Rationalizing: what is the nature of that problem?

[Boojatta]

Anyone could make an accusation that some message reveals that the author is rationalizing. How could such an accusation be definitively shown to be false?

An accusation of rationalizing seems to focus on motives. "You haven't seriously doubted your conclusion and all of your efforts are devoted to constructing justifications for it." Is that necessarily a problem? For example, Wiles is famous for proving Fermat's Last Theorem. If you were interviewing Wiles about FLT, would you ask him how much time he devoted to considering and trying to support the hypothesis that the theorem is actually false? Would it make sense to accuse him of wrongdoing on the grounds that he was supposed to devote more time and effort to trying to achieve a goal that, if his proof is sound, is actually an unachievable goal?

One problem with an accusation of rationalizing is that attention shifts from the original topic to the motives of the author. In principle, an accusation of rationalizing is nothing but an ad hominem attack. The real problem isn't rationalizing. The real problem is the quality of the justifications.

The deliberate use of justifications known to have low quality but designed to appear to have high quality is what we call "propaganda." The fact that it is very hard to find active discussion threads here with at least one participant who is openly advocating and persistently trying to support some mainstream religion suggests to me that mainstream religions rely upon the techniques of propaganda.

The part of an internet message board that is devoted to Religion and Theology would seem to be an appropriate place to seek support for a religion. Contrast it with the door-to-door approach of Jehovah's Witnesses. There's no need to dress up in a suit to participate on a message board. There's no danger of annoying people who aren't interested; if you aren't interested then you shouldn't be reading threads in a sub-forum that is devoted to Religion and Theology. However, there are also some big disadvantages for anyone who wants to use propaganda techniques:

1. There's a lot of time available to respond to a thread before it becomes archived. There's enough time to thoroughly study messages to evaluate the quality of justifications.

2. Here, the discussion occurs in written language and it remains accessible. In contrast, in-person discussions aren't automatically recorded and transcribed for later study. People can be persuaded without even being able to remember how they were persuaded.

Can you think of any other disadvantages of this medium for people who rely upon propaganda techniques?

[Boojatta]

1. Kick to encourage comments and questions.

[Boojatta]

2. Kick to encourage comments

[Boojatta]

3. Kick to try to evoke questions or comments.

[Boojatta]

4. Kick to encourage people to express sincere disagreement

[dimbear]

5. There is only one type of logic truly suited to a religious forum.

Argumentum ad baculum. And indeed, it is hard to carry out effectively over a series of tubes.

[Boojatta]

6. What's the Latin word for "carrot"?

Unless I'm mistaken, the fallacy that you mentioned gets its name partly from the Latin word meaning "stick." I wonder whether there's another relevant fallacy.

[dimbear]

7. Like so many foods, carrot doesn't show up in my Latin dictionary.

Cassell's.

The Romans had a simple diet. Hummingbird tongues mostly.

[Boojatta]

8. Do you mean a dictionary printed on paper?

Take a quick look here, and then you might be motivated to find some even better online resources.

Of course, it's possible that there's an idiomatic expression in Latin that's equivalent to "carrot and stick", but that doesn't actually use a word meaning "carrot." Perhaps a better approach is to begin by finding such an idiomatic expression.

[dimbear]

9. Yes, on paper. The place is thick with them.

It's aversion therapy. The pain of looking up the word makes it adhere in the mud of the mind. Especially the second time you look up the same word.

http://rogueclassicism.com/

(Random site I like.)

[Boojatta]

10. Kick

[tama]

11. Praytell

What is your rational justification for writing and posting this here? Especially in light of this somewhat illogical justification for the perceived ratio on this board of discussions about religions vs. discussions about atheism (new and olde and The Exactly Rational definition of rational atheism (which thusly shall not and cannot contain any irrational or transcendental numbers is the scientific description of):
"The fact that it is very hard to find active discussion threads here with at least one participant who is openly advocating and persistently trying to support some mainstream religion suggests to me that mainstream religions rely upon the techniques of propaganda."
bearing in mind that From Their Silence no argumentatio ex silencio should be concluded.

PS: and to be open and honest MySelf about my rational justification for participating in this thread, is just my most humble and benevolent helping hand for the OP having to kick his own thread numerable times now -1 with this word salad of zero rational content.

[Boojatta]

12. Can you think of any disadvantages that message boards have for

somebody whose goal is to convert people to a mainstream religion?