The Four Horseman hold forth! Dawkins, Hitchen et al.

[Barking_Mad]

I have a problem with his 'simplification' of every human emotion, feeling and thought as something explainable by science and science alone. That's not to discount science, not to undo or disown its advances, but I find him as boorish and unforgiving as many evangelical Christians are.

Maybe he's trapped in his own meme?

 

[gurrier]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed any such thing.

Probably because I haven't.

Your characterisation of Dawkins' argument as "I'm right, you're wrong, I'll brook no argument" sort of implied it.

You're making assumptions.
It could show that his "opponents" are not very good at arguing.

Yeah, that too

I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but I have read some of his papers and books, and the singular reason that the above is true (and it is) is that religion, by it's very nature, is not something amenable to logic, it's all about belief and faith. Dawkins knows this, indeed it forms part of his argument against religion. Where he and other atheists occasionally miss the point is that some people, however vast or tiny their intellect, feel a need to believe, to have faith in a force greater than themselves. Me, I'm happy to leave them to it as long as they don't bother me, whereas Mr Dawkins wishes to disabuse people of their delusions.

I'm sort of with Dawkins on this. While I don't care what other people believe privately, what brand of sky-pixie, or even sky-elf, they worship, private beliefs have a terrible habit of spilling over into public actions - especially when the chosen sky-pixie claims universal dominion and demands that his followers attempt to enact this dominion in public.

On a more abstract note, it is my opinion that once somebody forms an opinion that is explicitly based on something other than logic - faith, belief, wishful thinking, whatever you want to call it - they are ripe for subsequent manipulation by sinister and cynical forces who will piggyback whatever stuff they want on top of the original belief safe in the knowledge that they are operating in a logic-free zone and don't have to justify their demands in their own right, just present it as flowing from the faith. The 2000 years of the catholic church's history is a rather good evidence base, among many others, on which I base this opinion.

 

[gurrier]

I have a problem with his 'simplification' of every human emotion, feeling and thought as something explainable by science and science alone. That's not to discount science, not to undo or disown its advances, but I find him as boorish and unforgiving as many evangelical Christians are.

Your sentence contains an internal contradiction. If it is explainable, it is explainable by logic / science, if it is only explainable by something else, then it's not explainable. Explanations that do not rely on logic / science are not explanations - how could they be?

 

[kyser_soze]

I have a problem with his 'simplification' of every human emotion, feeling and thought as something explainable by science and science alone.

Without wanting to be reductionist...it's all chemistry and electrics at the end of the day...you sense something, your brain and body reacts to it chemically and electrically.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In fairness, many people in that 'comfort zone' are far more aggressive and argumentative (not to mention bigoted, homophobic and sexist) than Mr Dawkins...

True, but I'm not talking about those whose relationship with religion is (in my opinion) extreme, i.e the "ultra-orthodox" adherents of faiths who tend to react violently to any criticism of their beliefs, I'm talking about those who draw solace from the rituals and practices of religion, who integrate religion into their lives in a way that doesn't allow belief to hold dominion over everything else.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Your sentence contains an internal contradiction. If it is explainable, it is explainable by logic / science, if it is only explainable by something else, then it's not explainable. Explanations that do not rely on logic / science are not explanations - how could they be?

Precisely.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Without wanting to be reductionist...it's all chemistry and electrics at the end of the day...you sense something, your brain and body reacts to it chemically and electrically.

How boring.

 

[frogwoman]

On a more abstract note, it is my opinion that once somebody forms an opinion that is explicitly based on something other than logic - faith, belief, wishful thinking, whatever you want to call it - they are ripe for subsequent manipulation by sinister and cynical forces who will piggyback whatever stuff they want on top of the original belief safe in the knowledge that they are operating in a logic-free zone and don't have to justify their demands in their own right, just present it as flowing from the faith. The 2000 years of the catholic church's history is a rather good evidence base, among many others, on which I base this opinion.

In my experience it's often the people without any strong beliefs (of whatever kind, political, religious, etc) but who are "searching for something" to explain life to them, that can fall victim to sinister forces and are vulnerable to cultic exploitation.

easy for someone to say "this is what judaism/christianity really says and what you should believe" when they are searchingf for some kind of spiritual home ... that is when someone is most vulnerable. not when they are happy in their beliefs and in their personal life.
Its also easier to go along with a more extreme view of religion when you yourself are feeling isolated depressed and angry - the kind of feelings the fundies and end time nutters prey on. you want explanations for all your problems - its because we live in a world inhabited by the forces of evil!!!! at every corner waiting to persecute us, the true believers and the fact that people treat u like shite is because it's a sign of the end of the world, where nobody cares about anyone else any more and peoples morals are declining

If you are happy in your life you're not going to think the world's imminently going to end - and that all your friends and family are gonna die, are you? Or hope for it to end like the end times nutters want it to??

