Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...
Posted by: Mike Dudley on 08 January 2010
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by droodzilla
quote:Protection of the most vulnerable being one of the prime concerns of such. Vested religious interest still has much more weight than the number of adherents would seem to suggest legitimate.
In a liberal democracy the state is reluctant to intervene directly in the private sphere, especially when it comes to how parents raise their children. There's also the issue of once you start targeting religious indoctrination, where do you stop (racist indoctrination? political indoctrination? etc). Before you know it society's gonna start to look pretty illiberal.
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:and do you believe such an attitude is the majority view?
in 1700, no
in 1800, no
in 1900, no
in 2000, getting there in some denominations of christianity.
Note, not every school warns kids that much of the physiscs they are teaching is an over-simplification and an approximation! we draw diagrams to illustrate the construction of an atom and sell it to the kids as if it were an absolute truth!! (for example). We tell them that electrons flow from +ve to -ve etc etc all as if it were absolute truths!!
cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by Florestan
I vowed to myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread or the other similar one that simply targets a group of people and puts their values down. So much for that I guess...
A common pattern I see here is that a small, but very vocal group of people here are so sure they are right about something. (They know this based on the belief that someone else must be wrong). This just isn't satisfying enough for them to just live their lives so they have to mock others to justify their existence. Do you really think you have proved your case by simply trying to disprove or insult the other guys values and choices?
For this thread in particular, I believe Mike Dudley and Mongo are the ones jumping to joy over the title of this thread. I would ask either one of you, "Do you currently have children or did you ever raise children, yourselves?"
If raising children with a certain moral standard is offensive to you that is fine but with this view in itself how could you have taught your own children about tolerance?
Assuming that you steered well clear of "religion" what did you teach (indoctrinate) them with (is teaching them to distrust religion a form of indoctrination?) Every attitude and word that comes out of your mouth teaches (indoctrinates) children in some way eventually (whether intentional or unintentional).
How would you go about teaching a child that stealing is wrong or cheating on a test is wrong etc. (Is it only wrong if you get caught?) Oh, I'm sorry, secularist don't believe in right or wrong because they are so politically correct and don't want to offend anyone (except a conservative Christian perhaps - that's a given. Eastern religions get the thumbs up though because only really cool, hip people are involved in these.)
No matter what side of the fence one is on in these types of debates and questions I do really respect those who at least stand up and actually believe in something and are guided by some sort of standard (moral or not). Tell us what it is though instead of jumping on the bandwagon of just dissing religion. Ultimately, what happens under their roof they have to take responsibility for it. At least your children will grow up and be able to say mom or dad believed in this or that and they were consistent or they had a change of heart over this issue because...
So why all the anger towards people of faith and religion? Let me guess, someone of faith let you down and now you have a reason to hate. We are all human and bound to fail. Most people who practice a faith cannot and will never meet the ideal; that's a given. A few do really take it seriously and are amazing people. But if everyone was serious enough to live it out what is wrong with the main tenents of Christianity? In general, this might include the values of the Ten Commandments and such New Testament ideas as helping your fellow man in need by giving the shirt off your back and looking out for the poor and needy and turning the other cheek etc. (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.) This sounds too sensible to allow our children to hear such things. Why is this evil? Maybe you are criticizing something that you know nothing about (except what R. Dawkins tells you?)
Most charity work and organizations involved in this type of outreach and work have a religious background (and they became this way through the "evils" of indoctrination.) Perhaps you should stop reading very slanted, one sided articles as well as authors who have an agenda with the latest secularist fad (and become very wealthy along the way) and get involved in at least trying to do some good and help others too. If you would work with and be as committed as some of the people you criticize you might understand how non-sensical some of these criticisms are.
There, I said it...
{rant over}
Regards,
Doug
A common pattern I see here is that a small, but very vocal group of people here are so sure they are right about something. (They know this based on the belief that someone else must be wrong). This just isn't satisfying enough for them to just live their lives so they have to mock others to justify their existence. Do you really think you have proved your case by simply trying to disprove or insult the other guys values and choices?
