posted on October 16, 2002 10:17:35 PM new
kraftdinner - I understand you don't agree with the religious right. You don't have to agree with them, no ones making you. But because you don't doesn't mean they can't practice what they believe.
not to mention the lies told to get the flock to conform (like the Bob Knight junk). Do you know what I mean? I think I do. But what I'm saying is that we as individuals have the right to decide whether or not we feel what is being said is junk or not. Choice. If some believe it's not 'junk' and choose to join the flock because they agree with what they say...that is their right. They just made a different decision that you did. Doesn't make one right and the other one wrong.
posted on October 16, 2002 10:38:46 PM newTolerance, as I understand it as a societal construct or principle, is that one respects the right of others to hold different opinions and to express them. That's exactly what I was trying to get across. Thank you.
posted on October 16, 2002 11:12:34 PM new
I agree totally with you Linda. The only problem I have is when these religious leaders tell their flocks things that are ignorant and misleading about certain groups of people in order to control their way of thinking - and doing it all in the name of God for credibility. These people are supposed to be Christians teaching about God's unconditional love, not looking for people to judge. If they were tolerant of homosexuals, etc., this wouldn't even be an issue with them or any religion.
Gee thanks Antiquary. Same with what you've said. P.S. I LOVED the Einstein quote!!
posted on October 16, 2002 11:41:11 PM new
krafty - You're lucky if that's the only problem you have I have many.
when these religious leaders tell their flocks things that are ignorant and misleading about certain groups of people in order to control their way of thinking Everyone has free will...to believe or not believe...no one can control another or force them to believe something just because they say it.
These people are supposed to be Christians teaching about God's unconditional love. Have you ever read the Bible and read about God's wrath when he was not pleased with what people had done? It wasn't pretty.
If they were tolerant of homosexuals, etc., this wouldn't even be an issue with them or any religion. More tolerance all around would be a good thing, IMO. But if anything is against one's beliefs they're not going to be tolerant of someone forcing them to accept anything they don't believe in.
krafty...for me it's the same thing as if I was one of those people you've spoken about that thinks something's wrong with you [or others] because you made a choice not to have children. It's personal choice. It's like those who feel the people who are against abortion are wrong. It's personal choice. To me it doesn't matter the subject...I just believe no one is 'lead' we choose.
posted on October 16, 2002 11:43:59 PM new
I thought that your concept of God as a force in the universe was interesting, KD. I don't accept any of the traditional religious concepts on earth as valid, but I've always remained technically agnostic because our knowledge of the universe is so small that there's a remote possibility that something may exist with properties that could be equated with the concept of God.
posted on October 17, 2002 09:27:12 AM new
There are extremists on every side of the debate. There are fundamentalists trying to influence government, and there are homosexuals trying to influence the media. Hollywood used to be Jewish. Now it's gay. There are proselytizing Christians, and proselytizing gays. I don't care for anyone shoving their lifestyle in my face. Who needs that crap?
posted on October 17, 2002 11:44:20 AM new Linda!! I agree with you about choice... no one is forcing us to believe in anything, but when the name God enters the picture, it can sway the unbelievers into thinking the extremist views are what God had in mind, turning people against gays, pro-choicers, etc. If we all took equal blame for the state of the world instead of trying to blame it all on gays, Jews, Muslims, etc., then I would believe there is tolerance in Christianity.
Thanks Antiquary! I could be wrong though... maybe God does live in the sky, wearing a long robe and a staff with some sheep around him. And the devil is sitting on a lava rock with a red spandex suit on and a pitchfork. It would sure make the whole science thing unnecessary.
posted on October 17, 2002 08:55:21 PM new
Yes, those Fundamentalists are great literalists of the imagination, KD. One might wish that they were a little less enamored with hell and armagedon.
For the majority of Fundamentalists the three greatest enemies are science, public education, and democracy. The more specific social issues which they use to create or exacerbate controversy in society are primarily important as vehichles to undermine those institutions.
