Religion and blind faith
Posted by albertaken on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 2:46pm inI see alot of members of Break the matrix have some hard core beliefs. I'm not talking about gods and such. I don't mind fanatism at all. I can't begin to tell y'all how much I have learned from such people. they're loud and will tell weather you want to know or not lol. fanatics know detail info on thier belief, and one can take this info and check it out. within it( I find) alot of truth and some bs, thats cool, keeps the brain going, so keep it coming, I myself will disect your statement and do my best to learn and understand and place it in the proper context, in my brain.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 537 reads
****
I hate blind faith. I like reason. I follow the words of Thomas jefferson:
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. "
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
In a free country, it doesn't matter whether or not people believe in God, or which God they believe in. As long as religion is not imposed on anyone, as long as no one is forced to subsidize it, we will be okay. Same goes for atheism, of course. No one should be forbidden from professing their belief in God, or forced to subsidize institutions that undermine their beliefs.
That is why public schools are so problematic. It's the curriculum. If they teach evolution in public schools, then creationists will complain that they are being forced to subsidize what they consider to be secularism. Same goes for government funded scientific research, if ethical issues such as the status of embryos are involved. If people could keep their tax dollars and spend them on the education they choose for their own kids, and subsidize the science they want to subsidize, then there would be far less conflict over religion.
The fairest system, and best way for everyone to get along is a free market system where people can spend their own money on the things that they value, instead of being forced to spend it on whatever the government decides is best.
Issues like the legality of abortion are best left up to the states. I personally do not think that an embryo can possess a mind or a soul if it has no brain. A fetus by the end of the second trimester is another matter, however. I consider that fetus to be a person with rights. I would feel most comfortable living in a state where partial birth abortion is illegal and very early abortions are easy to obtain, and I suppose a Christian fundamentalist would be more at home in a state where all abortions are illegal.
On the other hand, preventing women from taking emergency contraception (morning after pill) or having very early abortions because of a belief that an embryo, which has no nervous system, actually has a soul-- that does seem to me like an imposition of religion.
In any case, what it all comes down to is that people should be able to say what they want, think what they want, and spend their money on what they value. These things are only possible in a free society.
> If they teach evolution in public schools, then creationists will complain
< who cares if "creationists" will complain? that's like taking the "flat-earthers" opinions into account. evolution is a scientific fact backed by evidence. there is no ethical dilemma here. i think this was a bad example you gave.
>>"who cares if "creationists" will complain?"
So do you think they should be forced to pay for schools to teach evolution? The creationists are most definitely wrong about the origins of life on earth, but I would argue that they have every right to use their own education dollars to educate their own children as they see fit. When those kids grow up and find themselves to be at a disadvantage in life because of the errors of their parents, maybe they will be motivated to make different decisions for their own children. Maybe not. In any case, it is not for me or for you to decide what to do with anyone else's money.
I'm all for a free marketplace of ideas. Let the bad and the good compete openly, then we can have some progress toward the truth. I think that if public education were abolished, that would be the end of the creationist lobby, because they would have nothing to rail against. Creationism would die a natural death, like any other silly idea.
> So do you think they should be forced to pay for schools to teach evolution?
< nobody should be forced to pay for schools to teach anything but not because they teach something one may disagree with. that's a weak argument. that's like saying weed should not be illegal because it has medicinal properties. wrong argument. that's all i was pointing out. making that argument is kinda beating around the bush.
>>"making that argument is kinda beating around the bush."
You can approach the issue of individual liberty in many ways. One is to look at it from a purely ethical standpoint, namely that it is morally wrong to force anyone to do what they do not want to do. Tom Mullen makes that point very well, much better than I do, so I just leave it to him. I agree with it 100%, but I'm not good at finding 50 different ways to say it. So yes of course you are right that people should not be forced to pay for public education because, and only because, it is wrong to use force against anyone.
However, there are many people who are just not convinced by the moral argument. You can explain to them until you are blue in the face that it is wrong for the government to forcefully redistribute wealth, and they will reply that it is for the greater good of society, that it is the lesser of two evils, or that it is in fact right to penalize rich people for being so fortunate or for having accumulated so much wealth.