Likewise if you have a detailed knowledge of scripture and what the torah or NT or the koran says you're not going to just believe the first nutter that comes along and tries to tell you about the end of the world or the necessity of fighting against the infidel are you?

I wouldn't believe something like crystal healing or going to a medium had any validity because i am happy in my faith and i don't need to go to something like that that has no scientific validity. Im not fucking stupid i can argue with christian missionaries frm a scriptural point of view and they dont have anything to say back to me because i have the knowledge and i can ask them intelligent questions, that they are not taught to ask and can't reply to apart from what they've been taught

but someone who is disillusioned with their existing religion might just listen to their shite and think "maybe they have a point there" even if they dont believe it ... they might be more receptive to it

 

[gurrier]

In my experience it's often the people without any strong beliefs (of whatever kind, political, religious, etc) but who are "searching for something" to explain life to them, that can fall victim to sinister forces.

While I agree with you, you're arguing a different point and my point still holds. The sinister bits are piggybacked on top of the faith bit. You don't recruit people to sinister cults on the basis of "lets kill the infidels", you recruit them on the basis that "god loves you" and then slip in the infidel killing once their defences are down and they've bought the big picture.

 

[kyser_soze]

How boring.

FWIW, I think that comment is little different from saying that because we have no Gods, that atheists are amoral/can have no morals. Just because I know that my moods, feelings and perceptions are the result of electrochemical processes in the body, it doesn't lessen the feelings of awe, joy and wonder they create. Does knowing how a tree grows, or how something is cooked, lessen the satisfaction one can take from admiring (hugging ) or smelling, seeing and eating?

Of course not - if anything I think it more miraculous that such simple things, interacting in a complex fashion, can have the effect they do, and no need to invoke some 'other' thing to create that miracle either.

 

[Barking_Mad]

In my experience it's often the people without any strong beliefs (of whatever kind, political, religious, etc) but who are "searching for something" to explain life to them, that can fall victim to sinister forces.

As a certain someone once said,

"The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the future is that we may become robots."

That in a nutshell is why makes me uneasy about people like Dawkins.

ps You never responded to my PM!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Your characterisation of Dawkins' argument as "I'm right, you're wrong, I'll brook no argument" sort of implied it.

Oh dear.
Go and read page one and two of the thread. You'll note that I haven't characterised "...Dawkins' argument" at all, as my original point was about what I chose to term "atheist fundamentalism" in reply to the characterisation of religion as "ignorance" by another poster.
You were saying...?

Yeah, that too

It's one of those possibilities that has a reasonable chance of being "on the money", unfortunately!

I'm sort of with Dawkins on this. While I don't care what other people believe privately, what brand of sky-pixie, or even sky-elf, they worship, private beliefs have a terrible habit of spilling over into public actions - especially when the chosen sky-pixie claims universal dominion and demands that his followers attempt to enact this dominion in public.

Which is where my early point about "fundamentalism" comes in. I'd rather not see a fundamental atheism in the public sphere in the way that fundamental religion has already taken hold.

On a more abstract note, it is my opinion that once somebody forms an opinion that is explicitly based on something other than logic - faith, belief, wishful thinking, whatever you want to call it - they are ripe for subsequent manipulation by sinister and cynical forces who will piggyback whatever stuff they want on top of the original belief safe in the knowledge that they are operating in a logic-free zone and don't have to justify their demands in their own right, just present it as flowing from the faith. The 2000 years of the catholic church's history is a rather good evidence base, among many others, on which I base this opinion.

I'd disagree that such a person operates in a "logic-free zone", I'd be more inclined to say that they're functioning in a place where logic and faith are given equal weight. This might seem illogical to the logician, but has worked reasonably well historically as a mode of decision-making.
Mind you, I could demolish my own argument here by admitting that this is the principle most conspiracy theorists operate under.

 

[gurrier]

Oh dear.
Go and read page one and two of the thread. You'll note that I haven't characterised "...Dawkins' argument" at all, as my original point was about what I chose to term "atheist fundamentalism" in reply to the characterisation of religion as "ignorance" by another poster.

I assumed you were categorising Dawkins as such.

Incidentally I don't think that there exists anything that can be usefully categorised as 'fundamentalist' atheism. Fundamentalism when applied to belief systems normally means that there is some text, doctrine or creed which is seen as the 'fundament' upon which the belief system is based. This fundament is generally seen as having a truth which is beyond question - it is enough to quote from the text to prove a point and such quotes do not need to be justified in their own right.

I realise, incidentally, that the meaning of the word fundamentalist has somewhat drifted from this in recent times and it now is often simply used as a synonym for 'fanatic'. However, I still think that the original meaning should be respected as the word fanatic is a pefectly good one for describing what it describes and there is no obvious replacement for the fundamentalist one.

