Buffman

Brian63

Thank you for the response to my thoughts.

I do not see religion as a form of slavery, so the analogy doesn't quite work, I believe. People are not coerced into becoming religious (with exceptions, but I would not defend those instances).

Definition #2 from "The American Heritage Dictionary":

slave = "One who is submissive or subject to a specified person or influence."

OK! I guess I have the preliminary data to help amplify "slave." Have you ever heard the expression "willing slave?" Here are a few insights:

<a href="http://www.totse.com/en/politics/libertarianism/cslewis.html" target="_blank">http://www.totse.com/en/politics/libertarianism/cslewis.html</a>

<a href="http://titles.cambridge.org/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521467195" target="_blank">http://titles.cambridge.org/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521467195</a>

<a href="http://www.ivu.org/congress/euro97/ethical.html" target="_blank">http://www.ivu.org/congress/euro97/ethical.html</a>

(Extract)
As consumers we have enormous power, but we are not using it. We have become slaves of the consumer society and when I say slaves I mean willing slaves, since we accept willingly and without question these ideas which have been instilled in us. We consume anything offered to us.
(End extract)

<a href="http://home.vicnet.net.au/~earthshr/archi.html" target="_blank">http://home.vicnet.net.au/~earthshr/archi.html</a>

(Read paragraphs # 3 & 4)

All I am attempting to say is that the best slave is the one that is not aware of his/her slavery...especially those who are led to believe that they are vested with a divine "free will." If you can honestly say that people who believe in the supernatural miracles found within the religious texts are not willing "mental" slaves, and all too often physical ones who will "willingly" sacrifice their very lives for their supernatural beliefs, then why do you think that most organized religions are so desirous to get control over the human mind at its earliest stage of development? Do you sincerely believe that the constant exposure to scripture isn't mind conditioning? Or music with a religious theme? Or TV/movies/books that help to foster beliefs in the supernatural? Or praying rituals invoked as many as five times a day? Ritual procedures are all designed to promote the mental conditioning of the "willing slave." Do you think that the "over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc." don't seek newer, better, more effective methods of conditioning "willing, unsuspecting, slaves?" What do you think the Pledge of Allegiance is? Or a country's national flag/anthem? What is "Holy Water." The "blood" of Christ? The Hymnal book? The white collar or colorful robes of the Catholic hierarchy? Paraprenalia and rituals to help condition the masses into becoming "willing slaves" to a supernatural dogma. Christianity has had 2,000 years to fumble around trying to discover what does/doesn't work. Islam gathered its rituals from those organized religions that preceded it and added additional ones...even more mentally enslaving.

So when you say that people aren't coerced into believing, I will agree with you. They go "willingly" into religious bondage because they do not know that they have been programmed from infancy to do exactly that.

That's a slightly demeaning take on it, but even if literally true, that is not such a disagreeable thing. Again, I would suggest reading this thread, and particularly Bill's comments to understand why (James Still has some interesting points as well). They explain it much better than I can currently.

I have read them. However, I am talking to you, not them.--- Why is accepting our evolutionary heritage demeaning? Personally, understanding as much as I can about exactly who and what we are, and where we came from, is the key that could unlock a little knowledge about where we are going and why.

Agreed, definitely. But for some people, the secular reasons that could be offered would probably not sound as inspiring or motivating as the religious ones. For others of us, it would not matter.

(Were you around during the "Regal Guard" Nixon years?) Are the American secular ceremonies as inspiring or motivating as those of the British? Why not? Just look how many tourists go to simply watch them change the Guard. I read "Memorial & Remonstrance," or the collected thoughts of Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine, and am awed by the brilliance and wisdom of their secular reasoning. How did they accomplish what they did? They were imperfect humans. They even believed in a supernatural God. So I suspect that if you are in awe of the supernatural reasoning, I can appreciate why you would tend to hold the above view.

Those are the more fundamentalist theists. Not all theists are like that, as evidenced by wildernesse herself- a theistic conservationist.