I still remember reading Pat Robertson's statement of fact that Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians were not true Christians and were going to hell. But the Fundamentalists have eased up publically a lot on Catholics of late. At first I was puzzled, but I decided that it was sheer number, still too large a group to take on directly yet -- as well as the political considerations.
I've spent a little time researching Fundamentalists on the internet, objective articles and reports and both pro and con analyses.
I liked the following excerpt from an anti-Fundamentalism analysis. Primarily because I believe that the critical thinking skills that are explained there are the very heart of education, however they are acquired.
How Should Fundamentalism Be Fought?
Fundamentalism must be fought with education.
It is obvious that the best innoculant against any form of ignorance is education. And make no mistake, fundamentalism is a form of spectacular ignorance, ignorance of the basic principles of true religion.
It is no coincidence that fundamentalism has arisen in America at the same time that the public education system has collapsed. And it is also no coincidence that fundamentalism is strongest in America and elsewhere in the world wherever the educational system is at its weakest.
The best form of education is the teaching of critical thinking skills. It is the most important skill any educator can teach. With it, the fundamentalism's deceiving tricks are quickly exposed, and it is seen for what it is. Students need to be taught the importance of gathering the evidence and then proceeding to the conclusion, not the other way around. The best way to teach logic, reason and critical thinking skills is with the "Socratic method" of guided discussion. This should be done beginning in the earliest grade, and by the fourth year, the formal elements of logic and reason can be introduced, so that students have a guide in recognizing and rejecting fallacious thinking. Doing this with rigor and consistency throughout the educational process will lead to a generation that will think independently as a matter of habit, rather than accepting pre-digested doctrines blindly.
It would be helpful too, to teach what true religion really is. Once the student is aware of the nature of true religion, the fundamentalist doesn't stand a chance, because the logical weakness of his doctrine becomes obvious and the devious subtlety of its appeals are exposed.
The other effective way to fight fundamentalism is to teach humility.
Spiritual progress is impossible without it. Scientific progress is impossible without it.
I'm not suggesting students should be humiliated -- not at all. That's child abuse and should be fought vigorously. But the value of humility should be taught, so that students understand that they can't maintain an open mind in the absence of humility. They'll gain a lot from learning it, not just academically, but in relationships and social skills, too.
Perhaps the best way to check the progress of fundamentalism is with critical, analytical thinking. If every school taught the basics of critical thinking, learning would flourish and fundamentalism would fade.
Fundamentalist apologists lack scholarly rigor, because in their rush to ensure that they are covering all the obvious problems with the doctrines they preach, they often commit unacceptable errors in logic. To wit:
They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. They point, for example, to the fact that an honest scientist will refuse to make a statement from a position of certainty, while they're happy to do so, claiming divine knowledge. This is an example of the straw-man fallacy.
They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opponents' conclusions must be wrong. An example here is the claim, occasionally heard, that Newton was proven wrong in some important details, Einstein was eventually proven wrong in a few details, and scientists admit that they don't have the final answers and therefore science doesn't know what it's doing, and can't be trusted. This is a non-sequitor fallacy.
They use quotations, usually taken out of context to buttress their own position. A favorite here is the various quotations of Einstein, usually referring to God, suggesting that Einstein believed in the same sort of God they do. Einstein most emphatically did not, as will be obvious if you read his essay on the subject. This is the fallacy of suppressed evidence.
They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field. For example, rather than debate the legitimacy of the interpretation of specific fossil evidence, vis a vis evolution, they often attack paleontology in general, claiming it to be an invalid science. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization.
They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasizing data that fits and discounting data that does not fit. An example is the claim that science simply doesn't have an answer as to the age of the universe. True enough, but science has solid, reliable evidence that it is more than the seven thousand years that these same fundamentalists claim.This is again the fallacy of suppressed evidence.
Dr. Carl Sagan, in his last book, The Demon Haunted World gives us some excellent tools for the use in the process of critical thinking. In a nutshell, here they are:
Where possible, what is claimed to be factual has to be independently confirmable by two or more sources not in league with each other.
Debate and argument must be encouraged, not stifled.