For this thread in particular, I believe Mike Dudley and Mongo are the ones jumping to joy over the title of this thread. I would ask either one of you, "Do you currently have children or did you ever raise children, yourselves?"
If raising children with a certain moral standard is offensive to you that is fine but with this view in itself how could you have taught your own children about tolerance?
Assuming that you steered well clear of "religion" what did you teach (indoctrinate) them with (is teaching them to distrust religion a form of indoctrination?) Every attitude and word that comes out of your mouth teaches (indoctrinates) children in some way eventually (whether intentional or unintentional).
How would you go about teaching a child that stealing is wrong or cheating on a test is wrong etc. (Is it only wrong if you get caught?) Oh, I'm sorry, secularist don't believe in right or wrong because they are so politically correct and don't want to offend anyone (except a conservative Christian perhaps - that's a given. Eastern religions get the thumbs up though because only really cool, hip people are involved in these.)
No matter what side of the fence one is on in these types of debates and questions I do really respect those who at least stand up and actually believe in something and are guided by some sort of standard (moral or not). Tell us what it is though instead of jumping on the bandwagon of just dissing religion. Ultimately, what happens under their roof they have to take responsibility for it. At least your children will grow up and be able to say mom or dad believed in this or that and they were consistent or they had a change of heart over this issue because...
So why all the anger towards people of faith and religion? Let me guess, someone of faith let you down and now you have a reason to hate. We are all human and bound to fail. Most people who practice a faith cannot and will never meet the ideal; that's a given. A few do really take it seriously and are amazing people. But if everyone was serious enough to live it out what is wrong with the main tenents of Christianity? In general, this might include the values of the Ten Commandments and such New Testament ideas as helping your fellow man in need by giving the shirt off your back and looking out for the poor and needy and turning the other cheek etc. (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.) This sounds too sensible to allow our children to hear such things. Why is this evil? Maybe you are criticizing something that you know nothing about (except what R. Dawkins tells you?)
Most charity work and organizations involved in this type of outreach and work have a religious background (and they became this way through the "evils" of indoctrination.) Perhaps you should stop reading very slanted, one sided articles as well as authors who have an agenda with the latest secularist fad (and become very wealthy along the way) and get involved in at least trying to do some good and help others too. If you would work with and be as committed as some of the people you criticize you might understand how non-sensical some of these criticisms are.
There, I said it...
{rant over}
Regards,
Doug
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by mikeeschman
Florestan is my hero :-)
I'll say it again, religion lives on by the random acts of charity performed by believers.
It makes an impression on saps like me ...
I'll say it again, religion lives on by the random acts of charity performed by believers.
It makes an impression on saps like me ...
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by Florestan:
I vowed to myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread or the other similar one that simply targets a group of people and puts their values down. So much for that I guess...
A common pattern I see here is that a small, but very vocal group of people here are so sure they are right about something. (They know this based on the belief that someone else must be wrong). This just isn't satisfying enough for them to just live their lives so they have to mock others to justify their existence. Do you really think you have proved your case by simply trying to disprove or insult the other guys values and choices?
For this thread in particular, I believe Mike Dudley and Mongo are the ones jumping to joy over the title of this thread. I would ask either one of you, "Do you currently have children or did you ever raise children, yourselves?"
If raising children with a certain moral standard is offensive to you that is fine but with this view in itself how could you have taught your own children about tolerance?
Assuming that you steered well clear of "religion" what did you teach (indoctrinate) them with (is teaching them to distrust religion a form of indoctrination?) Every attitude and word that comes out of your mouth teaches (indoctrinates) children in some way eventually (whether intentional or unintentional).
How would you go about teaching a child that stealing is wrong or cheating on a test is wrong etc. (Is it only wrong if you get caught?) Oh, I'm sorry, secularist don't believe in right or wrong because they are so politically correct and don't want to offend anyone (except a conservative Christian perhaps - that's a given. Eastern religions get the thumbs up though because only really cool, hip people are involved in these.)
