I’ve said in times past that faith isn’t the opposite of unquestioning faith, curiosity is.
-
I’ve said in times past that faith isn’t the opposite of unquestioning faith, curiosity is.
Just now I was thinking of my dad and how he’d ask questions, say in an argument about evolution. I’m going to avoid using the term “rhetorical question,” and instead point out the difference of a question based on a faith belief (which are questions rooted in doubt) vs a question rooted in curiosity.
When my dad asked a question during a debate/discussion, he meant it as an expression of doubt. Here is my refutation to your point, and I KNOW you don’t have an answer. (When in fact I usually did, so my answer was met with more arguing.) But I’d respond as if he were asking from curiosity.
This is an important distinction, both for how we respond to other’s questions, and in how we approach our own. Does the question open doors? Or close them?
🧵
-
Mx. Luna Corbdenreplied to Mx. Luna Corbden last edited by
It’s also interesting here that doubt and unquestioning faith are two sides of the same coin. Doubt is required for unquestioning faith. A steadfast belief in A requires a steadfast doubt in B-Z, or basically everything else.
Whereas curiosity leaves little room for doubt. Doubt is only there in a small degree as a stop-gap from believing every possibility, only as itself a question: Is this answer true?
🧵
-
Mx. Luna Corbdenreplied to Mx. Luna Corbden last edited by
Children in high-demand groups are conditioned for the act of asking a question to stop thought. A Pavlovian reaction to dissonance leads them back into their box.
A point causes dissonance. They notice the discrepancy, but the dissonance is immediately redirected towards doubt circuits rather than curiosity: How can this be? Instead of a question to reconcile the dissonance, out comes a question meant to be an answer, closing the door to further thought. Often it is a repeat of a question they’ve heard their leaders use as an answer. It’s not even their own thought.
🧵
-
Mx. Luna Corbdenreplied to Mx. Luna Corbden last edited by
Whereas when a scientist or scholar asks a question, it is in the direction of curiosity, seeking reconciliation between two points suspected to be true but in apparent contradiction. The scholar suspects there may be an answer to allow both to be true, and begins to investigate, or to openly liste to whatever answer. The dissonance is resolved by, “Let’s find out, and if we can’t, we’ll be ok with mystery.
🧵
-
Ashwin Dixitreplied to Mx. Luna Corbden last edited by
Very interesting. Could you please elucidate with an example?
The aim of a good debate is to find out what is right, not who is right. There may be friction, though the aim should be to produce light rather than heat.
-
Mx. Luna Corbdenreplied to Ashwin Dixit last edited by
@ashwin Here’s an example:
“Eyes are very complex and require many concurrent processes to evolve all at once. If the theory of evolution is true, then how did eyes evolve slowly over time through random mutation?”
This is one of many thought-stopping questions in a creationist’s artillery. Scientists also asked this question, and instead of that being the end of the story, they went looking. And found creatures that don’t have eyes but photosensitive cells that help them survive long enough to later have evolved the next layer, then the next, each offering a slight advantage, until we got eyes.
But no matter how many times you give this answer to a creationist, they refuse to listen, because the question comes from a faith-based doubt (“evolution is impossible”), not curiosity.
-
Ashwin Dixitreplied to Mx. Luna Corbden last edited by
That one's puzzling. Not sure if I buy the science completely yet.
A Drake's Equation style computational model of evolution:
How long does an organism take to reach reproductive maturity? How many offspring does it produce? How much of a survival advantage do a particular offspring's genes confer to it ( miniscule)? Or does a mutation render it sterile? How many more offspring does it produce with that gene expressed phenotypically? etc...
Evolution seems to happen a bit too fast.
-
Mx. Luna Corbdenreplied to Ashwin Dixit last edited by
@ashwin Curiosity might lead one to more reading. There are plenty of books and articles on the basics of eye evolution, and papers for further the details and methodologies. Natural selection is a solid theory which cannot be so easily disproven by this or that unanswered detail. But the eye question is fairly well answered. You have a choice to ask in doubt or curiosity.
-
Ashwin Dixitreplied to Mx. Luna Corbden last edited by
I am curious about so many things, and was hitting the library so hard, that the librarians had me banned from the library.
Ah well, there are more libraries on this island.
-
Mx. Luna Corbdenreplied to Ashwin Dixit last edited by
I do most of my research online anymore, though that’s becoming more difficult with enshitification. A big part of the learning journey is figuring out who to trust, developing personal standards for how to decide which sources or what types of information to trust, not based on confirmation bias (which my birth religion taught me) but on how well the sources have in the past matched known reality and third-party sources, etc. Because we can’t go out in the field and test *every* fact claim. But we can make sure a set of logic is internally and externally consistent. Generally sources that are themselves motivated by curiosity are more trustworthy than those motivated by needing to prove a particular stance. I’ve learned to pick up on clues.