There's no such thing as an "authority." They've been wrong in the past and will be in the future. Which means they're wrong now.
More than one hypothesis is needed to stimulate debate. All points of view should be examined equally and with as little bias as possible.
Don't get emotionally attached to your own hypothesis (faith?). Doing so blinds you to better ideas.
Quantifiable hypotheses are better than qualitative ones, because they are more testable. In other words, go for testable hypotheses first because untestable qualitative ones are of little value.
If there's a chain of logic that supports an argument, every link in that chain must be valid and unbroken.
Go for simplicity. Occam's Razor states that of the competing hypotheses that explain the data equally well, the one most likely to be correct is the one that makes the least number of assumptions and is the least complicated.
Hypotheses that can't be experimentally disproven aren't worth much. For a hypothesis to be useful, it has to be testable, which means it must be capable of being disproven if wrong. Skeptics have to be able to follow your arguments, do your experiments and be capable of producing the same experimental results if your hypothesis is to be considered correct.
posted on October 18, 2002 01:50:14 PM new
Thanks for such a good, well explained article Antiquary. I agree with it all because it seems logical to me, but, like you say, it's the people with little sense of logic and reason that are most attracted to these people... and not through any fault of their own. These leaders are charismatic and hard to ignore. If I was down on my luck, depressed, or whatever, and didn't realize it was my own doing, I could probably be swayed, even if just for someone to listen to my troubles. But that's the hook. If I got better, it would be because of their direct link with God and I would end up owing a big debt to God through them. That's how my free will would start to be controlled, and controlled in such a way that I would still think I had free will. That's how religions started and that's how dictatorships work, so these types are no better than the Saddam's of the world. (IMHO)
posted on October 18, 2002 03:14:25 PM new
Yes, that is the hook. Well-stated, KD.
Until the Fundamentalists are willing to sacrifice reason to faith in the daily details of living to determine how their concepts of fate will create a better life then I'm not inclined to accept it as the solution to complex political and social decisions that could directly or indirectly affect millions of lives. For instance, will they be willing to cross busy streets without checking traffic, plug in electrical cords after coming in from a drenching rainstorm, eat raw poultry that has been sitting on the kitchen counter for a couple of days? After all, they're only risking their own lives and well-being in those situations.
Since much of the discussion has centered around the Fundamentalists' views of logic and science lately, I thought that this article was especially interesting. The article continues to include information on massage as a reliever of stress and the most stressed out cities, but I didn't include those.
Most admired professions
By Barbara Kollmeyer, CBS MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:51 AM ET Oct. 18, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Being a scientist may not make you the life of the party, but you can safely brag at those cocktail soirees that yours is the most enviable job in the world.
Scientists and doctors topped the polls of most prestigious positions, according to the latest findings from the Harris Poll. The battle of the white coats was neck and neck, though, with scientists edging over doctors, 51 percent to 50. And the good doctor's standings fell 11 percentage points from last year's ranking.
Next on the list: Teachers and military officers, both at 47 percent, respectively, with the armed services getting a not-surprising boost since August last year. Police officers also saw a modest improvement in the prestige rankings, up to 40 percent.
Alas, scandals in the Roman Catholic Church put a dent in priests' ratings, with ministers or clergymen dropping seven points to 36 percent.
Trailing the pack were journalists at 19 percent, lawyers and bankers at 15 percent and accountants at 13 percent.
posted on October 18, 2002 06:27:02 PM new
>If you study American History at all you will learn the founders of our country were all Christians and they based the constitution on the book of Isiah (spelled wrong) -Artdoggy-
Gosh. I'm at a real loss here, artdoggy. I'm so ignorant to these facts that you've passed along to us above. Could you please take some time (since you brought it up) and point out to me exactly where and what parts in the United States Constitution, or the Declaration of Independance, or the Bill of Rights that is based on any part of Isaiah? I'm desperately in need of educating in this area. Thank you in advance, artdoggy.
posted on October 18, 2002 06:57:39 PM new
I just got done reading your post, antiquary, on How Should Fundamentalism Be Fought.