No matter what side of the fence one is on in these types of debates and questions I do really respect those who at least stand up and actually believe in something and are guided by some sort of standard (moral or not). Tell us what it is though instead of jumping on the bandwagon of just dissing religion. Ultimately, what happens under their roof they have to take responsibility for it. At least your children will grow up and be able to say mom or dad believed in this or that and they were consistent or they had a change of heart over this issue because...
So why all the anger towards people of faith and religion? Let me guess, someone of faith let you down and now you have a reason to hate. We are all human and bound to fail. Most people who practice a faith cannot and will never meet the ideal; that's a given. A few do really take it seriously and are amazing people. But if everyone was serious enough to live it out what is wrong with the main tenents of Christianity? In general, this might include the values of the Ten Commandments and such New Testament ideas as helping your fellow man in need by giving the shirt off your back and looking out for the poor and needy and turning the other cheek etc. (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.) This sounds too sensible to allow our children to hear such things. Why is this evil? Maybe you are criticizing something that you know nothing about (except what R. Dawkins tells you?)
Most charity work and organizations involved in this type of outreach and work have a religious background (and they became this way through the "evils" of indoctrination.) Perhaps you should stop reading very slanted, one sided articles as well as authors who have an agenda with the latest secularist fad (and become very wealthy along the way) and get involved in at least trying to do some good and help others too. If you would work with and be as committed as some of the people you criticize you might understand how non-sensical some of these criticisms are.
There, I said it...
{rant over}
Regards,
Doug
A rant indeed.
Do you suggest that only religiously inclined people are moral creatures? Is it not possible, do you believe, that those who have no faith in a religion to be good, kind solid people?
Do people who 'do good' of absolute necessity have to be of a faith?
I think your toes have been trodden upon.
And where do you get the idea that i am trendy in anything? Also what possesses you to imagine that i have a soft spot for 'eastern religions? Whatever they may be?
Children should not have a religion forced down their throats by their barking mad elders, howsoever done. And for the record, for this thread, i'm defining barking mad as that condition which requires otherwise normal people to acquiece in the filling of children's mind's with iron age superstitions masquerading as facts. Tell me, do you actually believe Mary had a virgin birth, or that your Jesus lad fed thousands with a fish or two?, Or that he was raised from the dead and was watched physically ascending to heaven, and/or several hundred other absolute corkers?
If so i have a couple of unicorns for sale.
Regards, Paul.
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by mongo:quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
My point exactly.
Mike you have ceased to make sense.
Only because you are unable to comprehend.
Actually reading the thread might help...
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by mongo
Mike you have ceased to make sense.[/QUOTE]
Only because you are unable to comprehend.
This from a believer in a miracles. Lol.
Only because you are unable to comprehend.
This from a believer in a miracles. Lol.
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
At no point have I said I believe in miracles.
Like I said, actually reading the thread might help.
M
Like I said, actually reading the thread might help.
M
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by mikeeschman
Only religious people stand accused.
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by Bhoyo
quote:Originally posted by Florestan:
Eastern religions get the thumbs up though because only really cool, hip people are involved in these.
How far east does one have to go before one's religion is "Eastern"?
My limited knowledge of Christianity tells me it's from the Middle East. Have I misunderstood? Oh, I see: you're just making a gratuitous swipe at Western Buddhists.
So much for tolerance.
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by Kevin-W
quote:Originally posted by Florestan:
Oh, I'm sorry, secularist don't believe in right or wrong because they are so politically correct and don't want to offend anyone (except a conservative Christian perhaps - that's a given. Eastern religions get the thumbs up though because only really cool, hip people are involved in these.)
No matter what side of the fence one is on in these types of debates and questions I do really respect those who at least stand up and actually believe in something and are guided by some sort of standard (moral or not). Tell us what it is though instead of jumping on the bandwagon of just dissing religion. Ultimately, what happens under their roof they have to take responsibility for it. At least your children will grow up and be able to say mom or dad believed in this or that and they were consistent or they had a change of heart over this issue because...