Please understand. I do recognize the differences among the various levels of religious dogma zealotry. I spend a good deal of time researching the views found on the Religious Tolerance net pages. I have found some of the most accurate and even handed information there. However, I hold no favor for any religious believer that fails to speak out concerning the current violations of church-state separation. (That is the forum in which I take a keen interest.)

Huh? I would never suggest that religious belief has "sole ownership" of positive philosophies of mankind. I'm merely arguing that it has contributed "some," in contrast to the arguments that religion provides NO social merit.

No problem here. I agree. (I suspect that those who would argue that religion provides no social merit have a long way to go and a good deal to learn about themselves and humanity as evolutionary organisms.)

Given that I am not omniscient, I cannot state with certainty that the supernatural realm does not exist, so of course it's a possibility from my perspective. The absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. I'm extremely curious to hear how you have ruled out the possibility of a supernatural realm.

Have you ever considered the "The evidence of absence does equate to the absence of evidence?" --- That is the basic philosophy I have used to rule out the existence of a supernatural world. I am not the one claiming that the supernatural exists. I am the one requesting to review the verifiable evidence for its existence from those claiming that it does. None has been offered that has verified a supernatural world. There is a natural world with more than enough exciting, and often extremely difficult, challenges to keep me occupied for what remains of my biological time here. Why waste any of that precious time on faith beliefs of others who have no proof/evidence that what they claim is, indeed, fact? It's really that simple. I am not, in the slightest, concerned about salvation or eternal life. I received salvation when I was 16 and realized that the Sky Santa was a superstitious myth. That was more than 50 years ago. I received eternal life (maybe) when I passed my set of genes on to my sons and they passed them on to their children. Now I seek no more than to service my fellow earth travelers with the most accurate knowledge I can find. IMHO, obtaining accurate knowledge is the most liberating and satisfying aspect of being a human.

Starspun

delude-v. To deceive the mind or judgement of.

Yourself, or someone like you. (isn't that a song?)

Themselves, or someone like them.

Why would I? I have never claimed you were intentionally tricked.

That's one way to do it. How about a person that has a belief that doesn't jive with reality, but, actually believes it to be true? Is that not a delusion?

My saying so is not proof, but, reality is all the proof we should need.
How are humans able to define reality? With our senses. With my senses, I am unable to relate to a god, because one is not there. My only perception of a god is what I have been conditioned to perceive and that conditioning depends on which god my caretaker's happened to believe in. It all goes back to the shamans of our ancestors.

Tell me what basis you would have for that claim. Tell me what my false belief is.

evil atheist conspiracy=religion's way of controlling you. Wanna know how?

Perhaps if you spent your time living now, in this moment you would be able to verify reality with your senses, circumventing the delus....er...psychological conditioning. Don't think about what could be or what might happen and focus on now. Set your feet upon a solid foundation of clarity based upon your observation's. Use this foundation as your platform for a fulfilling life. The platform of the pulpit is not reality.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

Brian63

Buffman, thanks for the insightful reply. I agree with some of what you say, and disagree with other parts, but I would prefer to delay any kind of in-depth response on my part until I can sort out some of my own thoughts on the subject. I am pretty sure I will end up in the same position that I currently am, but hopefully I will be more successful at articulating it. I do remain open to the possibility of changing my view though; I just see it as unlikely on this issue.

There is just one point I would like to specifically address here, at the risk of taking this thread on another detour.



I confess to being no expert on the philosophy of science, even describing myself as a "layman" may be a bit too generous. Anyhow, I only subscribe to the maxim "absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence" in cases where it is possible for us to obtain evidence in the first place. I think as humans we simply do not have the tools we would need to make a strong statement on the existence/non-existence of a supernatural realm. Our experiences our limited to this natural realm (a disputable statement, of course). So in principle we are not able to obtain positive evidence for a supernatural realm, even if it does exist.



Me neither. I am just saying I (we) cannot rule out the possibility, because I (we) do not have the ability to do so.



Well, I consider myself a truth-seeker, and if Christian theism is true, I would like to know it. If it is not true, I would like to know it. Either way, I am concerned with it, both for its relevance to the human condition and because I find it interesting.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Well said.

