BigJim

Simple. Everyone has their own well. But we would probably try to get a monopoly on growing pot.

Perchance

Sullster,

I'm not quite sure why you think that I'm hanging on to "Enlightenment ideals." I can't tell what in my post suggested that. In fact, I thought I was being quite pessimistic about non-theism's chances of surviving even in such an isolated colony, and I thought one of the ideas of the Enlightenment was optimistic confidence that reason would triumph.

-Perchance.

Shadowy Man

I think this is an interesting question, and I think that Perchance was starting down an interesting road.

If you think of the ensemble of people in the world and you believe that there is some biological component to the willingness or susceptibility to believe in religion, then perhaps the atheists are just one end of the distribution.

If these people were to be isolated perhaps there would be no biological need for religion and thus none would develop.

If the entire ensemble, on the other hand, were to be isolated without religion, it might develop.

sullster

Point taken. I did jump on your idea of educating everyone to be atheist and did not acknowledge your pessmistic conclusions. I felt a need to highlight your pessimism with my criticism of the Enlightenment's rosy view that education will advance reason to the extent that such things as relgion will fade away.

Be it known that I love the optimism and the love of reason during the Enlightenment. They were dreamers.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: sullster ]</p>

sullster

Galiel, I would love to believe that the philosphes of the Enlightenment were correct. The light of reason will sweep away the dark forces of irrationality and religion. That science will clear human minds of superstitions and absurd beliefs. I indeed would love that, but it isn't going to happen.

You can argue all you want that education has been faulty, that science is not properly learned, that reason is not really revealed. All this still cannot answer why we have vast technologies which were created and run by science and reason and by people believing in imaginary beings and strange forces in the universe. We have people who design computers during the day and on Sunday pray to an imaginary guy who wears a white robe.

The human brain is incapable of discarding superstition and emotionally irrational belief systems, even after being exposed to critical thinking and systems of reason.

We have to learn to deal with the realities of the human brain and if it means discarding the optimism of the Enlightenment, then it must be. Sure, we must teach reason and science. We must hope that it counters a lot of the nonsense out there, but we will never illiminate irrationality. The sooner we realize this the better.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: sullster ]</p>

Perchance

Ah, all right. Actually, as I think I said (but might not have said quite as clearly) in my original post was that the idea of God actually would survive if the colony atheists remembered and educated their children against it. Remembering and fighting against something keeps the memory of that thing alive in a way that would never happen if it was just allowed to collapse into and breathe down the foul-smelling mists of history (odd image, I'll grant you ). Implicit atheism would seem the better solution, but while it might not have anything of the old religion in it, it might be susceptible to new "viruses," if you will. The education against God might be like a vaccination, but on the other hand it could lead to not-quite-dead viruses infecting people and also becoming new religions.

Completely OT: There seems to be a linkage between religion and disease imagery for me of late.

Yes, I know what you mean. In some ways I wish I could have lived during that time- or, even better, bring the mindset forward to join the technology and better standard of life that we have now.

-Perchance.

sullster

Perchance, Your correlation of religion with viruses is well represented in the new field of Memetics. You should read some of the books out about memes and their controversial eqivalence to genes.


Back to the Enlightenment. It is important to realise that the Enlightenment bore some very bitter fruit. The extolling of reason as a natural innate part of human consciousness was an error, as I have stated. Another bitter fruit of the Enlightenment was evidenced by the creation of ideological systems, Marxism being the most odious, which claimed a cosmic rationalism.

Do my criticisms mean I reject the Enlightenment? Heck, no. Reason is far better than irreason and superstition. Individuals and governments should run their affairs by reason, but it is not going to happen all the time. We are not rational creatures and our brains are full of primitive and basic instincts. We are animals.

I look at the Enlightenment and its ideals of reason as being like a room of calm people discussing their ideas in a calm and considerate way. The only way this pleasant room can survive,is if it is defended by hired killers armed to the teeth and if there is a security guard in the room to quell one of the talkers if need arises.

Reason is a precious thing, and there are millions of forces out there ready to crush it to dust and those forces reside within all of our brains.

Perchance

Is that anything like Mimetic theory? I did a short study of that last year in an English class, and it seemed almost exclusively focused on the ideas of foils and scapegoats. It suffered the same problems as any other literary theory, I think: it tried to explain everything in terms of itself.

Or are 'Memes' seperate from 'Mimesis?'

Why, though? If humans have the ability to reason, then isn't it an innate part? Or are you saying that humans must be taught to reason, and because of that it isn't innate?

There I'll agree- but I think that proponents of Marxism would be arguing with you about which was really the most odious .

Yes, but our brains also have the ability to reason. I'm not sure why so many people insist that irrationality has to be stronger than reason. If our brains possess both, how are you going to measure them against each other and insist that irrationality is stronger?

I personally think religion would be likely to recur, even in an isolated colony, out of the fear of death, the desire for control on the part of some people, and as an explanation for happenings they didn't understand, rather than because humans are inherently irrational. (And all those motivations are ones even atheists share; witness how some atheists still believe in some sort of afterlife).

I see reason's chances as better than that. After all, how did the people inside the room get there in the first place? They didn't just somehow evolve into intelligent, reasoning beings separate from the rest of the human race, any more than atheists evolve into a race separate from theists. I think that other people could join them, and the reason many don't is lack of education, intolerance of opinions different from their own, and religion's special status as something that must not be questioned- all delusions that can be corrected.

(Man, is it unusual for me to argue the optimistic side... )

But aren't there forces also poised to crush irrationality to dust?

I think that's one of the reasons why an isolated atheist colony couldn't remain atheist: no means of interchange with a more general culture, no new ways of looking at things, no way to counter a religion if it should rise by people from outside looking at it and laughing their heads off.

-Perchance.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Megatron

...and there's something wrong with that? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Perchance

Well, Zero Angel, someone might ask me what kind of disease it is, and "mental disease" has some nasty connotations to it...

Seriously, I don't think all theists are crazy- or rather, I would like to think so, but I've met too many sane ones who could still hold a reasonable conversation. Besides, wanting to think that way is probably just a way of wanting to puff myself up because I think there's something special about being an atheist.

-Perchance.