Confirmation bias, in-group bias, tribalism, & groupthink.

What's it called when people form their views on controversial issues, but only consider perspectives from their own in-group or "tribe" and so they don't get an accurate picture of alternative, rival views, including the views of experts who disagree with them? What are the themes of this type of problem?

ChatGPT said:

The phenomenon you're describing is often referred to as confirmation bias or in-group bias. This occurs when individuals only seek out or give weight to information that aligns with their existing beliefs, often disregarding or dismissing opposing viewpoints. When this happens within a group, it can also be called tribalism or groupthink.

Themes of This Problem:

1. Echo Chambers: Environments where people only hear opinions that reinforce their own, leading to a distorted understanding of issues.

2. Polarization: Increased division between groups, where individuals become more extreme in their views due to a lack of exposure to diverse perspectives.

3. Misinformation: The spread of false or misleading information, often amplified by in-group dynamics, as members may prioritize loyalty to the group over factual accuracy.

4. Intellectual Isolation: A refusal to engage with opposing ideas can lead to stagnation in critical thinking and a lack of nuanced understanding.

5. Trust in Authority: Preference for information from familiar sources or leaders within one's group, sometimes at the expense of expert opinions.

6. Emotional Reasoning: Decisions and beliefs influenced more by emotions and identity than by factual evidence, which can reinforce in-group cohesion but hinder constructive dialogue.

Addressing these themes often requires fostering open-mindedness, encouraging critical thinking, and promoting respectful dialogue across different viewpoints.

Comments on "Pro-Choice: The Wrong Side of History, Science, & Logic" by Tim Stratton, "Free Thinking Ministries"

Today I happened to see some FB post that led to a FB post claiming that abortion is a "great evil." That Harris-Walz support abortion rights--this "great evil"-- was given as a reason to not vote for them. 

When asked about this, the person who made these claims, a Tim Stratton, pointed me to this page:

Pro-Choice: The Wrong Side of History, Science, & Logic

The contents of this page were apparently thought to show that abortion is, in general, wrong and should be illegal.

Unfortunate, the arguments given do not show this. They are very poor arguments, and they show the signs of people engaging issues but (a) not engaging with people who disagree with them and, especially, (b) not engaging with the most informed, most knowledgeable people on these sorts of issues. 

Here I will briefly explain why these are bad arguments. Time is short and so I will often refer anyone reading this to other sources, which is fine since nothing on this page was new. I will cut and paste his text (in their original font) and keep my responses--given in text, in red bold--quick:

However, when those who do not even think God exists still come to see that abortion is murder, how can a Christian justify his or her vote to empower a politician who seeks to support those who murder babies? How does this not make one an accomplice to murder?

The rest of this article will be looking at the arguments Challies offered which do not rely on the Bible or any religious views. He began with my favorite methodology…

LOGIC

Challies references Scott Klusendorf’s booklet, “Pro-Life 101,” as he summarizes the pro-life argument in the following manner: “Elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being.” He supports this statement via deductive reasoning:

1- Intentionally killing an innocent human being is a moral wrong.
2- Elective abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
3- Therefore, elective abortion is a moral wrong.

The critical step in this argument is the second premise. As Challies noted, “if the pre-born child is an innocent human being (premise #2), then elective abortion is always a moral wrong.” So, the question is raised: Is the pre-born an innocent human being? This question is vital for all people — especially the church — to properly understand because…

“If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.” — Greg Koukl

Challies followed that by pointing out that we should “always bring the discussion back to this question: What is the pre-born?” While the Bible is clear on this topic, we do not even need to reference it to come to our conclusions since science comes to the same conclusions.

Comment:  

• yes, obviously, these embryos and fetuses are biologically human: they aren't canine of bovine. 
• while they are "human beings" in the sense of "biologically human organisms," they are not "human beings" in the sense of being biologically human organisms who are persons: they lack what makes us persons, which is our having minds. (Would you mind taking a nap .. and never waking up? Yes, because your mind would end; your existence as a person would end, even though a living biologically human organism might remain). This is a well-known distinction, which yields different arguments, each of which is unsound about early fetuses. 
• they are neither innocent nor not innocent: only agents or persons can be innocent: innocence requires the ability to do wrong and not do it: this term doesn't apply. 
• So this is a common argument that only has superficial appeal. 

