The things we don't question

[miriam_e]

It is obvious that...
It is simple commonsense that...
Clearly it is...

This is where we make our biggest mistakes. These are the points where we differ from other rational, intelligent people. So long as we refuse to justify our fundamental assumptions we will never find common ground. Even worse, you can question your own assumptions and back them up to the nth degree, but if I refuse to do so then we are hardly better off.

It is hard enough for atheists and agnostics, but it is almost impossible for those afflicted with religion. That mind-virus specifically forbids questioning anything that might threaten its hold on the mind it infects.

But even if your mind is relatively free, how do you question everything? We all have blind spots where the mistakes hide. How do you question something that is virtually invisible? And even if you can unravel your innermost assumptions, where is it safe to stop? At some point you need to start from an assumption, right? Or is that a baseless assumption?

*sigh*

Comments

[damien-wise.livejournal.com]

It is obvious that...
It is simple commonsense that...
Clearly it is...

These are a sample of phrases used by politicians and other people of dubious credulity to prefix the most outragous statements.
"Let's face it..." is inclusive and asking for blind acceptance.
"It's been said..." asks for acceptance based on the mob mentality (you do want to fit in, don't you?) or an appeal to an unseen authority.

In speech and writing, I prefer to see such statements as (nearly always) being redundant or padding at best.

That mind-virus specifically forbids questioning anything that might threaten its hold on the mind it infects.

Religion asks that the individual supplants logic with faith. Once that is done, anything is possible.
Faith is then the magical catch-all for when things don't make sense. Rationality gives way to circular arguments which were predicated on shaky assumptions. These assumptions need not be tested because they're handed to you as an article of faith and you're forced to blindly accept.
Pseudo-science lets you pick-and-choose -- don't like what someone else is saying? Well, it's obvious that they're a heathen, have no faith, are an unbeliever, are evil, etc. From there you can proceed to pity them, argue with them, try to "educate" them, attempt to convert them, throw rocks at them or declare war on them.

At some point you need to start from an assumption, right? Or is that a baseless assumption?

A few things are self-evident truths...axioms are more reliable than assumptions.

A lot of things, however, are taken as given. Even in science, some theories have been accepted for centuries. Then-again, it's never seen as a bad thing in science to test a theory. Indeed, it's often seen as a good thing to disprove a long-held theory or elevate it to a proof. This methodology is what makes it rigerous and distinct from a disease of the mind, IMHO.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Oh I just love politician-speak.
They massacre the language. One of my favorites is at this point in time meaning now. Another is in the fullness of time which really doesn't mean anything. They are the worst misusers of language of any group. Just watch them being interviewed on TV.

There was one slimeball in the Liberal Party... can't remember his name... he was almost singlehandedly responsible for a waterfront crisis a few years back. He is able to talk and talk, and at the end of his long spiel you realise, astonishingly, that he has said absolutely nothing at all. Amazing!