Mole
Permabanned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 20,282
In responding to you I don't mean to single you out, but out of a growing sense of inevitability for this notion in general, imagine any person online describing themselves differently that what you have just said. People would say they consider other views, but that they are not convincing, and so their personal conclusions are only reinforced by considering the views of others. Who would actually say, "I don't really consider the views of others, because I have personal bias and an ego investment in my conclusions. No one would say it, but it could be true to varying degrees for most people. I will challenge anyone reading this to consider that a person who actually, honestly, and thoroughly considers multiple perspectives is going to: 1. Be able to state a convincing argument for or against a given topic. They will not readily see the opposing position as absurd, but be able to articulate the merit of opposing views. 2. They will be slower to draw hard conclusions and be in a state of internal ongoing debate about most issues. They will tend to have less personal certitude, less conclusive in general on topics. 3. They would naturally convey respect in debate and point out ways their opponent's position is indeed credible. And if not credible, they would at least express an empathetic understanding of how someone might come to such a conclusion. How often does that happen online? It's rare. And no, I don't think you or people in general fully consider the views of others on all topics. It would be evident in debate and it is not. I will be interested to see what Mole says about it as well.
I am familiar with Catholic apologetics. A common ploy is to give two or more alternatives for consideration, but with only one viable alternative. This is meant to persuade us with the appearance of logic.
After all, the Church teaches the doctrine of Faith and Reason, and settles for the appearance of reason to bamboozle us.