So why all the anger towards people of faith and religion? Let me guess, someone of faith let you down and now you have a reason to hate. We are all human and bound to fail. Most people who practice a faith cannot and will never meet the ideal; that's a given. A few do really take it seriously and are amazing people. But if everyone was serious enough to live it out what is wrong with the main tenents of Christianity? In general, this might include the values of the Ten Commandments and such New Testament ideas as helping your fellow man in need by giving the shirt off your back and looking out for the poor and needy and turning the other cheek etc. (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.) This sounds too sensible to allow our children to hear such things. Why is this evil? Maybe you are criticizing something that you know nothing about (except what R. Dawkins tells you?)
Most charity work and organizations involved in this type of outreach and work have a religious background (and they became this way through the "evils" of indoctrination.) Perhaps you should stop reading very slanted, one sided articles as well as authors who have an agenda with the latest secularist fad (and become very wealthy along the way) and get involved in at least trying to do some good and help others too. If you would work with and be as committed as some of the people you criticize you might understand how non-sensical some of these criticisms are.
There, I said it...
{rant over}
Regards,
Doug
You were doing quite well for a while there Doug, but made the fatal assumption that only religion can provide a moral framework. What anyone believes is of very little interest to me - faith is a private matter - but what really sticks in my craw is the pious going around thinking they have a monopoly on virtue. It really is quite, quite nauseating.
I know plenty of atheists and agnostics who do loads of incredible work for charities and plenty more who lead decent, honorable lives.
Just a thought.
On a lighter note - and getting back to the link in the original post- did anyone see that episode of Family Guy in which a bunch of Al-Quaeda bombers ascend to heaven, only to be bitterly disappointed when they discover that the 72 virgins are all male and all geeky spods playing Magic: The Gathering? Hilarious!
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by droodzilla
quote:Children should not have a religion forced down their throats by their barking mad elders
Paul, you can't help yourself can you? It's hard to respect someone who routinely uses this kind of language, and constantly implies that all people of faith are imbeciles. I think your animosity to religion is so great it has turned you into a bigot. At least that's how you come across on these threads - who knows, if we had the same discussion over a pint it might be a completely different story.
I don't come from a religious family, and was a hardcore atheist between the ages of, roughly, 15 and 25. I wasn't born again or anything like that, but over time, my views on faith have gradually softened, even though I haven't "signed" up to any specific creed.
I'll try to refrain from posting any more on these threads. I often think that trying to persuade a committed atheist of the value (or even the permissibility) of faith is like trying to get someone who's tone deaf to appreciate music. I'll try to post a summary of William James' argument in "The Will to Believe" if I get time, but after that I'll stop.
Cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Trevp
Well we're having the same "reasoned" debate that we had in the other thread. I definitely don't want to get involved in the fracas again, but I do shake my head in disbelief at the way the faithful condemn atheists as irrational (although the tone of some of the posts lends fuel to this), when by definition, faith is in itself an irrational belief.
At home, we have an old family bible with a preface which attacks rationalism as the enemy of religion.
It's hard to reconcile the two.
At home, we have an old family bible with a preface which attacks rationalism as the enemy of religion.
It's hard to reconcile the two.
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
It is a remarkable fact that many people "profoundly" believe the writings of those who lived in a time when it was not even understood that the earth went round the sun or that diseases were caused by invasive microscopic organisms, rather than accepting the simple truth that there is no evidence to support any of it.
The fact that none of it stands up to rational investigation does not seem to deter the "faithful", so one is naturally moved to ask: why do you need to believe in what amounts to little more than fantastical fairy tales, rather than simply accept them for what they self-evidently are?
Or in other words - what's wrong with you?
Indoctrination into religious gibberish as children seems to point to at least 90% of the answer (children tend to unhesitatingly accept what they are told by adults for the first seven or so years of life and this "sets" the personality for later years, barring instances of enlightenment), "temporal lobe epilepsy" or deep-rooted psychological damage through early maltreatment, the rest...