Which is where my early point about "fundamentalism" comes in. I'd rather not see a fundamental atheism in the public sphere in the way that fundamental religion has already taken hold.

As I said above, I don't think that fundamentalist atheism exists in any meaningful way, nor is it likely to do so. I suspect, however, that you simply mean 'prosletysing' by 'fundamentalist' here and your objection is to atheists who publicly promote their beliefs as generally desirable. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I couldn't agree less. In general, I think that people publicly arguing their beliefs is a positive thing - how can anybody get better ideas if we all keep them to ourselves?

Do you think that galileo, copernicus, darwin and newton should have kept schtum as their beliefs were absolutely and utterly contradictory to all contemporary religious beliefs. Why did it matter to those 'scientific fundamentalists' whether other people believed in gravity / evolution or believed in god's will causing falling / speciation / whatever? Why did they have to offend everybody? Why not leave the believers with their harmless beliefs? (and so on, you can extend the analogy in as many ways as you want or substitute whatever old religoius beliefs you want and the point is the same).

I'd disagree that such a person operates in a "logic-free zone", I'd be more inclined to say that they're functioning in a place where logic and faith are given equal weight. This might seem illogical to the logician, but has worked reasonably well historically as a mode of decision-making.
Mind you, I could demolish my own argument here by admitting that this is the principle most conspiracy theorists operate under.

You've undermined your argument much more eloquently than I ever could

 

[frogwoman]

While I agree with you, you're arguing a different point and my point still holds. The sinister bits are piggybacked on top of the faith bit. You don't recruit people to sinister cults on the basis of "lets kill the infidels", you recruit them on the basis that "god loves you" and then slip in the infidel killing once their defences are down and they've bought the big picture.

Oh yeah, but that doesn't mean that someone with an existing strong religious faith will be likely to believe in a cult.

someone who is lonely and vulnerable might find the concept of a community of people who appeared to love them unconditionally very appealing, and they may ask fewer questions than someone who is happy and has everything they need - whether they are religious or not

If someone came up to me on the street saying that god loves me and that sort of stuff id feel sorry for them but someone who is very isolated will be vulnerable to such a message becuase it isn't just the religion side of things, it is also welcomeing them into a community. and someone who is contented with life probably wont have such a need to belong to something even if it absolutely crazy.

i wont say i "know" that god loves me because i dont even know he exists, but i have faith that he/she does and if even if god doesnt exist , i have a lot of good people around who i know do love me and i have self respect. but depression can force people into self destructive relationships, not just with other people but with religions and ideas, and i think that is why cults are able to recruit such large followings.

 

[frogwoman]

having said that, i would have to be pretty fucking depressed to become a member of a cult ...

I have a pretty good idea of whats right and wrong and some very strong beliefs about the way people should treat others. If someone was preaching fundamentalist or end times shite in my community, then i would know that it was wrong and I'd be out there like a shot. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself and if someone preached a message of hatred which was against my religion and what i personally thought, then I wouldn't carry on going because I wanted somewhere to belong to

I can tell the difference between right and wrong and rational and irrational and while some of my beliefs have changed over time, I think I would be capable of using my common sense to realise that they were talking shit

 

[gurrier]

Oh yeah, but that doesn't mean that someone with an existing strong religious faith will be likely to believe in a cult.

That's because they already do. That space is taken geezer.

But seriously, if they have already got a strong religious faith then they are already vulnerable to the piggybacking that I describe - if their religious elders / their own random prejudices / whatever is the source of their faith / decides that they should hate the gays, for example, they will do it* without having to justify it in its own right - it can be put down as a simple consequence of their faith.

* of course, they may not do it, which means that their faith isn't really that strong and only runs to believing the bits that are convenient at any particular time

 

[Poi E]

having said that, i would have to be pretty fucking depressed to become a member of a cult ...

Free love, drugs...not all jungle suicides.

 

[gurrier]

Free love, drugs...not all jungle suicides.

Where do I sign up? (and when do we get to kill the infidels?)

 

[frogwoman]

But seriously, if they have already got a strong religious faith then they are already vulnerable to the piggybacking that I describe - if their religious elders / their own random prejudices / whatever is the source of their faith / decides that they should hate the gays, for example, they will do it* without having to justify it in its own right - it can be put down as a simple consequence of their faith.

* of course, they may not do it, which means that their faith isn't really that strong and only runs to believing the bits that are convenient at any particular time

What makes you think their faith wouldn't be that strong if they didn't go along with that shite?

Faith doesn't just involve just going along with what your religious leaders say or just blindly believing any old shite if someone in a beard said it

It also involves having the courage of your convictions and knowing what those convictions are of your own free will, not just what other people say, and not going along with something which is blatantly wrong because you know in your heart whats right.

