Tamed Horses - A Peek Inside The Gestalt Behind Religion
27 January 2008 by KA
We are often puzzled, befuddled, nonplussed, and otherwise bewildered at the way religious folks cling tenaciously to their beliefs (much like a terrier worrying a dead rat). Obviously this isn’t something as simplistic as intelligence - history abounds with examples of incredibly intelligent people who were religious. There are valid points to be made here - upbringing usually has a deep sway over people. It’s difficult to admit that the people we grew up with and around are trapped in a morass of superstitious anachronisms.
The other piece of the puzzle, I think, lies in the participation of religious rituals.
Let’s talk about possession. This is a predilection of mine (of sorts): hopefully when I’m done, you’ll be nodding and telling yourself, “Hey, that makes sense.”
This link is one I discovered years ago. It’s a fairly well written piece about how high priests, preachers, shamans [insert-head-of-hierarchal-religion-of-your-choice here] and their ilk manage to sway masses of believers at gatherings. (Editor’s note: yes, Sutphen is indeed a New Ager. Yes, he indulges in that romantic nonsense of ‘past lives’, and yes, he’s got a blurb from a publisher that he’s the ‘foremost psychic researcher’. Be that as it may, his insights into this matter make a great deal of logical sense.)
Three distinct and progressive states of transmarginal inhibition were identified by Pavlov. The first is the Equivalent phase, in which the brain gives the same response to both strong and weak stimuli. Second is the Paradoxical phase, in which the brain responds more actively to weak stimuli than to strong. Third is the Ultra-Paradoxical phase, in which conditioned responses and behavior patterns turn from positive to negative or from negative to positive.
With the progressions through each phase, the degree of conversion becomes more effective and complete. The ways to achieve conversion are many and varied, but the usual first step in religious or political brainwashing is to work on the emotions of an individual or group until they reach an abnormal level of anger, fear, excitement or nervous tension.
The progressive result of this mental condition is to impair judgment and increase suggestibility. The more this condition can be maintained or intensified, the more it compounds. Once catharsis or the first brain phase is reached, the complete mental takeover becomes easier. Existing mental programming can be replaced with new patterns of thinking and behavior.
Other often-used physiological weapons to modify normal brain functions are fasting, radical or high sugar diets, physical discomforts, regulation of breathing, mantra chanting in meditation, the disclosure of awesome mysteries, special lighting and sound effects, programmed response to incense, or intoxicating drugs.
The same results can be obtained in contemporary psychiatric treatment by electric shock treatments and even by purposely lowering a patient’s blood sugar level with insulin injections.
It sounds quite a bit like psychological alchemy, does it not? It takes no degree to see how people get swept up by their environment - the attendant synchronization sweeping across the five senses, triggering a plethora of chemical responses, your neighbors grooving to the beat, all those scents, sights, sounds pounding into your brain until you feel that sweet sensation that everyone else is feeling - ever been to a concert? A festival? Any large gatherings of like-minded folks? Ye ken me drift, moving onwards.
For a more skeptical look, here’s a bit from the Church Of Reality.
Further out in left field, I’m going to drag in (as some of you may have guessed by the picture in the right-hand corner) an example from a religion little-discussed in most atheist blogs: Vodou (or, as it’s better known, Voodoo). This is, as some of you know, a syncretic religion composed of Catholicism and a wide variety of pantheistic African religions. More interesting still, it contains multiple instances of spirit possession, by supernatural critters known as Loas. The phrase is that the loa is ‘riding the horse’. Even more intriguing is that, unlike the more Westernized Catholicism, possession is not feared - indeed, it’s accepted with open arms.
There are hints, rumors and whispers that sometimes outsiders (read: non-believers) sometimes ‘fall under the spell’ and become possessed. This isn’t very well documented. Mostly anecdotal - no names, places, dates, etc. I found this bit via Googling - but I fear it may be suspect, as missionaries tend to let too much of their own biases creep into the observations. Sutphen mentions it in the link, but no attribution, name, etc.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, the human mind can be tricked into displacing itself, and also, our species tends to experience hallucinations on a fairly frequent basis. So, it also seems that we can indeed be conned into thinking we’re a completely opposite identity too? A supernatural one at that?