Supporters of evolution may want to hold on to public education because they see it as a way to force people to understand the truth. When I am talking to people like this, I find it best to focus on the practical effects of getting the government out of education. If we force children to follow a certain curriculum, aren't we really saying that that curriculum is not good enough to stand on its own? The upside of abolishing public education and letting creationists teach creationism with their own private money is that it allows their ideas to be tested in the free marketplace. For someone who accepts evolution this is a good thing, because when creationist ideas go down in flames (because parents don't want to send their kids to "loser" schools), everybody knows that the creationists have no one to blame but themselves. They can't blame the government for manipulating speech and education. When they lose, they lose fair and square. If you really want people to be persuaded that creationism is a bad idea, you have to let that process happen.
In short, I believe that freedom is not only the only moral option, but it is also the best way for us in practical terms. If our objective is for people to become more prosperous, for poverty to decline, and for the truth to win out over superstition, we should strive for economic and political freedom.
Claire,
I see the discussion turns from education to religion very quickly on BTM. I have a suggestion to the BTM community regarding the debate around education. Rather than continuing the evolution versus creationism debate whenever education comes up, how about we get some discussion going about what truly constitutes a necessary and sufficient pedagogy for our children to become viable citizens. What I mean is the discussion on eveolution versus creationism is certainly valid, however the topic of education is disserved within that debate.
I submitted a forum category suggestion yesterday and I'm not real sure how these things get moved to become individual forum topics. Education in general and pedagogy in particular is ripe for, dare I say it, reform. Your ideas about choice and how to finance education are certainly topics in and of themselves. I have a lot of interest in the transformation of the education system from the state indoctrination machine it has become to a more enlightened system for producing (educated and trained) engaged citizens.
Like to here your thoughts about some threads for the forum on education. How does one go about getting the topic raised up?
>>"Like to here your thoughts about some threads for the forum on education. How does one go about getting the topic raised up?"
Good point, Robert. I'm not sure under which heading you would want to post a forum about education: News and politics (General) or Freedom philosophy/ history, maybe?
>>"how about we get some discussion going about what truly constitutes a necessary and sufficient pedagogy for our children to become viable citizens."
I suppose we could do that, but to be honest, I'm just really uncomfortable about imposing any curriculum on anyone else's children. That is, I think public education should be abolished altogether. I'm not against any sort of communal arrangement, but it would have to be entirely voluntary, and people should have the option not to participate. It should be possible, for example, to live in a place where you are not required to pay for the education of other people's children, and as far as I know, there is no place like that in America.
Education will only improve when it has to respond to the pressures of a free market. I can explain this further if you like, but I think you understand it. With regard to working within the current public system to develop a better curriculum, I have this to say: Sure, I can tell you what I think all children should learn, but I refuse to force any curriculum on unwilling parents, even the one I think is best. Moreover, I believe that a free marketplace of ideas is the only way for the best ideas to gain legitimacy; where some ideas are enforced over others, those who disagree with them can always take umbrage in their disenfranchisement, and believe that were it not for the government their own "truth" would prevail.
Evolution vs. creationism seems to be the hot point of disagreements over education, which is why we keep coming back to it over and over again. I would never send my children to a school that teaches creationism. I want them to be well educated about science so that they can have the best possible understanding of this great world of ours. I think that children who are educated this way will be more successful at finding interesting, rewarding and productive careers than those who have been taught to fear science or to consider it as another irrational religion. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, as they say, and when it becomes obvious to all that the way for your children to succeed is to teach them to understand and respect science and to put religion in its proper place, people will choose evolution and science for their own children voluntarily. No coercion necessary.
What I was heading for was a discussion regarding what children need in order to become viable participants in society e.g. reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. Parents are morally obligated to ensure their children receive some modicum of education so they may have a chance to thrive. I'm not advocating the current system but rather trying to get a handle on what basic skills are required. As I've indicated in some other posts, the current system is at best crowd control and at worst an indoctrination arm of the welfare state.
Imagine yourself living reasonably well established several hundred years ago. The welfare/warfare state has not yet gained its stranglehold on citizens. Now, it comes time to "educate" your children. What will be their fate? Will you teach them to read - certainly; reading leads easily to writing I'm sure. Lets not forget some arithmetic so they can interact in the money exchange process. OK, now they are eight years old and have mastered what you offer them. They appear to be very gifted, so what is next. Hmmmm? You'd like them to have some science in their toolkit. OK...more reading, some more writing and now we need to add algebra and calculus to begin the journey into science. I guess where I'm going with this is that there are some basic pedagogical elements, irrespective of the modern social farce, that truly educated individuals need.