Brian

nyx

Wilderness,

Are we in the right place here? I mean thread, that is.

Anyway. You see, the story of Jesus being raised from the dead is just as fictional to me as a locust with a human face.

While I understand that there are many great codes of living represented in the writings of the NT, there are no more so than in many other philisophical writings available to us.(And these don't necessarily require a committment to a diety and life after death...)

Is it not true that "Christians" believe these writings to be the truth as devinely inspired by God? In that case, I really don't see how it's possible to pick and choose.

Nyx

ManM

Brian63,
Since I agree with you about 'fundamental' atheists, I propose we change the subject from problems with religion to problems with philosophy, religion being a subset of philosophy. That will catch both sides.

From what I can gather, it seems you are claiming the main problem with fundamentalism is that it is an unfalsifiable and circular system with no sanity checks. Still, how are such systems inherently bad? If the rules are good and the beliefs are harmless, where is the problem?

Finally, are emotional intensity and irrationality intrinsically bad? Emotional intensity and irrationality are also preconditions for hope. Or is it specifically the fundamental's sort of irrationality and emotion that are bad? What differentiates the fundy's enthusiasm from that of the hero?

Brian63

ManM, you've already fulfilled your quota of tough questions asked. Nevertheless, I'll give you some of my tentative thoughts on the topic.



Generally, I believe beliefs should be held for epistemic (rational/evidence-based) reasons, not on what are considered to be "beneficial" (comforting) reasons. If new evidence or information comes to light, beliefs should change to account for that new insight.

That is why fundamentalism is a problem. It renders the fundamentalist person's beliefs immune from change, and as Sauron's quote indicates, they can be stuck in a circularity that is compeletely out-of-touch with reality (think of creationists).

I don't know about *intrinsically* bad, but beliefs held for non-epistemic reasons would generally have negative *consequences* I believe. If society is composed of members whose enthusiasm drives them to reject disconfirming evidence of their beliefs, simply because it would require them to change their beliefs, then that would in general be unhealthy for us, and render us incapable of progress.

Anyway, what makes us call one enthusiastic person a "hero" and another a "crazy loon?" Hindsight, I'd say. We'd look at the *consequences* of their enthusiasm and make that determination, even though they should BOTH be condemned for holding non-epistemic beliefs.

For the sake of clarity, we can use an example. I just recently watched the movie "Ransom" with Mel Gibson (good movie!) in which he plays games with the kidnappers of his son, and tells them that he will not pay their ransom, but that it will instead be put forth as a bounty on their heads (sorry for spoiling it if you haven't seen it). That went against the advice of the experienced FBI agents and kidnapping experts. In the end though he gets his son back and we would probably praise him as a hero. If the movie ended differently and the son was killed as a result of the father's noncompliance, we would probably say that the father was being reckless and should have just payed the ransom.

It would be in hindsight after looking at the *consequences* of the actions that we would make the determination of whether the father was "heroic" or "stupid," not as a result of looking at the action itself.

Clear as mud?

Brian

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

wildernesse

nyx:

Are we in the right place here? I mean thread, that is.

Well, I started this thread to talk about my personal thoughts about Biblical literalism, so I don't see how we're off-topic! I'm pretty impressed that it got to 3 pages (thanks mostly to Brian63 and Buffman's conversation of course).

You see, the story of Jesus being raised from the dead is just as fictional to me as a locust with a human face.

Sure. I did think that Annunaki's (sp?) thread about this topic was very interesting. Why should we take Jesus as part of the literal Bible? I don't know a good answer to that--I believe that Jesus's life, death, resurrection are the point of the entire Bible. I believe that it happened. I find it hard to believe that people just made it up--especially when there would have been witnesses to contradict them. But, I will admit (and have admitted before) that I don't know much about early church history or history of the world at this time. I'm still learning. I would like to read more about people's views against my point of view--scholarly works. If you know of a good resource, I would like to hear it.

. . .no more so than in many other philisophical writings available to us.