Confusion seems to be a steady element in the human condition.
Color me confused, and turn the page.
Till the next post, then.
27 January 2008, on 5:10 am
If “history abounds with examples of incredibly intelligent people who were religious” then maybe you should ask yourself if there’s something in it.
27 January 2008, on 8:52 am
MM, most of us have at one point or another.
There IS something in it: fear and anxiety which will probably be around as long as there’s dark, light, uncertainty, and guilt on the one side, on the other there are people who who want power, authority, and money.
I had a girlfriend long ago, who had a saying to discribe such things, “a pound of smoke” is what she classified it.
27 January 2008, on 12:32 pm
All very convincing, but I am still puzzled. If I can see that 1+1=2, how is it that the brainwashed fruitcakes come up with the answer 3?
27 January 2008, on 12:49 pm
MM:
Just because someone’s smart, doesn’t mean they’re not stupid. Religion didn’t make them any smarter. Really, this ‘gift by association’ is just so bogus.
As Sarge puts it so nicely, a ‘pound of smoke’.
John:
I suppose Man is the animal w/the greatest ability to deceive itself.
27 January 2008, on 3:19 pm
Thank you, KA. I’m fascinated by the material nature of psyche, and I always love your posts and thoughts.
27 January 2008, on 9:25 pm
MM - Very intelligent people are still products of their upbringings, environments, laws, reward systems, etc. Also very intelligent people are human - they like to fill-in gaps and have reasons; the less they know the more god looks reasonable. The fact that intelligent people in the past lived up to their culture in a collective sense does not surprise me and certainly does not justify my believing in their superstitions and weird science. Furthermore bloody intelligent people can be charletans or f-n-nuts, or both.
Modern sane secularly knowledgable intelligent people who believe today - I mean really believe and not just socially believe or in some nebulous abstract deist way believe - especially those that put themselves into it and go around trying to convert the world are f-n-nuts, immature, or very insecure people pleasing susceptable people. Or maybe there should be another definition of intelligence.
This is almost mean I know but how could any modern person really believe — shit why don’t they just believe in Odin? at least his daughters rocked — but no they figure that one out. Why not the other? It is so simple. Get the drift? Probably not.
27 January 2008, on 10:33 pm
I’m not worried about otherwise smart people believing in a God of some sort or other. I’m very concerned that otherwise smart people are credulous to the point to the point of supporting Bushco–of course many of them are–drumroll, please–KKKrisitian.
28 January 2008, on 6:03 am
For a delightful fiction incorporating vodou and such, pick up the book by Ishmael Reed, “Mumbo Jumbo”.
http://www.amazon.com/Mumbo-Jumbo-Ishmael-Reed/dp/0684824779/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201514407&sr=1-1
It is off-the-wall funny.
28 January 2008, on 6:10 am
Even though “westernized”, the Catholic church is largely based on hallucination and possession. The prime example is founding father St. Paul. This is an extract of a post I made elsewhere.
There are not even any basic tenets in xianity. The gospels were written by unknown writers decades at least after the related events supposedly occurred. Most of the rest was written by a completely unrelated person, Paul, who also new nothing of the events and made everything he wrote up.
Paul was a psychotic, like Muhammad,
“Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or non-existent sense of objective reality.
Description
Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal, subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience hallucinations and/or delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion.”
Paul even admits that he has hallucinations and delusions, only he calls them “revelations”.
So if one believes in what Paul says, one believes in the ravings of a lunatic.
28 January 2008, on 7:20 am
Bernarda - hai ragione
I honestly believe that any modern educated lucid intelligent person that really believes (not the just a social believer or someone vested in it especially as a living) is insane.
When your intelligence is capable, not being able to proper judge reality when it strikes you dead in the face over and over again is insane - period. An example of this insanity is embodied in Creationists.
Who can dispute this.
In the absence of colorblindness of some type would a person not be judged insane (mentally damaged in some way) if they insisted the world was ALL just shades of violet (no whites, greens, etc.) and where no amount of coaching changes their perception. What is different when it comes to religious beliefs and set in stone true believers?
