Curtis,
I agree with the general point that using words in discussions with
others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not
usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion. Often
this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning.
Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my
definition of "magical thinking" -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that
they read it), it has for others
And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when understood.
Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a
simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one who has
"an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question,
... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause,
there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors
in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often
relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation.
... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it
deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable
evidence and without regard for logical coherence or consistency. ...
but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The explanation is
twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for
seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. "
(Kurtz)
There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a
strong belief in via, their writings that:
1) correlation demonstrates causation
2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an
unknown and un-natural cause
3) personal experience is the highest knowledge and should be left
pure, unexamined and undiluted with issues such as multiple possible
interpretations of personal experience, scientific testing of relvant
paramters associated with the experience, examination of potential
perceptual and cognitive biases in recalling, describing the
experience, logical inconsistencies in experiential attributes,
actions, etc.
4) being immersed in biased cognition and logical traps are useful in
discerning what is Real and what is Unreal -- and an aid to Being Here
Now.
5) Paradox is in everything, thus logical consistency in any realm is
impossible
6) stangers' inner states and motives can be clearly discerned from
some select sample of their writing,
7) Scripture is literally true, regardless of logic, scientific
evidence, and alternative views of interpretation (e.g., allegorical
vs literal)
8) etc.
All of these are characteristics of "magical thinking" and magical
belief systems, IMO.
Perhaps, if some object to the name "magical thinking", we can call it
Type A thinking. And rational, logical, conistent, fact-based,
causal, bias-minimized inquiry, thinking, belief systems and findings
-- in domains where they are applicable -- as Type B thinking. But
regardless of names, people tend to cluser around these two poles --
with some variations of course.
I made the point earlier that cognitve biases and logical fallacies
are a cornorstone of magical thinking, or as I have termed it, Type A
thinking. This idea needs more development, but seems resonate with
John Schumaker, as quoted by Kurtz, " Humans tend to corrupt their
visions of reality, in order to survive in a world that they cannot
fully comprehend." That is Type A's may be quite happy with cognitve
biases and logical fallacies if it is more soothing and comfortable
than facing What IS, Now.
Kurtz goes on, "It is only in recent human history that the species
has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations.
Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the
world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern
science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful
cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical
inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in
terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but
natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, not
as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological terms.
Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes of
phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by the
regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science abandons
occult for material causes. "
All of these schrouds could be viewed broadly as cognitve biases and
errors. And they have been dismantled in part by strong logical and
reasoning.
Kurtz adds, "Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical
thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods of
inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were extended to
biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues to make
progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry."
And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences" -- the
realms of personal experience, where among other things, logic, the
rooting out of interpretative and cognitive errors and biases, can
lead to a much truer interpretation of subjective experience.
Kurtz touches on this, "It there still remained a residue of
unanswered questions, and it is here in the swamp of the unknowable
that the transcendental temptation festers. This beguiling temptation
reaches beyond the natural world by sheer force of habit and passion,
and it resists all efforts to contain it. Rather than suspend
judgments about those questions for which there is no evidence either
way, it leaps in to fill the void and comfort the aching soul. It is
the most frequent salve used to calm existential fear and trembling.
Why is this so? Because I think that the temptation has its roots in a
tendency, and this in a disposition. In other words, there is most
likely within the human species a genetic component, which is stronger
than temptation and weaker than instinct. The hypothesis that I wish
to offer is that the belief in the efficacy of prayer and the
submission to divine power persists because it has had some survival
value in the infancy of the race; powerful psycho-socio-biological
factors are thus at work, predisposing humans to submit to the temptation.
The cognitive explanation for its persistence is that there is
cognitive dissonance or misinformation that is the root cause for the
fixation on the transcendental and that this can be overcome by
rational inquiry. Socrates thought that faith persisted only because
of ignorance, and that knowledge would disabuse us of religious myths.
This surely continues to play a powerful role in regard to the content
of our beliefs. Yet I submit that there is another factor present,
which explains the persistence of religiosity, and this is an
evolutionary explanation; that is, belief in the transcendental had
adaptive value, and those tribes or clans which believed in unseen
myths and forces to whom they propitiated by ritual and prayer had a
tendency to survive and to pass on this genetic predisposition to
their offspring. Thus religiosity is a "heritable" factor within the
naked human ape. "
While Type A thinking may have genetic survival roots -- at some point
it will have outgrown its usefulness. I suggest we are past that
point. Type A thinking is the realm and domain of the True Believer.
Type B thinking is the realm and domain of the former True Believer --
one who has some out of the shrouds of dogma into a world of free
inquiry, rationality, logic, use of scientificfindings in building
belief systems, etc. More broadly, these aretermed conversion and
deconversion processes.
Kurtz recounts that, "Bruce Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, in an
important study, [10] have attempted to outline the processes of
conversion and deconversion in students that they studied in
universities in Canada. Edward Babinsky [11] has published
autobiographical accounts of why people abandoned their religiosity.