SCIENCE

There is conclusive scientific evidence that all pre-born children share four common characteristics:

Complete. From the moment of fertilization the pre-born child is complete. All the information that needs to be there is there. It simply needs time to grow.

Unique. The scientific evidence of DNA proves that the pre-born child is unique and genetically distinct from his or her mother. The pre-born child is not a part of the mother (like an appendix), but a unique entity inside his or her mother.

Living. The laws of biology tell us that the pre-born child is alive because it is growing, developing, and undergoing metabolism and responding to stimuli.

Human. The scientific law of biogenesis states that living things reproduce after their own kind. So, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, goldfish beget goldfish and humans beget humans. Not parasites or blobs of cells, but humans—complete and unique living human beings.

Challies reiterates for the sake of clarification: “Science tells us unequivocally that the pre-born child is a complete and a unique living human being.”

Comment:  

• yes, obviously, these embryos and fetuses are mammalian organisms and the bodies of mammals start early. 
• obviously, they are biologically human organisms: that's not a "human being" in the morally relevant sense though, according to most people, which you can get them to realize by thinking about various end of life cases;
• as a matter of literal logic, nothing follows from this apart from very dubious and controversial premises.  

BACK TO LOGIC

So, science implies that the pre-born is a human person. 

Comment:  

• no, science doesn't address what is and isn't a person: this is naive scientism. 

In fact, even Hillary Clinton agrees and says, “The unborn PERSON does not have constitutional rights.” She goes on to imply that that’s just the way it is according to the constitution. Too bad too sad for pre-born human persons! At least Hitler and the KKK denied the personhood of Jews and blacks so they could sleep at night! 

Comment:  

• no, this involves avoiding thinking about how embryos and these people are different in very important ways. 

How can anyone justify the grotesque murder of an innocent little baby who they admit — and know — is a human person?

Comment:  

• they usually don't "admit" this. But this is a bad rhetorical question. 

They are fine with changing the laws when it comes to gun control, gay marriage, and bathroom policies, but why shrug your shoulders and say, “oh well, that’s just the law,” when it comes to the murder of baby humans?

Comment:  

• babies are young people; embryos and beginning fetuses are not people, so they aren't babies. 

Perhaps the liberals in the clutches of Planned Parenthood might respond (as Challies noted): “But the pre-born are different than the rest of us and so they don’t deserve the same protections that you or I do.” Greg Koukl responds:

Abortion-choice advocates typically cite one or more characteristics they believe make a human being a person. Each of these characteristics fall under one of four categories. You can remember these categories with the acronym SLED: Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. . . none of them [make] a relevant difference. None of them justifies killing the unborn.

This is clearly demonstrated through basic critical thinking on each of these four issues. Here is the SLED acronym offered by Klusendorf and Koukl:

Size. The pre-born are smaller than born humans, but size does not determine our humanity. Infants are smaller than toddlers, and toddlers smaller than teenagers, but all are human and all are deserving of the law’s protection.

Level of Development. The pre-born are less developed than born humans, but our level of development does not determine our humanity. Toddlers are less developed than adults, but both are human and both are deserving of protection under the law.

Environment. The pre-born are certainly in a different place than born humans, but where we are does not determine who we are. If we are human, we deserve the law’s protection no matter where we are.

Degree of Dependency. The pre-born are more dependent on their mothers than most born humans, but infants are just as dependent. Our dependency does not determine our humanity.

Comment:  

• this "SLED" mantra seems to be born of groupthink: it's the result of what happens when people develop views with no outside input, especially critical input. Put simply, nobody believes this and it assumes things that can't be assumed. No thoughtful abortion advocate accepts such a principle: nobody should think personhood is defeated or eliminated by SLED factors. 

Trot Out the Toddler

After examining the pre-born through the lens of the SLED test, it becomes clear that if one is going to continue to support abortion, then, to be consistent, they must also support a mother’s right to kill her toddler too! This follows because any justification one makes for abortion based on the four points above would also apply to a toddler. 

Comment:  

• no, this would only happen if someone has a pretty thoughtless defense of early abortions. That might be true of some random people, but it's not true of people who actually study these issues. 

If we are to consider ourselves as a nation of rational thinkers, then if one is going to say there is nothing wrong with terminating the pre-born, then, if logically consistent, they have no grounds to state that terminating toddlers is wrong or evil either.