28 January 2008, on 4:26 pm
The only problem that I have with this line of thought is it almost sounds conspiratorial. As if all the religious leaders are purposefully brainwashing people or even understand how. Most of these people believe that their drivel is valuable enough that they don’t need to brainwash anyone. Using these methods would in fact smack in a lack of faith in your woo.
“What is different when it comes to religious beliefs and set in stone true believers?”
Numbers. Insanity is merely a subjective idea based on numbers. The fewer number of people in a general population that have a certain psychological trait, the more likely it will be deemed an insanity. It too bad they still have the numbers.
28 January 2008, on 6:15 pm
MM said: “If “history abounds with examples of incredibly intelligent people who were religious” then maybe you should ask yourself if there’s something in it.”
This is pretty much the fallacy of the appeal to authority. A bad idea, or one arrived at by ill reasoning is no more legitimate because a handful (even a very large handful) of people believe in it.
There were intelligent Nazis. There are intellectuals who still think Stalin was right on the money. Does this mean there was “something in” these two misled sociopolitical ventures?
Besides, there are also very intelligent people that think religion is total hog-wash. You can’t logically argue that both views gain legitimacy based on the intellectual capacity of the subscribers to each view, as this would set up quite the paradox.
Personally, I’ve managed to fool a number of people into believing I possess above average intelligence. At one time in my past, I believed, with every cell of my being, in the writings of the Bible. Now, I believe it to be the anachronistic, superstitious mish-mash collection of oral tradition/mythology created by a barbaric, pre-scientific iron-age tribe, written and re-written over the centuries. Nothing more. At what point can it be said that my intelligence lent credibility to the notion that “there’s something in it?”
28 January 2008, on 7:26 pm
MellowMonotheist, there’s also an interesting phenomenon that often occurs the more educated / “intelligent” a theist becomes: he changes his concept of “god” from the micromanaging, misogynistic megalomaniac of the average non-theologian believer into a more vague, uninvolved, Deistic entity. He then sneers equally at both atheists and fervent believers, but cuts the latter far more slack because at least they “have faith,” and their sheer numbers give him the illusion of bolstering his own highly specialized deity belief. Nevertheless, his personal version of a detached god who put the bases of creation into motion and then stepped aside is no longer the same as that held and being preached to the masses.
To such “intelligent believers,” I offer Dr. Myers’ brilliant Courtier’s Reply.
Back to the post: another fascinating component of the possession phenomenon, both in voudun (var. sp.) and Roman Catholicism, for example, is that the characteristics of the possessed match what is documented in its given religion. A houngan “possessed” by Maitresse Erzulie, goddess of love and beauty, will manifest the features commonly accepted as belonging to her; i.e., parading around coquettishly, flirting with all the men (and even this is quite specific: among other gestures, “she” bats her eyelashes and fans herself), and towards the end of the “ride,” sighing sadly and perhaps even crying (losing her lover is part of her myth). This rarely varies from possession to possession, and is in fact part of the way the believers identify which loa is riding the devotee.
On the Catholic side, those possessed by demons usually manifest signs like voice changes, speaking in other languages or even tongues (apparently demons do it too), aggressiveness / hostility / obscenity in word and/or action and supposedly (if you believe “witnesses”), levitation and telekinesis - all of which are pretty well known within the religion itself, so most followers are familiar with them.
It’s almost as if the possessed were following scripts, which in a way they are: social scripts constructed, developed, supported, and carried on by the tradition of belief in which they happen to be born and reared. I suspect this is why, as KA mentions, there is little reputable documentation of outsiders being properly ridden in voudun; if you don’t know the script, you’re less likely to follow it unless by accident or close observation.
(As soon as I can remember my source[s], I’ll post another comment.)
28 January 2008, on 7:35 pm
These aren’t exactly my sources, but they do discuss communal reinforcement and self-deception: exorcism and dissociative identity disorder.
28 January 2008, on 9:53 pm
Eve: To such “intelligent believers,” I offer Dr. Myers’ brilliant Courtier’s Reply.
