"I acknowledge that, while I do know TTATT and that the Bible in not without error, yet there's a part of me deep inside that holds onto the so-called spiritual." - CC
"How is it for you personally as you make the transition from the invisible to the visible? (however you would describe it)" - CC
Not a witness but; Have you tried to identify these two concepts?:
Cognitive Dissonance
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction.
Intellectual Dishonesty:
1. Arrogance or “I am the messenger of truth”. Look for arguments that send the following messages:
“What I am telling you ARE the facts and these facts have, and always will, withstand any test.”
“ Anybody that disagrees with ‘us’ is either stupid or is trying to undermine ‘our’ dedication and hard work.”
“ They have access to the same evidence, but they either ignore it or deliberately misinterpret it to suit their own agenda or hypothesis.”
2. Handwaving or “Your views have no merit”. Look for ‘arguments’ that dismiss other views out of hand. Often accompanied by Sign #1 with the opponent usually being dismissed – not specifically their argument.
3. Unwavering commitment or “I know I am right – why bother arguing?” Anybody who refuses to accept that they may not be 100% correct, or might be looking at the evidence through their own preferred colour of glasses is not being honest to themselves or to their readers/listeners.
4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.
5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”. These are the people who will never admit that they are wrong – ever – regardless of clear evidence that demonstrates their error. See Sign #1
6. Employing double standards or “Your evidence is unacceptable (because it’s your evidence)”. This is a question of how high the bar is set for the acceptance of evidence – the bar is set at a much higher level for the other party, while it is set far lower for his/her own evidence.
7. Argumentum ad hominem or “You’re a [insert label/stereotype here] . . . and you have a secret agenda” This is a favoured approach used by those who might be arguing from a weak position. It is typically employed to avoid answering a difficult question (Sign #4) or used in conjunction with handwaving (Sign #2).
8. Destroying a straw man or “You might say that, but how do you explain . . . ?”. Usually a case of shifting the subject and attacking the opponent’s position on that, unrelated or remotely related, topic. This is usually employed in an effort to avoid a question (Sign #4) or when the speaker/writer doesn’t have the knowledge to address the issue.
9. Ignoring the principles of critical thinking. Relying on one source of information – usually without question. Anybody who only considers information from a single book, article, paper, video – or any number of these from sources that are known to support that person’s views or opinions is being intellectually dishonest. Sign #1 usually applies in this case.
10. Ignoring [partial] defeat or See Sign #1 An intellectually dishonest speaker/writer will NEVER admit that the other side has found a hole in their argument. You will never see them congratulate an opponent on finding a flaw in their argument and they will use all of the other signs if necessary to draw your attention away from the subject.
Try doing some research without strong personal convictions that are based not upon personal examination of the evidence, but rather on the second-order evidence of the existence of a consensus. Keep questioning and challenge your assumptions. Avoid cherry picking evidence in presenting your arguments; i.e. failure to present evidence both for and against your arguments.
Try, keep us posted.
Good luck,
Ismael
