The following is from Raymond Smullyan's nifty book "This Book Needs No Title." For some reason I thought it was on topic for this forum.
*********Begin Quote**********
CLOSED SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT
One of the human phenomena I find most disturbing is that of a person whose system of thought is such that there is no possibility of his ever finding out that he is wrong—even if he is. Any rational objection to his system can be explained away by a rationalization within the system, whose validity can be known only when one accepts the very premises of the system which are in question. Consider some obvious examples:
1. A Calvinist who, when questions as to the fundamental tenets of Calvinism, will exclaim: “Of course you cannot see that I am right. Your trouble is that you haven’t been saved.”
2. A Dogmatic Theist who, when questioned as to God’s existence, will day: “Of course you cannot believe in God! You are too PROUD to admit the existence of a being greater than yourself.”
3. A believer in the existence of the Devil who will say: “Of course you don’t believe in the Devil. The first thing the Devil cleverly does is to convince people he doesn’t exist.”
4. An Atheist who will say: “No rational argument I can give you will convince you there is no God. You have a childish, superstitious need to believe in one.”
5. A Marxist who will say: “Of course you cannot accept the Economic interpretation of History nor realize that the Class Struggle is THE central issue. Your upbringing has been too bourgeois.”
6. “A Freudian who will say: “Of course you cannot see that I am right. All the reasons you have given against psychoanalytic theory are purely defensive rationalizations against realizing that which to you is most threatening.”
7. A Feminine Liberationist who will say: “Of course you cannot realize that this is a man’s world and that men are dominating women, not only on the economic level, but equally on the personal and psychological level. Of course you cannot see this; you are a man! [Or, if she is speaking to a woman: “Of course you cannot see this; you have been dominated by male chauvinist ideology, which only proves my point!:]
I have perhaps given more than enough examples. The interesting thing is that in the majority of cases, each of the groups I have mentioned can easily see through the prejudices of the others. And surely I must be in a similar category without realizing it. I wonder what my prejudices could be?
My prejudices. I'm prejudiced against prejudice, if there is such a thing. I can't tolerate the know-it-all with a god-like sense of omniscience who smugly discriminates against anyone different from his/her world view.
When I recounted to my brother the Institute Director how I'd read the Book of Mormon in an attempt to "gain a testimony" but gotten nothing but a "stupor of thought," he replied that of course I'd gotten nothing because I wasn't sufficiently sincere and faithful.
When I pointed out Joseph Smith secretly practicing polygamy and lying about it to the extent of publicly trashing the reputations of those who'd refused his advances and gone public he said that it was necessary to continue God's purpose. He even brought up the old, "you'd lie if you were protecting Jews and the Nazi's asked if anyone else lived in the house" canard.
If you are willing to accept "God's unknown reasons" as an explanation then absolutely ANYTHING can be justified.
If I understand the arguments correctly, this would appear to be variation(s) on Kurt Godel's theorem of axiomatic closed systems. Godel died in like 1978 or something.
Godel's incompleteness theorem stated that for any axiomatic system sophisticated enough to support arithmetic either it was incomplete (i.e. there were propositions that could be stated within the system but could not be decided within the system) or inconsistent (one could derive contradictory results).
What I find interesting in Smullyan's examples (and many others that people adhere to) is the fact that the ability to resolve problems within the system (consistency) is often taken as proof of the truth of the system.
My brother keeps repeating how the fact that Mormonism is so consistent--it all fits together--is proof that it must be true. I pointed out that gazillions of other systems also are consistent. I also pointed out that in order to make it consistent he had to invoke supernatural intervention for unknown reasons. With that tool ANYTHING can be made consistent. However that didn't phase him.
It's really glaring to see the atheist included as an example since the example is the converse of all the other examples.
Seems to me you have to commit to a system of thought, at least momentarily. But engaging in a system of thought doesn't preclude being able to say "but I could be wrong." If you can't say that then maybe you're not wrapped up in simply a system of thought. Maybe you're in a primitive tribe. Or a cult.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2013 07:22PM by thingsithink.
I will admit that my atheism has a lot to with emotional and physical abuse that was justified by the perpetrators in the name of a religion. Also, that religion filled my young head with lies that I had to work my way out of despite being punished for doing so. Maybe I should go back to agnosticism. Who am I kidding? I would hate God's guts if there were one.