It is possible to have a deep emotional response to the story of a hero who rescues a princess from a dragon with the aid of a magical unicorn.
Whilst the emotional response feels moving and "special", it doesn't make the story true.
The fact that none of it stands up to rational investigation does not seem to deter the "faithful", so one is naturally moved to ask: why do you need to believe in what amounts to little more than fantastical fairy tales, rather than simply accept them for what they self-evidently are?
Or in other words - what's wrong with you?
Indoctrination into religious gibberish as children seems to point to at least 90% of the answer (children tend to unhesitatingly accept what they are told by adults for the first seven or so years of life and this "sets" the personality for later years, barring instances of enlightenment), "temporal lobe epilepsy" or deep-rooted psychological damage through early maltreatment, the rest...
It is possible to have a deep emotional response to the story of a hero who rescues a princess from a dragon with the aid of a magical unicorn.
Whilst the emotional response feels moving and "special", it doesn't make the story true.
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
I would suggest that human behaviour (and history) suggests a psychological need with regard to spirituality. Cultures across the world, and across time, have evolved belief systems that incorporate mystical unprovable and 'magical' beliefs, from primitive sun worship through shamanism and the like. The patterns are so similar in concept I'd argue that is hardly due to systematic indoctrination but more likely to represent a human characteristic. I would argue that the mystery is probably part of the appeal, we perhaps have a need as a human to have an external locus of control, explanation and awe.
The analytical atheist approach with the absolute rejection of 'fairy tales' may be less normal human behaviour.
Bruce
The analytical atheist approach with the absolute rejection of 'fairy tales' may be less normal human behaviour.
Bruce
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
Can I suggest, in response, that this is evidence of a need to explain the universe by these cultures which, having only recently evolved rationality with regard to the immediate environment, seek to explain larger natural phenomena with superstition?
The explanation of the universe by rational means is an evolution of this tendency and completely normal. It is the ongoing process of applying the same ability to construct tools for manipulating the immediate environment to examining the wider reality, gradually replacing the initial superstitious "explanations" over time.
Well, for some of us anyway, it would seem...
The explanation of the universe by rational means is an evolution of this tendency and completely normal. It is the ongoing process of applying the same ability to construct tools for manipulating the immediate environment to examining the wider reality, gradually replacing the initial superstitious "explanations" over time.
Well, for some of us anyway, it would seem...
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
Point taken, although an extension of your argument that a) we will eventually know the why and how of everything-thereby God(s) will dissapear in a puff of logic(sic) and b) that belief in religion is somehow a primitive cultural response.
I think you argument here, and in other threads, ignores an entire strand of human behaviour and psychology, the innate 'spirituality' of elements of human thought. Briefly; if God were not around we'd have to invent him.
I refuse to believe that a beautifully constructed physical model for all of life, the universe and everything (I really cannot get away from Douglas Adams!) would result in religion being unnecessary. Oddly it might make it more essential. I believe mystery is part of the fundamental appeal of religions.
Bruce
I think you argument here, and in other threads, ignores an entire strand of human behaviour and psychology, the innate 'spirituality' of elements of human thought. Briefly; if God were not around we'd have to invent him.
I refuse to believe that a beautifully constructed physical model for all of life, the universe and everything (I really cannot get away from Douglas Adams!) would result in religion being unnecessary. Oddly it might make it more essential. I believe mystery is part of the fundamental appeal of religions.
Bruce
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
...and whilst i think about it I suspect that religion also answers another basic human urge-that of wishing to belong to a group/race/tribe or gang.
Bruce
Bruce
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
quote:Point taken, although an extension of your argument that a) we will eventually know the why and how of everything
Given time, probably yes.
quote:innate 'spirituality' of elements of human thought.
Presumably, you don't mean "ascribing things not understood, to an imaginary god" because self-evidently, I have dealt with that, so what do you MEAN by "spirituality"?
