Rational and Magical Thinking
Here is the difference between arguing with a rational atheist and arguing with a Leftist: suppose for the sake of argument that you penned a column describing the psychology of Leftism as involving a neurotic (if not deliberate) confusion between symbol and object, commonly known as “magical thinking.”
Magical thinking is thinking where the believers believes that manipulating a symbol manipulates reality. By this definition, anyone who hopes to remove race hatred from among men by changing the words used by one race to refer to another is engaging in magical thinking.
Let us further suppose that when you list three or four examples of magical thinking about the Left, one of the groups mentioned is a coven of wicca who claim to be casting spells on Donald Trump. Let us finally suppose you call them by their traditional name, witches.
Now, a rational atheist will argue with you, and say that since the supernatural does not and cannot exist, therefore there are no witches, so your column errs in referring to these people by that term.
This argument is fallacious (it depends on the fallacy of ambiguity) but it can be addressed. Once you point out that the column is explicitly agnostic on the question of whether the witch’s spells actually are real, the question of whether the people calling themselves witches are real can be addressed. And that is a simple question of fact that the rational atheist can discover for himself.
Whether witchcraft is real or not is a question not addressed by the column. The people who think it is real are real.
But a Leftist does not argue in this way. Rather, his argument is that you are a stupid lunatic for being afraid of witchcraft, and for thinking that everyone on the Left is a practicing satanist.
Now, if you notice, there are three things wrong with this argument: first, you neither said nor implied what the Leftist accuses you of saying or implying. So it is a strawman argument, therefore irrelevant. Second, it does not address the argument you gave, merely mocks you as a person. So it is ad hominem, therefore irrelevant. Third, it is not an argument at all. An insult is not an argument.
One cannot argue with this for the same reason one cannot argue with poop flung by a monkey. The monkey poop is not attempting to discuss a difference of opinion nor come to a conclusion about the true answer to any questions being discussed.
Why would a Leftist in an argument make statements he knows or should know have no relevance to the argument?
The answer is as given above: the words uttered are merely symbolic. It is a verbal form of magical thinking.
One might be tempted to say that Leftist utterances of this kind are merely preverbal expression of emotion like the barking of dogs or the growling of bears. The problem is that no strong emotion is evident. The things tend to be said in a dull and listless fashion, as if a weary and repetitious chore is being done.
We have seen many a man who recites his prayers in just such a dull fashion, as he goes through the rote motions that have lost for him their savor.
A Leftist in an argument makes statements he knows or should know have no relevance to the argument when those statement form a curse. It is ritual obloquy.
Perhaps this curse is literally meant to make the argument vanish in a puff of fairy dust while sparing the magician from the trouble and turmoil of understanding or refuting it.
Or perhaps it is merely metaphorical, so that the curse is nothing but an expression of the wish that the opposing argument will vanish without effort.
If the idea that someone would receive the reward for doing work he had not done is an idea that seems endlessly familiar while discussing Leftism, this is not a coincidence. The root of all magical thinking is this desire for results without effort.
Whether the witch means such curses literally or metaphorically is a question that is meaningful only to minds able to distinguish literal reality from metaphors.
It is not a question witches understand. For them, ritual is reality.
If one of them understood this difference, he could refute, or at least speak to, the objection. If the sole answer is more curses, this hints that understanding is absent.
The rational atheist may be curious and may be skeptical about the topic of symbol-objection neurosis, about magical thinking, about the presence or absence of people claiming to have witchy powers. He is a rational being and can hold a rational conversation.
The Leftist is not curious and not skeptical. To be skeptical requires a belief in objective truth and a belief that the method of skeptical inquiry is reliable as a means to reach toward that truth. These are no part of Leftist dogma.
He is not a rational being, or, which is much the same thing, he willfully decides not to act as one. One of the privileges of a rational being is that he can decide to act irrationally.
But there is a price for that decision. He cannot hold a rational conversation.
POSTSCRIPT:
For any rational atheists out there who entertains doubts about the presence of people claiming to have witchy powers, let me remind you of a news article from last year:
http://okgazette.com/2016/06/29/black-mass-and-the-consumption-of-mary-set-for-aug-15/
In a Satanic ritual planned for public view in August at Civic Center Music Hall, sulfur, menstrual blood and the ashes of blasphemed and burned Quran pages will be used to “corrupt” a plaster statue of the Virgin Mary.
The ceremony, known as The Consumption of Mary, is part of a ticketed black Mass hosted by Oklahoma City’s satanic Church of Ahriman Aug. 15 at Civic Center Music Hall, 201 N. Walker Ave. A black Mass is a dark parody, or inversion, of a traditional Roman Catholic Church religious service.
Church of Ahriman religious leader Dastur Adam Daniels has drawn local and national enmity for his organization’s public ceremonies and demonstrations. Archbishop Paul Coakley of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City issued a media statement calling the group’s 2014 black Mass “a satanic inversion and distortion of the most sacred beliefs not only of Catholics, but of all Christians.”
The article continues:
The federal government recognizes The Church of Ahriman as a legitimate religious organization, Daniels said. Therefore, while considered offensive by many Christians and others, its practices are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion.
“We’re not doing anything against the law,” Daniels said. “Against canon law, sure. But the United States’ law? No. We’re not doing anything wrong.”
Daniels said his church’s practices draw from the occult, Zoroastrianism and elements of Eastern theologies such as Tantrism and Hinduism. Daniels said some satanic magic and rituals traditionally call for animal sacrifices and eating human flesh, but his church finds alternatives. For example, his congregation uses human menstrual fluid instead of animal blood.
“I just want people to understand that there is no danger in coming to our show,” Daniels said. “It’s public, there are going to be police officers there, it is fully protected. Everyone is going to be safe, and it is an opportunity to learn.”
My comment: Opportunity to learn, eh? Oh, well, then, in that case, burn a Koran while you are at it.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
