Three stages

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.

Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in.  After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/

We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity.  Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism.  They become open to many possibilities.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Gordon]

Is it the 1st April today?

Thanks for the laugh anyway.

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.

Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in.  After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/

We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity.  Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism.  They become open to many possibilities.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Belief isn't a choice.  The idea that people 'choose' to become atheists at age 12 or whatever does not map to reality.

What happens is that some people find religious claims to be unconvincing.  Atheism is not a choice, nor a belief, just a state of being unconvinced by theism.

[Stranger]

Hi everyone,

I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.

Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in.  After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/

We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity.  Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism.  They become open to many possibilities.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Not this nonsense again. Grow up!

[SteveH]

Most religious believers also make their personal commitment during adolescence. It's when the basic outline of most people's beliefs (if they have any worth the name) becomes fixed, though it may be modified later.

[Enki]

I think most of us already know your thoughts on this, Sriram. You have repeated them enough times. Or, could it be that this  is just another pathetic attempt to advertise your blog meanderings? 

[ekim]

I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.

On the other hand, in some societies, theism could be seen as the result of childhood indoctrination which becomes progressively reinforced throughout adolescence and into 'maturity'.  The same could be said of political persuasion, consumerism and celebrity status.  Sceptical reactions may be early stages of freeing oneself from what could be seen as addictions.

[Sriram]

Ahem....Just thought I'll remind you guys that it is time you got out of your habitual skepticism....and opened your minds up. 

Skepticism is important at a certain stage in life....but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing you know.   

[torridon]

Ahem....Just thought I'll remind you guys that it is time you got out of your habitual skepticism....and opened your minds up. 

Skepticism is important at a certain stage in life....but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing you know.

On the contrary, critical thinking is a skill to continue to nurture.

[Stranger]

Ahem....Just thought I'll remind you guys that it is time you got out of your habitual skepticism...

Being sceptical is entirely rational.

...and opened your minds up. 

[Aruntraveller]

Skepticism is important at a certain stage in life.

Important at all stages of your life.

Otherwise I'd end up believing The Sun.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.

How and why would you propose that someone "grow out of" wrong arguments for woo of the type that populate your blog?

[Sriram]

On the contrary, critical thinking is a skill to continue to nurture.

Critical thinking is fine....but habitual skepticism can be narrow and dysfunctional. It can prevent broader understanding.

It is just that...a habit... that some people cultivate because their culture and environment encourage it.

[Stranger]

Critical thinking is fine....but habitual skepticism can be narrow and dysfunctional. It can prevent broader understanding.

Utter nonsense. Critical thinking and scepticism are the basis of rationality. The only reason you want to criticise them is because you clearly want to hold on to your own deeply irrational superstitions.

It is just that...a habit... that some people cultivate because their culture and environment encourage it.

Quite apart from anything else, it is the basis of science and engineering. Would you rather fly in a plane that was designed by somebody who was deeply sceptical about any proposed solutions and tried to find fault with them, or one designed by a starry-eyed optimist?

[ekim]

Quite apart from anything else, it is the basis of science and engineering. Would you rather fly in a plane that was designed by somebody who was deeply sceptical about any proposed solutions and tried to find fault with them, or one designed by a starry-eyed optimist?

There's probably a place for both.  A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world.  Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.

[Stranger]

There's probably a place for both.  A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world.  Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.

Kind of misses the point. Yes, we need people to come up with new ideas and to have a certain amount of optimism about them, but the only way we get to have confidence in those new ideas is after somebody has done their very best to find fault with them.

You neither make make progress in science nor have reliable technology without large helpings of scepticism.

It's the pioneers who don't try to find fault with their ideas (or, better yet, get somebody else to) before trusting their lives to them who tend to end up dead.

[Enki]

There's probably a place for both.  A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world.  Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.

I get your drift, Ekim, but scepticism and fearfulness are two entirely different things. I see no particular reason to link them together. Also, I'd suggest that it is just as possible that those who are 'starry eyed optimists' can also be set in their ways.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Critical thinking is fine....but habitual skepticism can be narrow and dysfunctional. It can prevent broader understanding.

If you abandon critical thinking how do you know that you've "understood" something rather than been taken in by mindless woo - the notion that NDEs tell us something about actual death for example?   