Comment:  

• no. I suggest making a list of what toddlers are like, and a list of what embryos are like, and thinking about what characteristics are morally relevant and not. 

So, both logic and science clearly demonstrate that abortion is the murder of a pre-born human person. However, what if some are so blindly committed to a political party or a specific politician they affirm that logic and science demonstrate that the pre-born child is a human, but it is not a person? This is where History comes into play.

HISTORY

As I mentioned above, the Nazis and the KKK tried to justify their actions by denying the personhood of certain human beings. Consider all of these examples from history:

1858, Viriginia Supreme Court: “In the eyes of the law… the slave is not a person.”

1881, American Law Review: “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.”

1928, Supreme Court of Canada: “The meaning of ‘qualified persons’ does not include women.”

1936, German Supreme Court: “The Reichgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”

Comment:  

• that mistakes were made in previous thinking about who is a person and who is not a person gives no support to thinking that embryos are persons. (Question: does this strategy support thinking that some animals are persons?)

1997, Supreme Court of Canada: “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”

In regards to each one of these examples, Challies made a powerful point:

. . . science and common sense tells us that they are human. Only the law had the chilling audacity to strip these groups of personhood. If someone is a living human being, then they are a person.

 Comment:  

• This is thoughtless or uninformed or both. "If someone is a living human being, meaning a living human person, then they are a person." Yes, of course! "If someone is a living human being, meaning a living biologically human organism, then they are a person." No, not at all: it depends on what other characteristics that organism has: in particular, do they have a mind or any kind?

A separation between these two can only ever lead to evil.

Perhaps you are unconvinced that the pre-born human baby is a person, but are you convinced that the pre-born human baby is not a person? How do you know? Unless you are 100% certain that the pre-born human baby is not a person, then don’t you think it is better to be safe than sorry? Consider this comic strip which forcefully makes the point (click here).

Comment:  

• Question: does this strategy support thinking that some animals are persons?
• Also, this doesn't consider the risks of not allowing abortion. It's not considering all the relevant factors, in this bad rhetorical question. 

Abortion is an evil violation of human rights. I am glad that many non-Chrstians (including atheists) are coming to see this is the case based on science and reason. With that said, however, Christians not only have science and reason at our disposal, we also have the ultimate authority in the Word of God; therefore, we have additional warrant for recognizing (as Challies noted), “the pre-born children as our neighbors, made in the image of God, we must be at the forefront of defending their lives.” We must do this by speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15)!

Conclusion

Many times Christians will counter that they vote for Pro-Choice candidates because they are not “one-issue voters.” I respond by pointing out that some issues are big enough to reject a candidate completely. After all, suppose Hitler got every singe issue right — except for the Holocaust! I hope that would make you a “one-issue voter.” What if a white supremacist got it right on every single issue — except did not see blacks as “persons” and thought they should all either be enslaved or killed. I don’t know about you, but I do not care how awesome the rest of their policies were, I would NEVER vote for a white supremacist dirt bag!

Challies concluded by referencing Bonhoeffer: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

If silence in the face of evil is evil, what is voting for and empowering a politician who supports this holocaust of abortion that has been taking place since 1973? If you are a Christian, how are you going to look in the face of Jesus one day and justify those votes? I am not a Republican or a Democrat; I am an independent and freethinking voter. I am not endorsing any candidate, but stating as fact that a true Christian has no grounds to vote for a pro-choice candidate; it is better to not vote at all, than to vote for a politician who fights to keep the murder of babies legal.

Bottom Line: If you would not vote for Hitler, then you should not vote for a pro-choice candidate!

Don’t be on the wrong side of history; rather, be on the side of truth (John 18:37)!

Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5),

Comment:  

• this does not appear to be that. This is a document that appears to be born of just not understand these issues very well. That happens to members of groups like these. Not good!

This was, of course, quick, but it shows that at least this document doesn't make a good case that early abortions are a great evil. If anyone would like an details on any of this, please let me know. NN. 

Tim Stratton

Jacques Maritain

Jacques Maritain is someone who is often appealed to as someone who helped develop a, or the, concept of human rights. 

According to him, what makes humans or human beings have rights, when they do? Why do they have rights?

