Do you ever wonder how people are capable of defending two completely contradictory beliefs, ignoring evidence that is right under their noses, or side-stepping almost any serious challenge to their opinions?
Well, here’s one possible explanation: they may be in the grips of ideological thinking.
The ideologue does not think in order to uncover the truth; rather, he accepts a pre-packaged truth that will do his thinking for him. Ideologies are sets of ideas or beliefs that allow a person or group to achieve their personal or political ends, but are largely resistant to the challenge of counterveiling evidence or testimony. Ideologies are more responsive to the believer’s desires, hopes and aspirations than to rational arguments or real-world evidence.
Ideologues may use the language and discourse of truth and evidence, and may even be convinced of the righteousness and scientific rigour of their beliefs, but when under pressure, they take refuge in superficial slogans, obfuscations, or unassailable dogmas, or employ demonising tactics to discredit their adversaries as idiots, bigots, or enemies of science, rather than engage with their objections on their merits.
To think ideologically is to be uncritically committed to some opinion or worldview and to defend it to the hilt, even if this means discounting, ignoring, or falsifying evidence, or tripping yourself up in logical contradictions.
If you want to know whether a belief is held ideologically, consider whether the belief is actually revisable in the face of counterveiling evidence. For example, if my scepticism about the efficacy of mask-wearing in reducing viral transmission would remain firm, even in the face of multiple, well-designed randomised trials showing that masks played a decisive role in reducing infections, then I hold my belief about mask efficacy in an ideological rather than scientific or philosophical spirit.
The cynical, self-serving ideologue utilises the charms of disingenuous, ideological discourse to sway others to his cause, without necessarily believing in what he says; the more innocent and sincere ideologue is taken in by the charm of ideology as a belief system and way of life, because it make him feel better about himself, gives him a sense of belonging, makes him feel righteous; or makes him feel safe or secure.
For example, a slaveholder holds the unexamined belief that blacks are inferior to whites, making him feel better about his morally questionable lifestyle; the Nazi accepts the belief that Jews deserve to be cast out of society because that provides cover for his anti-Semitic behaviour. The Chinese Communist Party official convinces himself that anyone who questions the CCP is an “enemy of the people,” because he could not live with himself if he believed he was actually persecuting good people for the simple reason that they questioned unjust policies.
Ideological thinking is comforting, because it makes us less vulnerable to frontal challenges to our lifestyles, self-image, and fundamental choices. It is easier to put up a fortress of self-validating principles to protect our identity, choices, and way of life than to truly listen with an open mind and heart to those who wish to question some of our choices, priorities, or life projects.
The nemesis of the shallow ideologue is the courageous, independent thinker. The courageous, independent thinker allows himself to be challenged by reality, and by others. He does not cling to whatever belief happens to be popular, or believe every piece of propaganda he hears from this or that authority figure.
The courageous, independent thinker is willing to take real risks to unveil the truth, and scratch beneath appearances. He is willing to make significant revisions in his self-understanding and life commitments in response to new evidence, testimony, and experiences.
It was courageous, independent, non-ideological thinkers who refused cushy academic positions in the Nazi regime; who illegally concealed Jews from their persecutors; who joined the abolitionist cause when slavery was viewed as socially acceptable; and who were on the frontlines of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.
Today we need more courageous, independent thinkers to present the findings of science freed from ideological wishful thinking and backdoor political agendas.
We need more courageous, independent thinkers to critically assess ideas and arguments that are widely and uncritically accepted by their peers, such as the notion that public health always and everywhere trumps all other ends, that critics of vaccines are all “anti-science,” or that those who question certain aspects of Woke ideology are evil people “beyond redemption,” who do not deserve a voice in the public square.
Thanks for reading! Check out my other writings and videos at davidthunder.com. You can also subscribe to my Telegram, Youtube, and Rumble channels.
You will receive free content on a regular basis but you also have the option of taking out a paid subscription on a monthly or annual basis, to get full access to The Freedom Blog. A paid subscription
gives you access to the full archive of blog posts
gives you access to the full archive of Thunder Off Script podcasts
is a way of supporting the work I do to share ideas with my readers about the conditions that favour a free and open society.
I am so happy to have found you again!
Well done.