Can you reason with the ideological?

[Satya]

'

You mean you have tried persuasion and failed. I would categorize "propaganda" as manipulative persuasion. My Fi says you are seeking the path that leads down the slippery slope of hell if you are willing to go for manipulation rather than become more effective at persuasion.

I can't force someone to accept a definition so that I can persuade them. I would be much better off using their own intuition against them. If people are so willing to yield their reason to an easy answer, then why not use that to my advantage? If people wish to be used and feel good about being used, then why not use them? Religious institutions have been doing it for centuries, so why can't I use the same methods they use?

I believe it goes a little something like...if you question me, that just means you just don't believe in me hard enough and you should be ashamed of the doubt in your heart. I am the only answer to your salvation.

 

[acd]

Well, that's the point. If you want to try and change someone's perspective on a matter it is good to understand the emotional, psychological or other factors that might undergird their ideology. Sometimes other factors are powerful influencers and/or barriers...fear (of all kinds), anger, pride, loyalty/group identity. Addressing these other factors (how I don't know) might help the logic sink in.

I agree with this. It seems more important to address the motivation for certain beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves.

You can't reason with someone unless they are willing to be reasoned with... and they'd probably be more willing to reason with you if they had begun to question their feelings regarding an ideology.

Trying to point out fallacies when someone is too attached to their ideas will only reinforce their false perceptions..they'll work even harder to compensate for the sense you are making.
I would say it's more about understanding and addressing cognitive dissonance.

For most people, it seems the worst way to get them to see reality is to tell them that they are wrong.
People have to come to it themselves.

The Socratic method is probably most useful here...that is if you are actually interested in discourse with other people instead of complaining about them.

 

[just me]

I personally feel it somewhat of an impetus with humans to "exist and to be" far beyond mere reason. I also see it a vain attempt with obvious reason to try and discredit religion or faith with one's entire life. That can almost seem like an ideology in and of itself.

Faith is far more than ideology; it cannot be placed in a box labeled as "ideas" or "theories". Faith reaps results, and there have been countless records showing this. The reason of a nonbeliever most often will not allow that person to see some things that are obvious to others. I question in my mind if people are using reason to their best advantage of understanding.

To state religious institutions have used people's intuition AGAINST them for centuries is quite a claim. If a person is whiskey bent on not believing in religion, why does that person have such a difficult time just walking away from it and turning to his or her own way? Why do they feel the need to do the same they are accusing religion of: trying to make someone look bad or feel wrong because they do not believe as others do? Where is the difference?

People influence others; reason should allow one to accept this. I feel the best way to influence another is through leading by example. At least that way you are not trying to change someone or manipulate someone. If they like what they see, they have the choice of allowing influence.

 

[Satya]

To state religious institutions have used people's intuition AGAINST them for centuries is quite a claim. If a person is whiskey bent on not believing in religion, why does that person have such a difficult time just walking away from it and turning to his or her own way? Why do they feel the need to do the same they are accusing religion of: trying to make someone look bad or feel wrong because they do not believe as others do? Where is the difference?

It wouldn't be an issue if the religious institutions didn't try to sway politics and impose their will on me. Take same sex marriage for example. There is not a single non religious argument to be made against it.

 

[randomsomeone]

It wouldn't be an issue if the religious institutions didn't try to sway politics and impose their will on me.

Religious institutions have their reasons and some of these (the well-reasoned ones) may be their right. It would be just as appropriate to blame the social or political institutions that cannot seem to effectively seperate church from state on a basic human rights issue.

 

[Satya]

Religious institutions have their reasons and some of these (the well-reasoned ones) may be their right. It would be just as appropriate to blame the social or political institutions that cannot seem to effectively seperate church from state on a basic human rights issue.

A purely ideological dogma that is not founded on reason or evidence is not a valid justification to impose your will on other people.

 

[bickelz]

It is simply the bane of my day to day existence as a frustrated, pragmatic individual living in a world filled with people making important decisions based on intuitively accepted dogmas.

I don't feel like they're actually accepted intuitively though. Much of it is out of fear; they want to believe in something comforting. Many of them present themselves as inuitives but actually aren't. And some don't even speak logic.