When I click on “Courtier’s Reply”, I get 404 error. Please help?
29 January 2008, on 4:36 am
Yeah, the link didn’t work for me either.
I’m not a member of any religious organization, since I haven’t found one that wasn’t more interested in talking about itself than it was in dealing with the existential and moral questions that religion is supposed to address. But I don’t think those questions can be dismissed with flip comments about insanity or “sky daddies”. Without God or, if you like, the Divine (whether you think of it as a He/Her/It/Them) any possibility of trans-human value or meaning is gone as well. Simply studying the natural world is not a substitute.
29 January 2008, on 5:29 am
It is hard to say “all” about any group of people, but I would say that Marjoe Gortner is rather typical. He has made of documentary about his career as an evangelist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdI8ag1k0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0p4ZDnDoQ
There may even be a few preachers though who are actually deluded enough to believe what they preach.
29 January 2008, on 10:48 am
But I don’t think those questions can be dismissed with flip comments about insanity or “sky daddies”. Without God or, if you like, the Divine (whether you think of it as a He/Her/It/Them) any possibility of trans-human value or meaning is gone as well. Simply studying the natural world is not a substitute.
MM. God is in your own imagination, whatever or how ever you want to make this image of god is up to you. As Eve has stated above:“there’s also an interesting phenomenon that often occurs the more educated / “intelligent” a theist becomes: he changes his concept of “god” from the micromanaging, misogynistic megalomaniac of the average non-theologian believer into a more vague, uninvolved, Deistic entity. He then sneers equally at both atheists and fervent believers”
This god is different for each individual because this god only lives in the minds of humans. Believers idea of god changes depending on environment, intelligence level, and psychological make-up. The god delusion changes according to one’s own needs and desires.
Studying the natural world may not be enough for you, or many people, but there are many of us for whom the natural world is enough and I believe that is not “a substitute” for anything, the natural world is the only thing. (as evidence has shown us so far). There has been no evidence for anything supernatural, or spiritual. Only feelings and emotions, psychological delusion in the human mind. Everything dies, and the cycle of life goes on, but nothing lasts forever and there has never been evidence to prove that humans transcend death.
So the word “Divine” won’t work around here either, or any other name for your imaginings. The belief that a great sky daddy watching over you and who knows what is in the minds of billions and billions of individuals past, present and future is like a child believing in Santa Claus. That idea is absurd self-delusion.
29 January 2008, on 2:44 pm
RE MM’s comment…
I agree totally with Eve & Stardust.
Another item that comes to my mind, is related to the almost universal idea that Richard Dawkins criticizes; that of the all too common ‘planting’ the notion of eternal damnation in the minds of very young children. I experienced that in my own Catholic upbringing.
As Dawkins points out; it’s tantamount to a form of child abuse; unrecognized, of course. That most horrible notion lingers in people’s minds, practically speaking, for the rest of their lives; like an early addictive, ’seed-like’ idea which haunts the individual, tweaking fear and guilt at any attempted ‘letting go’ of the quasi-tyrannical god indoctrination.
That basic grounding…especially noticeable in the early Abrahamic religious, dogmatic programming…plus the general climate of societally reinforced importance FOR believing…ala Pascal’s Wager(?)…makes it almost impossible for so many to even THINK of completely shedding the ‘belief addiction’. I think that’s a big factor for people who perennially remain on the fence as agnostics, for example.
As any of us, who went through that somewhat terrifying “evolution of consciousness” in our letting go of belief can attest…it’s definitely NOT a matter of being “flip” about it!
Personally, I feel that my early sense of religious “shock and awe(fullness)” has been replaced…thanks to Science (and the Internet)…by a growing sense of a much more realistic “awe” regarding the universe.
As Stardust’s name implies; we truly ARE made up of “Star Dust”.