I have to say that not only do I agree with its conclusions, but that I also extend this very same methodology to politics and government. That every pound of flesh presented in the bodies of works by politicians need such complete scrutiny are indicative that voters need to practice Critical Thinking as well. That my own efforts in this area cause some other people to reach hasty conclusions about my own patriotism shows the irrelevance of the depth of their way of thinking compared to their notions of what is right and what is not. That being suspicious and logical and show an earnest desire to thoroughly examine each and every bit that comes down the pike is more a matter of protecting oneself from delusions than being the product of deluded thinking processes. That perhaps we should use these methods in all pursuits of knowledge would be wise.
posted on October 18, 2002 07:24:26 PM new
The fight is the old one of emotion against reason. Plato and Aristotle, Pascal (the heart has reasons of which reason knows not) and Descartes (Cogito, ergo sum), Spock and Bones. Faith is emotion based, and cannot be explained. Logic is based on the steps of explanation. Only a paradox can embrace such opposition.
Or the theory of everything. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 18, 2002 08:25:57 PM new
Borillar,
I would hope that everyone has the ability to critically examine any problem as a means to reaching an informed opinion or in making a decision of consequence. Most people have the capability to do so, but the enormous amount of time that it takes to acquire information and the frustrations in working through the process make the temptations to believe that there can be shortcuts to the critical thinking process itself, especially in oversimplifying the questions, or the temptation to just ignore any involvement with problem-solving at all, especially social and political, or the temptation to accept someone else's conclusion without an understanding of it, are very strong today. I think more so than in the past.
Snowy,
Yes, the theory of everything. Or the ultimate either/or argument.
I've always (or what seems like forever) defined the relationship between the two in this way:
Without reason emotion would not exist. But without emotion no one would care.
added a sentence
[ edited by antiquary on Oct 18, 2002 08:28 PM ]
posted on October 18, 2002 11:18:50 PM new
I thought of you when I read this line Borillar... "Debate and argument must be encouraged, not stifled." A good debate on the hot issues is so good for people but lots don't want to rock the status quo boat. That alone makes for a good debate.
posted on October 19, 2002 12:48:51 AM new
Thank you, KD. I do believe it, truly. I see no subject as being beyond debate so long as it is kept within the bounds of good reasoning and a minimum of personal bias. While many subjects are hotly debated here, some subjects will get some posters to go get the thread destroyed because they don't like the topic of discussion. And there are those who support such actions as that due to what they think are "personal feelings." But that's pure baloney! If you don't like what's being discussed and you can't do anyhting about it, just don't come into the thread anymore. Conversely, it would be better if you stayed to discuss what and why you do not like it and try to use facts, reason and logic to prove your points. That sort of censorship in an open, public forum is beyond hypocrisy and it is unforgiveable in my mind.
posted on October 19, 2002 01:02:56 AM new
Antiquary, I have learned that few people take the time to throughly go over every fact that is presented to them with a fine-tooth comb. However, I'm one of them, my parents having brought us children up or the Scientific Method and Rodger's Rules of Order as a matter of course.
I also have long thought that teaching kids in school to learn Critical Thinking and Reasoning was something that our society could really use in the long run. I also would like to see everyonhe learn the rules of Rodger's Rules of Order and Debate Methods. Can you image what the change to society would be?
Con artists of every stripe would have a much harder time.
Organized religions would fall. Can you imagine a starry-eyed Jesus Freak on the street corner accosting passersby with dogma and instead, being challanged logically to provide the facts that have been substanciated by two different sources? LOL!
Politicians would have a VERY dificult time lying to us! Every single word that they'd utter would be roasted Borillar-style! Politicians would have to (gulp!) become HONEST!
posted on October 19, 2002 05:57:14 AM new
Yes, Borillar, it would be great!
Now, debate is discouraged as either anti-christian or anti-patriotic. Because I am anti-nationalist and object to an unprovoked war, I am labeled "Jane".