The more we look, the smaller the "mystery" gets.
There is no "need" for religion. I don't need it. Thousands of others here in the UK and thousands elsewhere of atheists don't "need" it yet remain human.
Three cheers for evolving humanity.
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by Mike Dudley:quote:Point taken, although an extension of your argument that a) we will eventually know the why and how of everything
Given time, probably yes.quote:innate 'spirituality' of elements of human thought.
Presumably, you don't mean "ascribing things not understood, to an imaginary god" because self-evidently, I have dealt with that, so what do you MEAN by "spirituality"?
The more we look, the smaller the "mystery" gets.
There is no "need" for religion. I don't need it. Thousands of others here in the UK and thousands elsewhere of atheists don't "need" it yet remain human.
Three cheers for evolving humanity.
HURRAH!
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
Mike.
You are evidently a concerete thinker. Your world may indeed be comprised of absolutes, solid facts and indeed a belief that the world can and will be explained to the last degree by the power of science.
Surely you can recognise that not everyone sees things the same way-and that does not make them wrong. I would say that a belief in the mystical, supernatural, extra-ordinary and the like is more common than your reductive approach. I think a desire to answer the question 'why' is a fairly basic human charecteristic, as is the search for solace in a higher power during times of stress or crisis. Belief in a higher power is a majority view in human populations. I would argue that faith (as opposed to religion) is indeed an innate human need. Your faith appears to be in science and the power of logical thought. Perhaps you do not recognise any spiritual need or nature in your personality but to extend that trait to whole populations by describing them as the 'victims of indoctrination' is unreasonable.
For what it is worth I am an atheist, and a very certain one at that. I'm certain of my own 'beliefs' and values, I'm very happy that I do not personally 'need' religion but I'm trying to point out that taken broadly I do not think you initial premise is correct. Whatever your view of religion (or religious organisations), the need for a spiritual faith appears to be a strong one in human society. I'm not arrogant enough to consider myself more highly evolved because I don't have faith!
Bruce
You are evidently a concerete thinker. Your world may indeed be comprised of absolutes, solid facts and indeed a belief that the world can and will be explained to the last degree by the power of science.
Surely you can recognise that not everyone sees things the same way-and that does not make them wrong. I would say that a belief in the mystical, supernatural, extra-ordinary and the like is more common than your reductive approach. I think a desire to answer the question 'why' is a fairly basic human charecteristic, as is the search for solace in a higher power during times of stress or crisis. Belief in a higher power is a majority view in human populations. I would argue that faith (as opposed to religion) is indeed an innate human need. Your faith appears to be in science and the power of logical thought. Perhaps you do not recognise any spiritual need or nature in your personality but to extend that trait to whole populations by describing them as the 'victims of indoctrination' is unreasonable.
For what it is worth I am an atheist, and a very certain one at that. I'm certain of my own 'beliefs' and values, I'm very happy that I do not personally 'need' religion but I'm trying to point out that taken broadly I do not think you initial premise is correct. Whatever your view of religion (or religious organisations), the need for a spiritual faith appears to be a strong one in human society. I'm not arrogant enough to consider myself more highly evolved because I don't have faith!
Bruce
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
The evidence is (ISTM) that rational investigation produces understanding and that this increases over time. Theories stand, or fall and are replaced by more accurate models. This happens. Science works. Planes fly. Magic carpets and broomsticks don't.
Because a lot of people "believe" in something, that doesn't make it true. Cultists regularly believe the end of the world is going to happen on specified dates, for instance. This never, of course, happens. Note the glee with which many Christians look forward to the "end times" when the majority of us are all going to die painful deaths for no reason other than that we do not share their particular beliefs. Nice. I am joyful that this is, however, not going to take place.
Religion can be very comforting. Being comforting does not make it true.
A Hindu child is such because it has been taught to be so. Similarly a Christian child, Bhuddist child, Pagan child and so on. This works across entire cultural groups.