 

[frogwoman]

Free love, drugs...not all jungle suicides.

You can get free love and drugs anyway, if you know where to look. You don't have to join a cult

 

[gurrier]

It also involves having the courage of your convictions and knowing what those convictions are of your own free will, not just what other people say, and not going along with something which is blatantly wrong because you know in your heart whats right.

It depends what you have faith in. If you have catholic faith, for example, your faith does indeed require you to do whatever the pope says (he's infallible and a representative of god on earth). If your faith is in some personal, internal idea of god and not in an institutional religion, it just means that you have a free pass to believing in stuff that you want to believe in for some reason but you can't justify intellectually. In both cases you are particularly susceptible to believing things like - gays are sent by the devil - as you can conveniently ignore the evidence from history, neuro-biology and the animal kingdom which shows homosexuality to be a normal thing and trust in your faith instead (whether the faith is based upon a hierarchy of your own subconscious desires).

 

[Aldebaran]

Aldy is a sky pixie worshipper, and Gmart recently came out as a follower of Ayn Rand. It's like watching a debate about whether faeries are better than elves...

No debate about that. Elves are much better in running after fantasies.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

While I agree with you, you're arguing a different point and my point still holds. The sinister bits are piggybacked on top of the faith bit. You don't recruit people to sinister cults on the basis of "lets kill the infidels", you recruit them on the basis that "god loves you" and then slip in the infidel killing once their defences are down and they've bought the big picture.

No you don't.
People are recruited to "sinister" abuse of religions (or no matter which cult, among which arrogance covered up as patriotism is a major one) because you want foot soldiers to fight for your (mostly political) goals.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

Oh yeah, but that doesn't mean that someone with an existing strong religious faith will be likely to believe in a cult. ...

Well yes, a strongly believing Catholic is unlikely to join the Mooonies. That would be risking excommunication and hell-fire.

Thing is, if you don't believe in the supernatural, then you are going to see that the beliefs demanded by religious cults are just so much hooey.

 

[Aldebaran]

if they have already got a strong religious faith then they are already vulnerable to the piggybacking that I describe - if their religious elders / their own random prejudices / whatever is the source of their faith / decides that they should hate the gays, for example, they will do it* without having to justify it in its own right - it can be put down as a simple consequence of their faith.

Ha.ha.Ha.
I'm a scholar of Islam. One of my friends, and in fact someoen I grew up with, is gay. (That was obvious since he was a child.)

* of course, they may not do it, which means that their faith isn't really that strong and only runs to believing the bits that are convenient at any particular time[/size]

Ha.ha.Ha. Try again when you can argue from an informed point of view.
There is nothing "convenient" or "inconvienent" to be found in my beliefs.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

No you don't.
People are recruited to "sinister" abuse of religions (or no matter which cult, among which arrogance covered up as patriotism is a major one) because you want foot soldiers to fight for your (mostly political) goals.

salaam.

This may well be true in some parts of the world. But in Europe, and in particular in the USA, the "free-market" attitude towards religion means there are many charlatans duping people for money and sex.

Who needs political power when you have hosts of devoted (and deluded) followers showering you with favours?

 

[Aldebaran]

Thing is, if you don't believe in the supernatural, then you are going to see that the beliefs demanded by religious cults are just so much hooey.

Surely the reason why people who formerly declared themselves atheist get caught up in the most weird cults that dress themselves up as religiously inspired. Such organisations simply prey and thrive on vulnerable people of all sorts.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

This may well be true in some parts of the world. But in Europe, and in particular in the USA, the "free-market" attitude towards religion means there are many charlatans duping people for money and sex.

Religion in the USA is part of the Capitalist Cult. They go religion shopping like they go shoipping for shoes coming from the mentality of : "what fits best to my feet" and "where do I get the best price for the same product" and "what is the bonus benefit in it for me". No direct profit, no sale.

Who needs political power when you have hosts of devoted (and deluded) followers showering you with favours?

Ask Bush the recovered " because I found Jesus" alcoholic?

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

Alde, in #177 you have not responded to what you quoted.

I'm talking about people who don't believe in the supernatural. For them, their atheism is a protection against falling for cultic hooey.

I've had many conversations with cult victims, and with cult survivors. A predisposition to religious belief and superstition is about all they share; and some are quite explicit that if they had not had supernatural beliefs they would not have been hooked into their cult in the first place.

This is not to say that everyone who recovers thier mind after involvement with a cult becomes an atheist -- but many do.

 

[Aldebaran]

Alde, you have not responded to what you quoted. I'm talking about people who don't believe in the supernatural.

Yes I did.
Q: Why so many non religious get caught up in such cults?
A: because they get caught while being vulnerable, just like all the rest.

salaam.