I can count the number of people left here who can think on one hand. All of the other intelligent posters have either left or have had their posting privileges suspended.
posted on October 19, 2002 09:21:56 AM new
Then I want the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that murder is wrong. I want the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that we are guaranteed inalienable rights. I want the SCIENTIFIC PROOF of the validity of government. And remember, substanciated by two different sources..... Otherwise, you have NO rights, NO Freedom, NO Liberty because you do not believe in them.
.
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on October 19, 2002 01:44:56 PM new
mlecher, thanks sooo much for getting rid of that smilie. It was a distraction to your good input.
Society's laws aren't science so they can't be proven. In the true sense, nothing is right or wrong, but there is a difference between fact and fiction.
I'm not sure if logic can be taught Borillar. I used to think so, but now I'm not too sure. I think it's more of a left brain/right brain thing. Like, I can add and subtract, but I'm not good at math. I think you can be taught the basics, but you either have it or you don't. That's why I think it's only possible to have a debate with people as equally logic as yourself. Maybe that's why discussions tend to fall apart so quickly. I agree totally that no topic should be too hot to discuss... if that was taught in schools we might be further ahead.
posted on October 19, 2002 02:11:30 PM new
>but I'm not good at math.
KD, you are victim to the same process that everyone is. What is lacking in math classes in school is an adequate explanation about the learning processes concerning mathematics.
Math is like life's little learning phases. The Rule is, is that the higher up that you go in math, the EASIER math gets, not harder. This is because the fundamentals of any mathematics system is extremely difficult to grasp - at first. But with a lot of pounding your head against the wall and a lot of classroom time and much practice, you get that first year math down quite good. Then, the rest gets easier and easier as you go on with it.
Compare that to reading. When you were first learning how to read, you had to learn about the letters of the alphabet. In fact, you had to make the cognitive leap that those silly little lines drawn meant an abstract thing as a letter, which equates to a sound made in speech!
Once over that hurdle and you learned the alphabet, you began to read words. At first, you had to look at each letter of a word to try to sound it out. But after a while, you began to read the words and ignore the letters that made them up. Grammar and punctuation was the next step and much easier on the old noodle. Right?
Or, compare it to learning how to ride a bicycle. At first, you fall a lot. But once you get your balance, then off you go! After that, learning to do circus tricks is rather easy in comparison.
So, if you are logically good, but poor in math, my guess is that you did not comprehend the basics well enough (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and percentages). Go back to your kid's books and relearn how to do those basics until you can do them in your head! Anything after that will seem easy in comparison.
posted on October 19, 2002 03:25:22 PM new
And God is not science either, but alot of you have dismissed him out-of-hand simply because he can not be "scientifically" proven. In all actuality, it can't be scientificaly proven that you exist either.
KD...
I think I will work on a smilie being shot out of a cannon into a wall
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
[ edited by mlecher on Oct 19, 2002 03:26 PM ]
posted on October 19, 2002 05:19:52 PM newIn all actuality, it can't be scientificaly proven that you exist either.
Ah, mlecher, that sounds like a challenge from epistemology 101. The good old days.
Borillar, re your explanation of how people learn higher math. I had a friend in high school who had a near photographic memory and a cumulative average of about 98 in all her subjects until she encountered geometry. She couldn't pull more than a C in it. She just couldn't visual space well. I think that geometry is a stumbling block for many people and I think kraftdinner is right in saying that math may be a left brain/right brain divide. I sailed through geometry with A's except in the last quarter because I refused to do my homework. All my siblings were exposed to the same coursework and environment when we were growing up, but only two of us have much in the way of visual skills. I think some skills and the way we approach problems are inherited. I'm not convinced that everyone can learn these things equally well.
posted on October 19, 2002 05:30:34 PM new
In my opinion neither science nor religion is inherently dangerous. It's a matter of how we choose to use them or allow others to use them. To use either scientific discoveries or religious dogma without a careful, critical analysis of the harm and good that will result from either application is irresponsible. Science can't save us from destroying ourselves any more than religion can. Except to a minority religious view in both Islam and Christianity which is essentially nihilistic.