Accepting something intuitively means that you have a hunch and there is good reason for it. It's more of deductive reasoning, drawing conclusions indirectly about something based on surrounding factors. Nevertheless, intuitive conclusions can usually be explained through some rationality, as long as we're not talking about psychology or some other insight into human behavior.

 

[randomsomeone]

A purely ideological dogma that is not founded on reason or evidence is not a valid justification to impose your will on other people.

Not sure how much imposition of will is going on within confines of the ideology if it is inherently constent with that ideology. Those who operate within that system simply understand it in that context. The problem is when this overflows to others who are not of that ideology.

 

[just me]

It wouldn't be an issue if the religious institutions didn't try to sway politics and impose their will on me. Take same sex marriage for example. There is not a single non religious argument to be made against it.

Religious institutions are quite diversified out there. Hard to place them all in a box together. People bringing up their children in a church are quite diversified, too. The church I am affiliated with will tell gays their interpretation of the Bible regarding marriage, but will still love gays as people and treat them as such. They love them but will not lie to them.

I know a guy says GD all the time and it makes me cringe. Needless to say he is not into religion. He moved because two guys moved across the street from his house that used to kiss on each other in the front yard in front of his children; sold his house and moved. He wants his children to grow up, get married, and have grandchildren. He and his wife couldn't stand the sight of it.

I know two different people that have gay children. They love their children. What they think about their choices may very well be another thing.

There are many people cannot stand the sight of two people of the same sex showing affection for each other they think only two of the opposite sexes should be showing. People don't want to argue about it; they just don't want to have to see it. A lot of folk just never will accept it. If you want to be different, don't accuse the rest of the world for not being like you. Don't blame religion for it all; it is unfair.


Politics usually goes by the many, not the few. "They" are not trying to impose "their" will on "you". They stand for what they believe in, and let their politicians know how they feel.


Be gay if you want, but please don't be against those that see things differently. Everyone is not going to ever tell you everything is alright with your choice. I don't hate you because you are gay; I hope you don't hate me because I am religious.

 

[acd]

I don't feel like they're actually accepted intuitively though. Much of it is out of fear; they want to believe in something comforting. Many of them present themselves as inuitives but actually aren't. And some don't even speak logic.

Accepting something intuitively means that you have a hunch and there is good reason for it. It's more of deductive reasoning, drawing conclusions indirectly about something based on surrounding factors. Nevertheless, intuitive conclusions can usually be explained through some rationality, as long as we're not talking about psychology or some other insight into human behavior.

Let's see if he responds to this bit of sense you are making...

 

[Flavus Aquila]

It wouldn't be an issue if the religious institutions didn't try to sway politics and impose their will on me. Take same sex marriage for example. There is not a single non religious argument to be made against it.

That's because marriage basically originates as a religious category, with its accompanying ceremonies.

 

[grapefruit]

In my experience, reasoning with an INFP is impossible as I seem to anger them very easily. When reasoning with an INFJ, try not to be too hostile unless you want the person to ignore you or get mad. Instead of focusing on the illogicality of the idea, focus on the ultimate outcome the INFJ desires, and how the idea can be modified to more effectively meet the INFJ's needs. It is possible that the INFJ has determined that you do not support the idea. No matter what, try and reason with the person. In addition to diminishing much welcomed self confidence, the INFJ may be upset if the idea failed, and he/she learned afterword of your unvoiced doubts concerning its success.

 

[Satya]

Be gay if you want, but please don't be against those that see things differently. Everyone is not going to ever tell you everything is alright with your choice. I don't hate you because you are gay; I hope you don't hate me because I am religious.

The fact that you assume with absolute certainty that I made some choice in my life to be gay is proof of exactly how unreasonable you are because of your dogma. How can you know whether or not I made a choice? The answer is you believe it because when you were a child you were indoctrinated into a religious belief that told you I made that choice and you are part of a generation that was never taught the basic critical thinking needed to question that belief. Now you just assume you can know whether I chose to be gay or not. You can't prove or disprove that I made a choice. You can't even define choice in a meaningful way. You simply think by saying "you made a choice" that you are entitled to talk down to me like an inferior human being and I have to just stand by and take it.