We need to study the processes of deconversion for possible genetic
explanations: Why do people who were religiously indoctrinated reject
their beliefs, how rapidly did they do so, and for what reasons or
causes? Conversely, what processes are involved in moving from a state
of unbelief to religious conviction? No doubt there are many causal
factors at work; we need to sort them out. Hunsberger and Altemeyer
have suggested in their study of students that the process of
deconversion was predominantly a slow, cognitive process; and that of
conversion a rather rapid emotional transformation."
Lots of opportunities and frontiers to develop a clean, Type B
subjective science(inner experience), which clarifies perception and
interpretation of experience, weeds out cognitive errors and
biases,applies logic where applicable, and is beyond myth,
supernatural explanations, mystical foundations, indoctrination,
fuzzy-loose meanderings and Type A thinking.
Kurtz adds (to end of post), "A number of important sociological
studies also need to be undertaken. We need to examine the
socio-cultural contexts in which religious ideas appear and disappear.
We have an excellent data pool today in Russia and Eastern Europe
where atheism was the official doctrine of the state. Here enormous
efforts were expended for 50 to 75 years to pursue political policies
of indoctrination and propaganda, designed to discourage religious
belief and encourage atheism. We may ask, What has happened in these
countries since the collapse of communism? Is the past
political-social influence of atheism enduring, leaving a permanent
residue, or is it dissipating?
"Similarly, many Western European countries have seen a rather rapid
decline in traditional religion in the post-World War II period,
especially under the influence of liberalism and humanism. For
example, in the Netherlands before the war approximately half of the
population identified with Roman Catholicism and half with
Protestantism, with a small percentage of Jews and other minorities.
This has changed since World War II where there is now a higher
percentage of humanists than either Protestants or Catholics. Similar
processes have been observed in Norway, England, France, and
elsewhere. Why has this happened? Are the polls reliable?"
Curiously, only six to eight percent of the American population may be
classified as unbelievers. [12] Can we give an account of why this is
so and why American society seems to be anomalous, at least in
comparison with Western Europe? Interestingly, some 60 percent of
American scientists, according to a recent poll, are classified as
unbelievers; and 93 percent of so-called élite scientists. Why does
this happen? Are there cognitive factors primarily at work? Or are
disbelievers anomalouslacking the genetic disposition. Or, on the
contrary, do they represent an advanced form of the evolution of the
species? [13]
A key factor in the growth of religion or atheism undoubtedly is a
function of the socio-cultural influences that prevail. Historically,
the orthodox religions have sought to punish heresy or blasphemy as
high crimes. Infidels have often been excommunicated or burned at the
stake. It is only in recent times that democratic societies have
recognized, let alone permitted or encouraged religious dissenters to
flourish. [14] One might ask, If the condition of tolerance, indeed
encouragement, were to prevail, to what extent would religious beliefs
wane or be altered? How can this be developed? What are the
environmental conditions by which atheism can be induced? What kind of
educational curricula would most likely stimulate unbelief?
A key issue that can be raised concerns the difference between the
content of the core beliefs and practices of a religion and the
function of the beliefs and practices. The content may change over
time, and there may be an erosion of traditional beliefs and their
modification due to cognitive criticisms; but alternative
creed-practices may emerge, satisfying similar
psycho-biological-sociological needs and functions. In this regard, I
reiterate, we are not dealing with the kind of religion that persists
or the status of its truth claimswhich may be irrelevant for many
believersbut with the power of religious symbols and institutions to
provide structure and order, and to give purpose in an otherwise
meaningless and perhaps terrifying universe.
If science confirms the hypothesis that there are deep
socio-biological forces responsible, at least in part, for religiosity
in the species, then we need to ask, What can we do about it, if
anything? Cognitivists will say that we still should constantly strive
to engage in criticism of outrageous doctrines. At the very least this
will help to restrain and temper religious fanaticism, protect the
rights of unbelievers, and perhaps develop an ethic of tolerance. If
religiosity will most likely be with us in one form or another in the
foreseeable future, can we develop secular and naturalistic
substitutes or moral equivalents for the passionate longing for
meaning? Can we serve up sufficient balm to soothe existential
weltschmerz? Can we develop new symbols to inspire meaning and hope?
Can we engender the courage to be and to become? In other words, can
naturalistic humanism offer a message as potent as theistic mythology?
These are the kinds of questions which, hopefully, the science of
religion will help us to solve. But they are predicated on our
understanding how and why people believe or disbelieve in a religion."
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KYij76M6zW0J:www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/kurtz.html+kurtz+magical+thinking&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I have enjoyed many of your posts.
>
> The term "magical thinking" seems to be a moving target for me in
> relationship with communicating with others. I know where I draw this
> line, but I think everyone has there own line to draw here. It seems
> more useful as a concept of self discovery, but in the context of
> communicating with people with different beliefs it seems harsh. This
> is coming from a guy who has used this term often and freely in the
> past! I don't think it works as well in a group like this where
> people are thoughtfully choosing this line for themselves. What do
> you think?
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