The "need" for "faith" therefore (ISTM) is a psychological condition emplaced by a sort of virus, that infects children usually via the parents. This "meme" however, appears to be undergoing radical attack by the "antibody-meme" of vocal atheism in this period of our history.
It should be noted, I think, that this attack is by use of images and words, as opposed to shooting Doctors, demanding withdrawal of artistic freedoms because of "offense", or flying planes into buildings.
Higher. Yes.
Because a lot of people "believe" in something, that doesn't make it true. Cultists regularly believe the end of the world is going to happen on specified dates, for instance. This never, of course, happens. Note the glee with which many Christians look forward to the "end times" when the majority of us are all going to die painful deaths for no reason other than that we do not share their particular beliefs. Nice. I am joyful that this is, however, not going to take place.
Religion can be very comforting. Being comforting does not make it true.
A Hindu child is such because it has been taught to be so. Similarly a Christian child, Bhuddist child, Pagan child and so on. This works across entire cultural groups.
The "need" for "faith" therefore (ISTM) is a psychological condition emplaced by a sort of virus, that infects children usually via the parents. This "meme" however, appears to be undergoing radical attack by the "antibody-meme" of vocal atheism in this period of our history.
It should be noted, I think, that this attack is by use of images and words, as opposed to shooting Doctors, demanding withdrawal of artistic freedoms because of "offense", or flying planes into buildings.
Higher. Yes.
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
The evidence is (ISTM) that rational investigation produces understanding and that this increases over time. Theories stand, or fall and are replaced by more accurate models. This happens. Science works. Planes fly. Magic carpets and broomsticks don't.
Because a lot of people "believe" in something, that doesn't make it true. Cultists regularly believe the end of the world is going to happen on specified dates, for instance. This never, of course, happens. Note the glee with which many Christians look forward to the "end times" when the majority of us are all going to die painful deaths for no reason other than that we do not share their particular beliefs. Nice. I am joyful that this is, however, not going to take place.
Religion can be very comforting. Being comforting does not make it true.
A Hindu child is such because it has been taught to be so. Similarly a Christian child, Bhuddist child, Pagan child and so on. This works across entire cultural groups.
The "need" for "faith" therefore (ISTM) is a psychological condition emplaced by a sort of virus, that infects children usually via the parents. This "meme" however, appears to be undergoing radical attack by the "antibody-meme" of vocal atheism in this period of our history.
It should be noted, I think, that this attack is by use of images and words, as opposed to shooting Doctors, demanding withdrawal of artistic freedoms because of "offense", or flying planes into buildings.
Higher. Yes.
I'd like to second the entire post.
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by JWM
Ah, memes...
A very convenient vehicle for Prof Dawkins to propogate his views, but fundamentally flawed as a theory. VERY unscientific as cannot be examined empirically, and it is highly questionable whether cultures can be categorized meaningfully in terms of discrete units.
Also demonstates why it is important not to declare unproven scientific theories as absolute facts.
EDIT
PS Seems quite ironic really that Dawkinsesque militant atheism should be so quasi-religious...
A very convenient vehicle for Prof Dawkins to propogate his views, but fundamentally flawed as a theory. VERY unscientific as cannot be examined empirically, and it is highly questionable whether cultures can be categorized meaningfully in terms of discrete units.
Also demonstates why it is important not to declare unproven scientific theories as absolute facts.
EDIT
PS Seems quite ironic really that Dawkinsesque militant atheism should be so quasi-religious...
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
The "meme" is a perfectly good definition of an observable process. I am not clear as to it's status as a Hypothesis or Theory. If it is a Hypothesis at the moment, it seems a perfectly reasonable one to me. As an illustration or metaphor for a process which is evidently taking place, it also seems quite adequate.
A "quasi" religion is not, by definition, a "religion". It just seems to share some common attributes.
This does not however, make it the same thing.
A "quasi" religion is not, by definition, a "religion". It just seems to share some common attributes.
This does not however, make it the same thing.