[ekim]

I get your drift, Ekim, but scepticism and fearfulness are two entirely different things. I see no particular reason to link them together. Also, I'd suggest that it is just as possible that those who are 'starry eyed optimists' can also be set in their ways.

Yes, they are different.  Scepticism could be seen as an intellectual tool used in the scientific method but I would suggest that there is an emotional driving force (desire) behind the use of that tool.  The optimist may be driven, for instance, by the desire for success in his pioneering project and risk his reputation or life in following that drive.  The pessimist may be driven by fear of failure and use his scepticim to support his desire to abandon his project or may be driven by an egotistical superiority complex to support his sceptical pessimism.  William Thomson, (Lord Kelvin) eminent physicist, whilst president of the Royal Society said - "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."  -"X-rays will prove to be a hoax" - "Radio has no future".  on Marconi's experiments. - "I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".-  writing to Niagara Falls Power Company. Both optimists and pessimists can be set in their ways.  I would suggest that it is the driving forces behind those set ways that need exploring.

[jeremyp]

There's probably a place for both.  A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world.  Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.

There's no reason to assume sceptics are set in their ways. Quite the reverse, in fact. Sceptics go where the evidence leads. People like Sriram spend their time examining unevidenced woo and there fore waste it on nonsense. Sriram can't see the real world beyond the rubbish he believes.

[Enki]

Yes, they are different.  Scepticism could be seen as an intellectual tool used in the scientific method but I would suggest that there is an emotional driving force (desire) behind the use of that tool.  The optimist may be driven, for instance, by the desire for success in his pioneering project and risk his reputation or life in following that drive.  The pessimist may be driven by fear of failure and use his scepticim to support his desire to abandon his project or may be driven by an egotistical superiority complex to support his sceptical pessimism.  William Thomson, (Lord Kelvin) eminent physicist, whilst president of the Royal Society said - "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."  -"X-rays will prove to be a hoax" - "Radio has no future".  on Marconi's experiments. - "I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".-  writing to Niagara Falls Power Company. Both optimists and pessimists can be set in their ways.  I would suggest that it is the driving forces behind those set ways that need exploring.

Scepticism, which is a result of sound reasoning and/or scientific evidence, doesn't have to be negative at all. I doubt whether Lavoisier was at all negative when he opposed the then current theory of phlogiston or John Snow when he disagreed with the miasma theory in relation to cholera. Anyone, whether they be sceptical or 'starry eyed optimist' may be driven by 'an egotistical superiority complex'. The bottom line is whether that scepticism is well founded. For the scientist that should mean  having as close as objective an attitude as possible and also show a willingness to change one's mind when the evidence demands it. Such was the abandonment of his allegiance to the steady state theory by Einstein after seeing the proposal of Lemaitre for an expanding universe. To be set in one's ways when reason and evidence suggests that you should think differently limits progress and has essentially a negative impact.

[Alan Burns]

Sriram,

If you abandon critical thinking how do you know that you've "understood" something rather than been taken in by mindless woo - the notion that NDEs tell us something about actual death for example?

But if you have no conscious control of your thoughts, how do you come to know anything?

[Sebastian Toe]

But if you have no conscious control of your thoughts, how do you come to know anything?

But Alan, surely you should know by now ...you don't need to know how your subconscious works, you just need to know that it does!
If that explanation is good enough for you then it must be good enough for everyone.
No?

[Sriram]

Critical thinking is good. It has helped in science and lots of areas. I agree with that.  I am however talking of HABITUAL skepticism.  If skepticism becomes a habit and a person can't help being skeptical and something he is very proud of ....it can be a liability....even in science.

Evidence, as we have seen many times, is not always readily available.  We have to accept certain things on a broad  surmise and then start looking for evidence. Many things such as Relativity for example was broadly accepted and then people started looking for the evidence.

But if we take to a habit of skepticism we can never progress beyond the obvious thing for which evidence is readily available. The not so obvious phenomenon will escape our eyes.  It is always lateral thinkers and open minded people (even among scientists) who come up with path breaking ideas.....never the habitual skeptics. 

[Outrider]

Hi everyone,

I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.

Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in.  After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/

We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity.  Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism.  They become open to many possibilities.

Just some thoughts.


I don't have an argument, I'm just going to write a long-form ad hominem saying that anyone who disagrees with me is childish.

Cheers.

Sriram

Fixed that for you.

O.