes. And this isn't rude, it's not unreasonable. In fact, it's the only way to really start.

Or in short, sometimes a strawman isn't always a strawman, even if it's not your position. Or doubly short, it's not about you.

Another thing about this is that it tends to be a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy, except where instead of simply discounting negative tropes, one is actively claiming universality for positive tropes but rejecting negative ones. It doesn't work that way. You have to take the good with the bad.

That said as well, I could see it also going for things such as feminism or communism or atheism, but there's a lot less claiming of positive universality so I think it's less problematic.

This is actually something I've wrestled with for quite a while. One major problem that I have is that I'll run across something clever and insightful that might attack something I don't like, agree with something I do like or even completely redefine my position on something, but then I'll quickly forget the substance and source of those arguments. It's incredibly frustrating. It's partially why I prefer passively reading arguments on these very fora rather than actually getting directly involved.

Children and the less knowledgeable have a keen ability for asking pointed and brilliant questions, often simplifying them to a logical edge in order to make up for their lack of knowledge.

Such questions are often very powerful and insightful; one would be a fool to cast them away.

edited 10th Mar '11 12:51:07 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Dear goodness, I see this everywhere! Primarily with religion as well, so I'm just going to use that example too.

Hell, I frequently ask my friends why they believe something, or why they do something in terms with their religion. We may go back and forth for some time, but after a while, their eyes will glaze over, their answers become shorter, they stop listening, and eventually, stop giving me answers to the questions I'm asking, not because they want to shut me up, but because they honestly don't know and can no longer account for their actions or beliefs past a certain point.

Of course, I do the same thing myself, and find this point to be a cause for reflection and meditation, so I don't have any kind of arbitrary belief that I can't account for. Most of my friends and other Christian/Catholic people? Not so much. They'll shrug it off and continue on with their day. It's strange to say the least.

I think I might chalk it up with accepting an idea is easier than rejecting it. Sure, you need reasons to do both, but for lots of people, accepting an idea seems to be a lot easier than disagreeing with it, which I suppose may be connected with not having to account for your beliefs in the affirmative on the usual basis. Otherwise, should you reject any idea, you're immediately asked why by someone else, and called to defend your idea should you not want to look like a moron by said interrogator.

could apply physics to it. Every person in a state of faith tends to remain in that state of faith unless an external force is applied to it.

It's part of why I'm an atheist, it's the easiest belief to hold.

"And that is an interesting thing, because in most other areas, an opposite is true - an acceptance requires justification while rejection requires none."

I reject global warming.

@Beholderess: I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Yes, forming opinions based off personal experience can be detrimental to one's growth as a person...but only if one ceases listening to personal experience. In essence, as long as one is open to new ideas/experiences and actively seeks them out with an open mind, personal experience is a good teacher.

The problem comes when people allow past experience to color current example. I think that's what both sides of the argument you bring forth are accusing the other of.

True. And of course both sides (as far as we have sides here) do it from time to time. I have been noticing myself behaving similarly occasionally.

Thing is, people seem to assign different "weight" on personal experience, and on particular points, depending of whether it speaks for or against their cause.

Say, someone is deeply disappointed with religion - and wants nothing to do with it - basing their perceptions on a very unfortunate experience with the local community. That someone is likely to be told that not all communities are like that, and that s/he should seek out decent ones before forming an opinion. Good point. But at the same time, those who hold a positive opinion about religion based on positive personal experience are not told to seek out assholes before forming an unbiased opinion.

In the same vein, the one who's dislike is grounded in dislike for a particular doctrine is pointed out that not all adherents agree with that particular doctrine, that different interpretations exist, and so reject an idea based on that is wrong. But if someone comes to like an idea based on liking a particular doctrine, they are usually not urged to seek out and consider different interpretations before accepting an idea.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well done, madam. /bows

For the sake of continuity, I'll stick with the religion example. Alice is a bit disappointed in religion X, which Bob is a proud supporter of. Bob tries to get Alice to come around, saying that whatever reasons she has for not liking religion X are, for whatever reason, not substantial enough to keep not liking religion X.

Alice is a part of religion X, which Bob finds out later, after Alice tells him. Bob is excited about the news, citing his excitement to religious overtones about getting new members, or excited as they now have something in common they share. However, Bob notices that Alice has some differing beliefs when it comes to certain issues of and about religion X. Bob does what he can to possibly correct some of these errors, but on the whole, doesn't do much to persuade Alice to find outside information concerning the issue.

It may be part in parcel to the whole "Haters gonna' hate" attitude towards a lot of creative material. Those that dislike it, no matter how passionately, aren't questioned why they dislike it. On the other hand, should they like it, they're welcomed with open arms and never asked about the issue.

Truth be told, I'm not sure how to describe it, since I've known about this for a long, long time, but never thought how to convey it in words.

That last part irritates me occasionally. It seems very difficult for some people to articulate why they like something, which makes any recommendations they give slightly frustrating to process.

"I don't know, I just do!"

Excuse me whilst I go grind my teeth over here for a while out of frustration, and hide from someone that honestly can't explain their actions.

It's not so much that kids ask brilliant questions as that they haven't learned to limit their curiosity. If your understanding of a subject is such that a child's questions seem pointed and brilliant, you've probably tricked yourself into thinking you understood it in the first place.

Yes and no.

Knowledge is not neccessary for agreeing or disagreeing. You're perfectly entitled to think "that makes sense" or "that doesn't look like it makes sense at all" on a first glance, y'know, gut feeling.

Critiquing or advancing a position is active. You need to make an argument one way or another, and that's when you need knowledge.

I'll have to disagree there.

It's not so much that they demonstrate a brilliance in how they ask a certain question, so much as the question in and of itself is a very good one, often being worked in such a way that it can cut deeply into the greatest of flaws.

What's more, because of the nature of the one doing the asking, the person asked must also answer straight up - if they have an answer at all, in which case their belief is flawed or they don't understand it themselves.

@TMA: Or in other words, they are asking the obvious question that you danced around because you wanted to keep your belief.

Which is exactly what Desertopa is saying.

In a way, though often times they can ask odd but insightful questions.

I don't know about brilliant, but sometimes a child's perspective can shed new light on something.