The Trivium (primary) in classical education consisted of Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric.
The Quadrivium (secondary) in classical education consisted of Arithmetic, Astronomy, Geometry and Music.
The Tertiary (specialization) in classical education consisted of apprenticeship with a master in a field.
First they learn how to learn, then they learn the current framework of knowledge that exists and finally then, they begin to create. This is how it used to happen and it produced remarkable minds. Somehow the model needs to be updated to leverage our new framework of knowledge to allow more people to create.
Hope the rant doesn't dissuade your further posts:)
On the other note of getting a discussion going, I think education deserves a unique forum and I'm still not sure how to get it elevated to that level. How do I lobby for Your Thoughts About Education? Suggestions?
>>"How do I lobby for Your Thoughts About Education? Suggestions?"
You could try sending an e-mail message about it to Rick Williams or Trevor Lyman. I agree that the forum categories are not really adequate.
Apprenticeship is a great example of "free" education that is voluntary. The master takes on pupils with the right aptitudes and teaches them in return for their labor-- but their labor IS their education. It's a great arrangement, that lets everyone involved keep their dignity and their integrity.
The beauty of voluntary education is that it promotes the truth, through the operation of a free market of ideas in fair competition with each other. The wrong-headed ideologies they peddle in public schools today wouldn't last for 5 minutes in such a system.
I believe there is a god, but I don't like organized religion. To me, organized religion is just a way to control people.
I agree. The worst part is, organized religion teaches people to accept authority blindly, which is exactly the sort of thing we're fighting.
So a broad generalization is that religion teaches people to accept authority blindly; lots and lots of people accept authority blindly but many are not religiously indoctrinated, so there must be another variable in the mix. How about this; human beings are social mammals and social mammals exhibit many group traits, one of which is submission to authority aka some dominate member(s) of the herd/pack/tribe/community. So is it possible that, at least for the foreseeable future (until evolution changes our basic fight or flight responses) we'll have many, many individuals blindly accepting authority, religious and otherwise.
I think there are some genetic influences here that cannot be overcome by anything but further evolution of the species. Thoughts?
No, they can be overcome with intelligent, rational thought. But someone who's indoctrinated into a religion not only has the same genetic propensity for authoritarianism as the rest of us, they've also been conditioned to NOT listen to anyone who tells you differently! So the ability to escape it has been severely curtailed.
I pose a hypothetical and your assertion in the negative gives me pause. "No, they can be overcome with intelligent, rational thought." Sounds a little like an alpha male asserting a certainty. My point, shanek, is that irrespective of one's particular skills in convincing them to stop blindly accepting authority, the mob is large and acts as a unit. The lure of in-group status far out weighs any effort to think, for most people. So, given the numbers of in-group minds one faces in the world, be mindful of the roots of the behavior. Few rarely grasp the right to self-determination and a rational existence.
If a man will begin with certainties he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. (Francis Bacon)
Well, it certainly HAS happened--this website is proof of it! And there are certainly no shortage of individualists around, something which makes the creationists VERY scared. They have to condemn them as "secular humanists," say that they worship themselves as God, and tell all sorts of lies to try and discredit them in order to stop their followers from taking individualism seriously. They do that because independent critical thinking has been gaining respect for the last couple of centuries, so the creationists have to shore up, and go back to denying things they accepted 200 years ago, like humans being primates.
I see a certain tight focus in your response shanek. We started the thread on a general note about people's behaviors regarding religious beliefs and blind submission to authority. There appears to be quite a passion in your response toward creationists, in particular. So let me understand; I agreed with the proposition that religion can cause blind obedience and submission to authority; and in this context I mean any religion. I further added that there must be some genetic proclivity in the species toward this behavior.
So I may get your full meaning, are the "they" you speak of a particular subset of religious people. I sense, perhaps incorrectly, that the creationists you speak of might be young earth types; correct? If so, then you have taken a divergent path from my original intent; namely, that the religion of my hypothetical includes all religions, not just evangelical Christianity.
