If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.
—Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish” (1943) in The Portable Atheist, p. 202
Hmmm. Sometimes that’s true, but not always. I’ve seen the anger go both ways in the debate over the existence of God. It seems to be due usually to impatience, intolerance, or a perceived threat.
I have to disagree on the anger thing: the smug, arrogant-ignorant stupidity of creationists (indeed of the religious wingnuts in general) irritates me. It may be a character flaw to be angered rather than amused, but it has nothing to do with my subjective confidence in my opinions, which are well-founded. It may, however, very well be connected to a sense of threat, because these people are a threat.
I’m also conflicted about this — but I found it challenging and interesting to consider.
That’s just a beautiful quote from an amazing man.
I’ve reprinted the whole thing (because I’m a tabulation width nazi) from the link supplied, on my blog.
I’m also conflicted about this — but I found it challenging and interesting to consider.
It’s right often enough to trigger our pattern-detectors, but I think the correlation is weak, with many counter-examples (not that I have systematic data, or anything). And one other thing I find irritating is how often the idiots (and even people who ought to know better) use it as an excuse to dismiss their opponents’ views, just because the opponent is using strong language. (How often have you heard that accusation made against eg. PZ Myers?). I call it the You’re A Big Meanie Fallacy.
I think some leeway can be given for frustration and exasperation. When one of my friends started to drift towards creationism and fundamentalism, I looked on with concern, sympathy and pity. I recognized the weaknesses in him and recognized them in myself, and wished there were someway I could help him deal with his problems. However, the fiftieth time he voiced the same fundamentalist opinion, I started getting angry. There are limits to everything.
You know, I was going to argue with this as well, and say that knowledge (knowing Iceland is not on the equator) and opinions (god is real, for instance) are two different things. But then I think I caught his drift. Creationists argue their opinion as fact, which seems to be the distinction he is trying to make. They WANT to believe the world is 6000 years old, based on stories in a book, not verifiable evidence. That’s why they get so incensed if you don’t accept their beliefs. They know they can’t “prove” it in any way except to point to their book (Bible) and say “because it says so!”
Russell may be right in case we’re talking about rational discussion in which both parties are willing to at least consider the arguments, but not when the “discussion” involves dogmatic fundamentalists of any kind.
If we take the obvious example of creationists, their moronic opinions in themselves don’t make me angry, but their way of debating often does. It’s when they persist in being dishonest and willfully obtuse I get angry. And it doesn’t improve the situation when it’s obvious they don’t know what they are talking about and they prefer it that way.
I think this idea is sort of analogous to what is known as a “code smell” in software development circles (particularly when talking about software “design patterns”). For example, if the bit of program code that you’re writing has gotten very long, or you’re repeating bits of it a lot, that’s a “smell” – an indication that maybe you’re doing something wrong. Maybe you’re not, but it’s just something to keep an eye out for.
Likewise, getting angry when hearing a contrary opinion is a foul smell – it’s worth it to double-check your assumptions and make sure that your anger is valid and useful. Maybe the smell is coming from you, or maybe from your conversational adversary. It’s a good idea to track it down.
I get angry at other people’s opinions a lot. For example, when a colleague of mine says all social welfare systems in my country should be abolished because “people ought to be able to take care of themselves”, I get angry. (I have a mentally disabled sister who depends on welfare systems for her very survival.)
I have the right to get angry with anyone who demonstrates their own stupidity. I will not react tolerantly to stupidity, I oppose it and fight it where I can.
yeah, I think when the opposing opinion is harmless this is true, but when it can actually hurt people – like creationism’s attempts to damage education and religion’s damaging peoples’ minds, then getting angry is justified.
I only get annoyed when people try and base their views on what are basically incorrect facts or seem to miss the point completely. Examples being the debate in the UK a few years ago about joining the Euro when seemed to come down to whether it would be good that you didn’t have to change money when going abroad, if you’re against it you must be xenophobic and when can’t lose the queens head on the money. If you really want to see how views can be formed from incorrect information just take a look at The Daily Mail or The Daily Express. My favourite headline of a few years ago ‘Illegal Immigrants Push Down House Prices’ neatly getting two of their bug bears into a single story.
It’s a pretty quote, but I feel it’s wrong. Wanting to lay about me with a broadsword when trapped in debate with conspiracy theorists, star-scryers, woo-pedlars, and similar confidence tricksters or victims is intrinsic to the dead serious earnestness I bring to the debate.
@ the people who disagree with the quote
Fair warning: by making allowances for your own anger in arguments, you are making similar allowances for those who you argue with. Be careful you don’t fall into a double standard.
I agree with daniel that it is a challenging idea, but be careful how quickly you dismiss it.
I know I’m commenting on an old article, so I’m not sure anyone will see this but…
Re: If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do.
I’m a huge Bertrand Russell fan, but I disagree with this. Opinions can make you angry when they are irrational, but dominant opinions that have harmed you, and you are still not quite over it even though intellectually you may have discarded those opinions. This is a long-winded way of saying that I can be triggered by christian rhetoric, but not because I think my belief is wrong. It’s because I practically get post-traumatic stress from hearing it, because my christian upbringing was quite abusive.
well Russell. we all fall short of the cross that jesus died on for us…do you have children…would you give your only child up for something stupid your neighbor did to you??!! I doubt it…you are taking certain scriptures and whay you think they mean…and turning a spin on them..and making a point to the people with doubts…the bible says..god is a loving god..but is also a vengfull god…
Starting with “well Russell,” after my eyes stop rolling, pity seems to be more appropriate than anger.
Everyone takes certain scriptures and whatever they think they mean…what’s so special about your interpretation? I’ve probably just stepped in the troll, but I had to bite.
Oh and just so you know, you’re addressing your post to a dead guy. Lol.
And she addresses all her prayers to one too, problem?
I lol’d.