I haven't found a philosophy that teaches me to live in a better manner than the guide (Christianity and the Bible) I have today. I'm satisfied that this is the best choice for me--you're welcome to disagree. I'm also not saying that other religions and philosophies do not have value for some people.

Is it not true that "Christians" believe these writings to be the truth as devinely inspired by God?

I believe that there is divinely inspired truth in the writings of the Bible. I just don't see the need for stories to be literal to have truth. I don't believe the Bible is a textbook for science or history. Some people do--I think they are mistaken. Also, I think that if we simply take the Bible literally and only in English and only within contemporay Western culture, then we are not fully understanding it in the first place. This tends to stifle continual learning and scholarship, as well.

BuffmanI'm not trying to imply that, as human beings, we are very different from the people in the Bible, but that our culture and values are different than the people in the Bible. As humans, we do have emotions and constant human dilemmas. This is what makes literature of any age speak to us. Our culture does change--and we need to explore how and if that affects the way the we perceive the Bible.

As always, these are just my ideas for today!

--tiba

ManM

Well Brian, let's just say my thirst for knowledge exceeds mere quotas. I'll stop when I drive myself stark raving mad.

Something that renders a person's beliefs immune from change is bad? What happens if those beliefs are correct? Then wouldn't it be good that they don't change? A closed system is only a problem if it is closed on something that is harmful. I would consider a closed belief system to be something that has the potential for good or bad, but not intrinsically one or the other. I am not sure a closed belief system is a good criteria for determining harm in philosophy. What pieces of a closed belief system move it into the dangerous or harmful category? And just think, once we get to the roots of the problem, we can start picking our brains for solutions. There went that quota!

Moving along, I have noticed that I disagree with you (and many others at this forum) on a deep epistemological level. Maybe I've just been polluted by those philosophy of science types... I do not think 'facts' provide evidence sufficient to significantly alter worldviews. The evidence only supports our worldview because we have interpreted the evidence through our worldview. Phenomenon which seems alien to our worldview need only an explanation to be integrated. A creationist provides apologetics just like his evolutionary counterpart. New evidence forces a change but does not prove the whole intellectual framework wrong. I'm sure you can now understand why I am suspicious when anyone claims their particular outlook is based solely on evidence or reason. I'm not convinced such an animal actually exists.

Certainly a worldview must be consistent with the world, but that is only a matter of creativity. The impact of evidence ends at this point. Beyond is the realm of value and benefit. I would go so far as to say that all belief is held for non-epistemic reasons.

And so I have to disagree with you when you say that belief for non-epistemic reasons generally has bad consequences. I think the consequences are dictated by the value underlining a belief, not the correctness of a belief.

Finally, your analysis of heroism does not take into account the 'good try'. I guess I'll use the 9/11 firefighters who died as an example. Why don't we consider them moronic and deride them? Even after we know the consequences (they died), we still honor their enthusiasm, irrationality, and emotional fervor. How can we label those traits as intrinsically bad?

Brian63

ManM,

I truly admire your ability to remain persistent in your convictions, despite the fact that they are obviously and hideously wrong.

Really though, I'm a bit worn out discussing this topic. I usually do not visit this computer lab I'm in as often as I have in the past couple days, but I have just so that I could try and keep up in this thread.

This thread has been interesting, and I will probably re-read it at several points in the future to pick up on some subtler points, but I do not wish to continue it further than this. We are getting at the "roots" of our belief systems, it seems, and if I were to continue this discussion I would risk having to change them (which I must avoid at all costs, of course).

Anyway, you may be interested in reading the following article, as I think it disputes at least a portion of your post:

<a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html" target="_blank">Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die</a>

The relevant portion in the article that I am thinking of is this:

The relevant portion of your post that I am referring to is this:

If anyone else would like to pick up on this conversation, you have my blessings.

Brian

Buffman

wildernesse

Please forgive me for not addressing your thoughts and concerns before Brian's. That is very rude and thoughtless of me.

Brian63

I hope you will understand that this is widernesse's string and be patient with me. I will attempt to respond to your thoughts once she has had her fill of my views.