So, I believe you have a passion for individualism, as do I. I get a sense that you may spend quite a bit of energy in the debate with unarmed opponents (in this case creationists). At some point, since the debate will surely continue for the foreseeable future, discretion may be the better part of valor...broaden the debate or turn your energies elsewhere. My guess is we will get our chance to fight fundamentalist of one ilk or another in due time. Meanwhile, keep up the strong front for liberty and rationalism.
That stems from the fact that, in my estimation, creationists are one of the greatest threats to our liberty that we currently face--greater even than radical Islam! We have the rare attack or threat of attack from them, but creationists have successfully affected every textbook in every school.
And yes, my comments were directed at that subset, which is why I mentioned them. Most religious people don't have a problem with this kind of stuff, but then, most religious people are not the problem we have to deal with. You can be religious and still be an individualist. But those who would use force to make others accept their religion are enemies to be fought, as much as foreign invaders.
shanek - why is it necessary to make nearly every proposition in your arguments sound so dramatic? I've been in a few schools and seen a few textbooks in my day and your "over the top" hyperbole does nothing for your argument. To wit, "...but creationist have affected every textbook in every school." Come now, you know that is not true. I'll accept that they may have direct influence in some textbooks or perhaps many textbooks; but all textbooks is a bit of a stretch. Precision is the mother of clarity; we must have clarity before mutual agreement may develop.
Here's some quotes from the National Center for Science Education's Textbook Chooser's Guide:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1723_the_textbook_choosers_gui...
"Beware of the text that does not explicate the nature of science. One of the major reasons students take science courses is to become acquainted with science as a way of knowing. The processes of science should permeate the textbook and not be confined to an isolated chapter or paragraph on what is erroneously referred to as “the scientific method.” Rather, examples of the investigatory nature of science that delineate its processes, its successes and its limitations should appear in every chapter, if not on every page. Eliminate from consideration textbooks that present science as a process of uncertainty. Statements such as “some scientists believe” and “Many scientists agree” present science as a guessing game whose issues are decided by vote."
"Beware of the bland textbook, the one written in such a way as to eliminate controversial or contentious issues and the one that presents biology simply as a fixed body of nonapplicable data. The nature of scientific controversy should be presented. Current biological problems still unresolved should be discussed. Students should be encouraged to analyze, synthesize and evaluate evidence for and against a given hypothesis."
"Further, science should not be presented as an enterprise operating in isolation from society and technology. The interrelationships of science with social and technological aspects should permeate the text."
It is VERY easy to see how all of these problems with textbooks help the creationists: In the first case, it presents science as a guessing game and allows creationists to play this same game with seeming scientific authority. It makes it easier to say that science doesn't really know. And it gives weight to things like the Discovery Institute's bogus lis.
The second makes it easier for creationists to say that scientists are religious and dogmatic, stopping and inhibiting all controversy that contradicts what they believe. They HAVE to make it look like this, for if people saw science for what it is--welcoming controversy, struggling for resolution, constantly opposing each others' ideas--then people would see that the ONLY reason why creationism and intelligent design aren't included in this debate is because they aren't worthy enough to be.
And the last one gives them the ability to make it look as if there's some scientific conspiracy of a secret cabal of people trying to make people give up their religion, instead of people giving up their religion because they see what an archaic, useless, worthless, and destructive thing it is.
These misconceptions keep people ignorant, and do not give them the tools they need to properly see when someone is spouting something bogus. With these tools, people could have easily seen that the arguments for the Iraq War were bogus at the time, as many did. In fact, people would question and even oppose 99% of the public policy proposals that are made on a state, local, and Federal level.
They don't, and this is why.
"To wit, "...but creationist have affected every textbook in every school." Come now, you know that is not true."
It absolutely is: Case in point, Kenneth Miller's biology textbook "Biology: The Living Science" had most of its references to evolution replaced with "change over time," all references to evolution being a fact were removed, and basically the whole thing was watered down. This was ABSOLUTELY to make it more marketable to school systems which creationists ARE a big part of (most of them are smart enough not to make their views known, unlike the Dover school board). The creationists wanted this so that they COULD more easily manipulate the mis-educated school children.