I don't hate you because you are religious, I pity you because you are ignorant.

 

[Satya]

That's because marriage basically originates as a religious category, with its accompanying ceremonies.

Marriage is based on paternal monogamy. It is a very evolutionary concept. A male mate bonds with a female mate and helps them raise the offspring in order to ensure the paternity of the offspring and the future survival of their genes. Many species of animals do it.

Marriage, the legal construct, is a contract that originated as a means of connecting one family to another so that the families could rely on one another for support and resources.

Marriage, the religious construct, has also varied considerably depending upon the religion. Some religions have embraced same sex marriages. After all, not everyone follows a Abrahamic religion.

Same sex marriage has existed for thousands of years. It is not a new concept. At least two different Roman emperors even married men.

This whole appeal to tradition thing is probably the weakest argument put forth because same sex marriage is part of the tradition of marriage.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

In general, you are to argue with someone from their own perspective.

What the question generalises to is: can you reason with one whose worldview is different to your own with respect to the topic of discussion? It is usually very difficult, as this implies simultaneously reasoning from two different sets of assumptions. I suggest adopting the assumptions of the other person, or rather a subset of them, and then showing that they together imply a contradiction, or at least crystallising some corollaries from the assumptions present which add insight into the situation.

Ideology in no way in itself contradicts strict reason, nor does it generally reject factual information, so if you find it hard to reason with someone Ideologically inclined, either the problem is due to their lack of reasoning ability, rather than the presence of Ideology, or it is because you yourself refuse to reason beyond your worldview.

 

[just me]

The fact that you assume with absolute certainty that I made some choice in my life to be gay is proof of exactly how unreasonable you are because of your dogma. How can you know whether or not I made a choice? The answer is you believe it because when you were a child you were indoctrinated into a religious belief that told you I made that choice and you are part of a generation that was never taught the basic critical thinking needed to question that belief. Now you just assume you can know whether I chose to be gay or not. You can't prove or disprove that I made a choice. You can't even define choice in a meaningful way. You simply think by saying "you made a choice" that you are entitled to talk down to me like an inferior human being and I have to just stand by and take it.

I don't hate you because you are religious, I pity you because you are ignorant.

All that big talk of critical thinking and choices gives me a headache. I'll have to study this awhile to try and understand what to say.

All I can think of is a song right now.
[video=youtube;sHQ_aTjXObs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQ_aTjXObs[/video]

 

[grapefruit]

It isn't just gays though. For instance, people who are blind, deaf, paralyzed, or who develop differently than the average person are considered disadvantaged, limited, or burdensome. Even laws meant to advocate for them say they are disabled. In many cases they are made fun of in school, denied the opportunity to learn alongside their peers despite demonstrating sufficient intelligence, and have trouble becoming employed despite being qualified for the job. Society automatically makes assumptions concerning their abilities and quality of life because they are slightly different from the majority. Overweight people are also degraded because society assumes they chose to be the way they are. I used these examples to demonstrate that society discriminates against a group simply because it is different, and that it does so through ignorance rather than cruelty.

 

[randomsomeone]

I pity you because you are ignorant.

This might not be a good way to reason with anybody.

 

[just me]

Reason, and critical thinking, can get clouded and become obscure when love is not in the picture. I like my religion.

quote"I used these examples to demonstrate that society discriminates against a group simply because it is different, and that it does so through ignorance rather than cruelty." unquote
Not necessarily always through ignorance. I have seen Christians treated poorly out of hate as much as misunderstanding.

 

[grapefruit]

It may not be, but it helps me reduce the frustration when trying to introduce an unfamiliar idea. To do this, I must make the same argument in as many different ways as possible, and repeat the process each time I encounter a new person. I have to remind myself that their ignorance regarding a certain subject may cause the idea to be difficult to grasp, and that I need to show some patience and understanding, and allow people to fully process the idea. As humans, we don't know everything, so we are all ignorant regarding something.