There doesn't appear to be a very accessible answer to that question. While he's mentioned here, but not in the section that focuses on potential answers to the questions above.

Perhaps there's a good source on this, but I'm not finding it. So, I turn to AI, with the caveat that it might be mistaken in some or even a lot of this. But it's worth noting that nothing here supports thinking that his view supports thinking that, say, embryos or beginning fetuses have rights: that all requires further interpretation of words like "human," "human being," "person," and so on. For example, the claim that "fundamental rights are inherent to all human beings simply by virtue of their being human" needs interpretation: it is just because of biologically human DNA or biology that we have rights? That seems really doubtful: random biologically human cells don't have "human rights." And there are many other places below that suggest "human" means something more like "person" or thinking, feeling being or similar. 

Anyway, here we go; if there are better sources, please let me know. (It occurred to me to check Wikipedia after I wrote this; I don't see much of value there either). 

According to Jacques Maritain, what is the basis of human rights? Why do human beings have rights? What makes them have rights?

ChatGPT said:

Jacques Maritain, a prominent 20th-century philosopher known for his work in Christian philosophy and his contributions to the development of human rights, bases his concept of human rights on natural law and the inherent dignity of the human person. Here’s a breakdown of his views on the basis of human rights and why human beings have rights:

Basis of Human Rights According to Maritain

1. Natural Law:

   • Maritain argues that human rights are grounded in natural law, which is a universal moral order that transcends cultural and historical differences. Natural law, according to Maritain, is inscribed in human nature and accessible through human reason. It dictates that certain fundamental rights are inherent to all human beings simply by virtue of their being human.

2. Human Dignity:

   • For Maritain, the foundation of human rights lies in the intrinsic dignity of the human person. Human beings possess a unique worth and dignity that come from their rational nature and their ability to seek truth and goodness. This dignity is rooted in their spiritual dimension, which he believes reflects their likeness to God.

3. Personalism:

   • Maritain is known for his "personalist" philosophy, which emphasizes the person as the fundamental unit of moral concern. He argues that because human beings are persons—not merely biological entities—they possess an inherent dignity and worth that demands respect. Human rights are a reflection of this personalist view and are meant to protect the person’s dignity and freedom.

Why Do Human Beings Have Rights?

1. Inherent Worth:

   • Human beings have rights because they possess inherent worth and dignity that must be respected and protected. Maritain believes that this worth is intrinsic to every person, regardless of their social status, nationality, or achievements.

2. Participation in the Common Good:

   • Maritain also sees rights as essential for the participation of individuals in the common good of society. He argues that rights are not just for individual benefit but are also oriented toward enabling each person to contribute to the flourishing of the community. Human rights ensure that individuals have the freedom and resources necessary to fulfill their roles within society and to live a truly human life.

3. Moral Order and Rational Nature:

   • Maritain believes that rights stem from a universal moral order (natural law) that is known through human reason. As rational beings capable of understanding this moral order, humans are endowed with rights that correspond to their nature and their moral duties.

What Makes Humans Have Rights?

1. Essential Qualities of the Human Person:

   • According to Maritain, what makes humans have rights is their nature as rational, free, and moral beings. Humans are capable of self-direction and moral responsibility, and their rights are grounded in these essential qualities. The possession of a rational soul and the capacity for moral reasoning are what confer rights upon human beings.

2. Relationship with God and the Spiritual Order:

   • Maritain’s philosophical views are heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs. He argues that humans have rights because they are created in the image of God and have a spiritual dimension that transcends material existence. This divine origin confers upon humans an inviolable dignity that is the basis for all human rights.

3. Universality and Objectivity of Rights:

   • Maritain posits that human rights are universal because they are grounded in the objective reality of human nature. They are not dependent on social, cultural, or legal conventions but are instead an expression of the universal moral law that applies to all humans, everywhere, at all times.

Conclusion

Jacques Maritain's concept of human rights is deeply rooted in a philosophical and theological understanding of human nature. He asserts that human rights arise from the natural law and the inherent dignity of the person, reflecting a moral order that is universal and objective. Human beings have rights because they are rational, free, and spiritual beings, possessing a unique dignity that demands respect and protection. Rights, in Maritain’s view, are both a recognition of this inherent dignity and a necessary condition for individuals to fulfill their potential and contribute to the common good.