And if you think it ONLY happens with that textbook, and ONLY in biology class, you're seriously deluding yourself. Kids come out of school with a LOT of misinformation about the Big Bang, cosmology, chemistry, information theory, thermodynamics, etc.
Be honest: how many of you here think the Second Law of Thermodynamics has ANYTHING to do with disorder?
Be honest: how many of you here think that the Big Bang was an explosion of stuff in a pre-existing space?
Be honest: how many of you here think that information is destroyed by physical processes, and can't be created by any means other than intelligence?
We've already seen how people here think the Miller-Urey experiment was supposed to be about the origin of life and not the origin of organic chemicals.
ALL of these are indications of the misinformation injected into our school systems by creationists. DELIBERATELY.
shanek - why is it necessary to make nearly every proposition in your arguments sound so dramatic? I've been in a few schools and seen a few textbooks in my day and your "over the top" hyperbole does nothing for your argument. To wit, "...but creationist have affected every textbook in every school." Come now, you know that is not true. I'll accept that they may have direct influence in some textbooks or perhaps many textbooks; but all textbooks is a bit of a stretch. Precision is the mother of clarity; we must have clarity before mutual agreement may develop.
What if a good number of people are just naturally drawn to authority? You and I may not have experienced the need to submit to a higher authority, but I think that a lot of people just have that personality type. Shanek, you will say that no one is born to seek out authority, that it is always the result of indoctrination-- but what if I am right? What if it comes from nature more than from nurture? What if it's just an intractable urge that will always seek an outlet?
If that is the case then religion is a good thing because channels the desire for authority in a relatively benign direction (for the most part-- there are exceptions like radical Islam), and it keeps people from falling prey to the lure more dangerous authoritarian ideologies like fascism or communism.
Claire,
You picked up on my original intent. A certain proclivity exists in mammals generally and humans specifically to seek a leader from among their herd/tribe/community. As I mentioned, I have a sneaky suspicion of genetic programming for such behavior. Many humans exist well down the stack on Maslow's hierarchy of need (biological, physiological and safety needs). Some, with time and the right environment, move up to realize certain vestiges of a good life. Many, however never attain much more than a brutish life. That is the truth.
History is replete with mass movements: good and bad. Eric Hoffer wrote a nice little treatise on the phenomenon of mass movements called "The True Believer". His primary thesis was that all virtually all mass movements - religious, political, cllective hysteria or what ever - have a pattern involving a charismatic leader and more importantly, large numbers of submissive true believers. The folks just waiting to be told what to do.
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.
-- Eric Hoffer
You need to reread what I said:
"But someone who's indoctrinated into a religion not only has the same genetic propensity for authoritarianism as the rest of us, they've also been conditioned to NOT listen to anyone who tells you differently!"
Yes, it's a part of our nature. But it's also a part of our nature to be rebellious and individualistic. Religion reinforces the authoritarian part while weakening the individualist part.
Think about the problems of child molestation by catholic priests. If I were catholic, I would have been screaming at the top of my lungs to prosecute these bastards! But the overwhelming majority of catholics stayed silent, or even defended them!
No, religion is NOT benign, and has been the source of a LOT of fascism over the course of human history.
>>"Yes, it's a part of our nature. But it's also a part of our nature to be rebellious and individualistic. Religion reinforces the authoritarian part while weakening the individualist part."
I think that maybe the balance between submissiveness and rebelliousness is set differently from one individual to another. That is, there are people who are by nature more prone to follow others than to think for themselves. These types of people, in the absence of religion, will tend to look for other forms of authority. This will happen whether or not they were raised to respect authority.
My impression is that most atheists are ideologically drawn to socialism-- although I admit I could be wrong about that. Do you think the idea that religion is a bulwark against collectivism or fascism is a complete myth? I think religious people can be our allies in the fight against big government.
With regard to the damages of creationism, your focus is mainly on how creationists want to change public school curriculum. I think the solution to this problem is not to censor anyone, but rather to prevent them from forcing anyone else pay for the promotion of their views. The way to accomplish this in my opinion is to take away public schools altogether and let everyone spend their education dollars as they see fit.
It's not just that: it's a battle for hearts and minds. If the creationists had their way, we'd go backward at least 200 years and lose pretty much all of the freedoms we've fought for. It goes WAY beyond the public schools.