Snowy, your reference to Pascal reminded me of one of my favorite quotations and since the topic did concern quotes I'll interject it here:
"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this.
All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavour then, to think well; this is the principle of morality."
KD, Saabsister -- That's an interesting theory and one that those involved in education have attempted to understand and somewhat accommodate.
posted on October 19, 2002 06:40:31 PM new
Antiquary, it's a good quote, since the first quote enoining a choice between hell and reason is by Camus, and for his philosophic forefather in French philosophy, the choice was between the Christian God and hell.
The Pensees were a tough read for me. (It might have been easier in English He and Kant made my brain hurt. ACK!
I'm imagining the confusion, consternation, and chaos that would ensue in political circles if this:
Every single word that they'd utter would be roasted Borillar-style!
came to pass.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 19, 2002 07:29:32 PM new
A couple quotes about war from a couple guys who have been in the thick of it:
When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
It is well that war is so terrible--we shouldn't grow too fond of it.
-- Robert E. Lee
posted on October 19, 2002 07:37:53 PM new
>Then I want the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that murder is wrong. I want the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that we are guaranteed inalienable rights. I want the SCIENTIFIC PROOF of the validity of government. And remember, substanciated by two different sources..... Otherwise, you have NO rights, NO Freedom, NO Liberty because you do not believe in them.
Your stated desires are asking for PROOFs, not Scientific Proofs. There are proofs other than scientific; i.e. Logical proofs through argument or philosophical proofs through reasoning. That facts be verified by at least two distinctly different sources is a detail of the methodology that confirms the validity of the methods used by scientific and logical scrutiny. To do otherwise is to base your facts upon one source who may or may not be correct or may not be able to translate the information to you adequately.
For instance, the Fundamentalist movement is full of laughable arguments that bite their own tail. One recent one for me was being confronted with, "If millions of people believe it (Fundamentalist Christianity), then can they all be wrong?" My reply was, "When millions of people believed Adolph Hitler, could they have all been wrong?"
You see? Laughable! And they come out with these silly little arguments, not to convert others, but to keep the converted in line, lest they think about it and stray away. And any application of scientific, logical, or philosophical methods would instantly reveal the illogic of these sayings. Therefore, should we not be teaching our children how to use Reason and Logic, the Scientific Method of Discovery and Rodger's Rules of Order?
I never followed my French or Spanish far enough to attempt a safe entry into philosophy. But at times with Kantian epistemology I suspected the translator might have perversely switched languages. Nonetheless, I struggled through and I'm sure that I'm the better person for it. Should our education systems continue to progress far enough to incorporate Penecostal Tongues into the curriculum, I'll be saddened at having missed the opportunity. I'm sure that it would have helped overcome my difficulties with many readings. I envision it as something like a language calculator.
posted on October 19, 2002 08:05:31 PM new
>Now, debate is discouraged as either anti-christian or anti-patriotic. Because I am anti-nationalist and object to an unprovoked war, I am labeled "Jane".
I, too, am aghast at the notion of nationalism. It is a false sense of security and self-worth; such things should be based upon achievement, rather than birth. I object to any unprovoked war because it is anti-American to do so and anyone who thinks otherwise has no sense of American History. That our government has had to invent incidents in the past in order to get the American people to go along with wars lets us know that we are protected from frivolous pursuits by the Rich and Powerful in this country.
>I can count the number of people left here who can think on one hand. All of the other intelligent posters have either left or have had their posting privileges suspended.
??
I know that some have left. But there are intelligent posters whose privileges are currently suspended? I never have been able to keep up on the personal info like that.
posted on October 19, 2002 08:11:18 PM new
Snowy and antiquary
I found The Philosophy of Art, The Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, and Epistemology much more interesting than Logic. Then again, being an argumentative person, I would. (I need to read something other than gardening books. )
Borillar, you're not referring to that old parliamentary standby "Robert's Rules of Order", are you?
Same with what you've said. P.S. I LOVED the Einstein quote!!
I have many. 
)