AbbyNormal

Some interesting thoughts here. I didn't mean to imply that someone who hasn't reached the same conclusions as myself is "inferior"....I'm really just curious how these two sides, the 'logic' and the 'faith', are reconciled. I personally can not do that.
I do find interesting the notion that some may "compartmentalize" their brains. I suppose many otherwise rational thinkers may feel that there are things that are above critique....much like blasphemy laws that elevate religous ideas to protected status.
To quote Ab_Normal (whose name is far too similar to mine ) "whatever works for them". Religon does indeed work in mysterious ways.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

The Other Michael

Hi daria,

No slight intended, I was just tweaking you a bit.

I think you have to work to avoid being co-opted into their worldview - keep in mind that unless they can provide some proof of that stuff they are believing in, they're probably just fooling themselves (if they really think about it at all).

That "faith box" is a pretty empty box, absent evidence to the contrary.

cheers,
Michael

Living Dead Chipmunk

This right here is my point exactly.

If person B's intellegence is beyond reproach, well then, they must be religious because they're mentally ill! Only developmentally delayed smart people would come to a different conclusion than I have!

It makes *me* ill. It's almost enough to make me think my father somehow got access to this board. "Anyone who doesn't think like me is stupid and/or insane!" -- IIRC, that's a direct quote.

Once again: If given the same set of facts, two equally intellegent equally rational people can come to two completely different conclusions. If that were not possible, we'd only have one political party in the country, because all rational people with the given facts would agree on what's best for America.

Or are the politicians on the side you disagree with "ignorant" or "childlike"?

Triple Six

There is no comparism between politics and religion. There hasn't been a political solution found yet that will not favour one group at the expense of another one, and there never will be. Therefore there will always be people with quite legitimate but different personal views on politicians.

Religions on the other hand make claims that are demonstrably wrong. They are historically wrong, they make claims that violate scientific laws and theories, they are logically inconsistent.

Do I think there is something wrong with somebody who will happily apply scientific laws and theories in their job and everyday life but then ignore them when it comes to punching holes in their religion? You bet I do. It doesn't make them a bad person or a nutcase but it certainly isn't a plus point.

lpetrich

This phenomenon is sometimes described as (metaphorically) leaving one's brains at the church door.

I propose that what happens is a natural selection of cultishness -- those that push the most blind faith and credulity and the least critical thinking are the most successful, because they keep their members from changing their minds and departing.

Oxymoron

IMHO, Religion, or more accurately, religious faith, is a mental illness. Not a debilitating one, and one of a class of mental illnesses that are software (mind) constructs rather than hardware (brain) faults.

To summarise the human condition, we are conscious rational machines built upon crude, instinctive gene survival engines (the "older" parts of the brain and central nervous and endocrine system). Much of what we deem "irrational" is as a result of our higher functions trying to impose some sense on our more primitive functions (lust, hate, fear, etc). End result: people don't really understand their own motivations.

The world is a complex place and human individuals have little control over their destiny. Life - and death (our own or our family and friends, almost any children) in particular, are pretty scary and impossible to rationalise fully. In certain individuals, one or many traumas lead to a need to rationalise the world into a simple entity where there are a few simple rules and their role in the scheme is clear. The illness is thus a form of denial that blocks input information coming from the external world by abandoning the need to "synchronise" that information with our internal model of How The World Works According To Me.

Now, what's neat about this is that it is compartmentalised: we can happily localise the denial to certain classes of information, and your end product is a rational human being with religious belief.

I was discussing such things at the weekend with a friend. He's broadly rational but has some rather kooky beliefs lurking around - karma, for instance, though he didn't elaborate much. When I pushed him, he basically said "I just can't accept there isn't a reason why bad things happen in the world". I would venture "I just can't accept" is just said denial (clearly, bad things happen in the world; one's acceptance of there not being a 'reason' for them is neither here nor there).

To put this mental illness idea in perspective, we almost all certainly suffer from some variant of the condition. The difference between the believers and the rationalists is that the former don't realise or acknowledge the condition.

Heathen Dawn

May it have occurred to you that many theists are perfectly as capable of critical thinking as you are, but just happen to find naturalism/materialism too sterile for their tastes?

This condescending attitude towards those who believe in the supernatural is insufferable. I'm nearly a naturalist, but I believe in souls. Does that make me a childish idiot?

Ronin

This condescending attitude towards those who believe in the supernatural is insufferable. I'm nearly a naturalist, but I believe in souls. Does that make me a childish idiot?

Note to HD ~ you are on the 'Internet Infidel' webboard where people are, by definition, not believers in childish, supernatural hogwash.

Warning: You may actually run into those so tired of theistic nonsense that they might actually be condescending and/or outright offensive to theists.

<a href="http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/waltdisneyworld/parksandmore/attractions/attractionindex?id=MKStorytimeWithBelleAtFairytale GardenAtt" target="_blank">trapdoor</a>

Kassiana

Heathen Dawn:
May it have occurred to you that many theists are perfectly as capable of critical thinking as you are, but just happen to find naturalism/materialism too sterile for their tastes?

Kass:
Well, no, HD. You see, atheism is the One True Way to live your life, and if you don't choose it, you're just too stupid to live. Much like Christianity and every other One True Wayism out there.

HD:
This condescending attitude towards those who believe in the supernatural is insufferable. I'm nearly a naturalist, but I believe in souls. Does that make me a childish idiot?

Kass:
Well, of course! You don't accept atheism so you're stupid and wrong. And you're to blame for every bad thing every theist who has ever existed has done, too.

daria

I do not think that all theists are in any way inferior to all atheists... I like to give everyone a fair chance to prove his/her stupidity, and religion is not my ruler. However, with generalizations can come a general attitude, whether intended by the poster or not.

How is this issue of intillectual inferiority any different than theists who think that atheists are morally inferior? I hope that all people do the case by case thing, but I know that attitude exists as well.
Neither attitude (blanket statements and all) is a good one to live by and neither one is above reproach.

[edited because it's too early in the morning for me to be typing]

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: daria ]</p>