In reference to all this, I highly recommend watching all the episodes of “Beyond Belief 2006″. Here’s a handy link page for all the sessions:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/
HOWEVER…more to the point…
In regards to the above, check out Neil deGrasse Tyson’s on target and entertaining talks about the Cosmos, etc. In particular:
1) His take on “Stupid Design” (excerpt from his full talk) [length 5:38]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI
2) But, even more particularly to the “Stardust” reference…On Tuesday, November 7th - The “Rev.” Tyson closes the three day lecture series with a final “sermon” on cosmic perspective and the impact of science. [length 9:38]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJOpDLjpSYI
Soooo…Happy Stargazing?
29 January 2008, on 3:25 pm
chuckA, thanks for those great links!
29 January 2008, on 7:31 pm
Sorry about my link; it’s fixed in my comment now, and here it is again.
MellowMonotheist: Without God or, if you like, the Divine (whether you think of it as a He/Her/It/Them) any possibility of trans-human value or meaning is gone as well.
But what is “trans-human value and meaning,” and why is it better than simple human value and meaning? I don’t need to believe in any kind of “trans-human” dimension to love myself and my family with all my heart, and commit to bettering my life and as many of my fellow humans’ as I can. I don’t need to have faith in the supernatural to gape at this universe in sheer awe and work toward understanding it better even if it doesn’t give a crap about me in return.
On the contrary, if this is all we have, then we’d better make the most of it. Why not apply our considerable imaginations and energies to forging a new humanity in which the quality of life for as many individuals as possible is elevated as high as we can reach, instead of wasting time telling people that someday, somehow, once they die or get Raptured or are Chosen to experience a Revelation everything will be hunky-dory? Why is human dignity, freedom, and opportunity not enough of an incentive for the theist/believer to care?
I’m beginning to think that the true source of faith for the theist is misanthropy; they dislike the human race so much they simply refuse to find value and meaning in it without attaching - well - trans-human significance to it.
And ultimately what this seems to indicate is that they just can’t stand themselves…
30 January 2008, on 2:31 am
Mellow:
I second Eve’s comments. With all due respect, why the need for “trans-human blah blah blah?” Really, the empirical universe provides WAY more than enough mystery and wonder for one mortal life time–for me, there is no need for exploration into some vague, ethereal, and simply unsupported, supernatural plane.
30 January 2008, on 3:49 am
Eve, “I’m beginning to think that the true source of faith for the theist is misanthropy”, that is a point made by Nietzsche especially about xians.
Nietzsche made the term “nihilism” popular, but he applied it to xianity. Somehow the term got transmogrified into applying to some skeptics. Nietzche saw correctly that xians were nihilists because of their renunciation of the real world in favor of an imaginary one. We see that today with the end-timers and rapturists. But it is also true of catholicism and the rest of xianity.
30 January 2008, on 5:25 pm
bernarda, I really must read more Nietzsche!
31 January 2008, on 10:28 am
Hello folks. I’ve returned.
Most of you new rascals don’t know me, but I used to be a fairly regular commenter among the GiFS tribe. Work pulled me away, and perhaps on some level Sean’s death made it tough for me to get back in the game because I really missed him. So I stepped back.
Way back.
Now, an old dance partner has resurfaced in the threads: Mellow Monotheist - spreading his pseudo-deist veiled-superiority-laden comment grenades into the fields of discourse.
However, being both a professional writer and a snarky prick who loves a good argument, I recalled the halcyon days of old when I regularly got into the comment mix, and I wondered…
Didn’t Mellow Mono already publicly state that the “god” he believes in is, um, how did he put it again, Eve…?
Oh yeah:
“Useless to anyone but me… Fine, SO BE IT.” (emphasis mine)
But why would someone who today clearly thinks their god belief is far superior to GifS-style rational, science-loving, natural-world studying, thrill-inducing exploration of real life ever say such a thing?
Lucky for everyone, there is an elaborate series of tubes that allows you to easily go back and read the whole story for yourselves:
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/08/08/failing-is-not-an-option-i-can-do-all-things-through-christ/
(Sorry, I’m not so good with the link-button making. Mod-gods - lil help?)
The exchange starts at #15 and kicks into gear with #17 (Taylor), and #18 (me).
Having not really gotten answers to my “deist what exactly?” questions there, the arguments hopped over to another thread:
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/08/11/fucking-asshole-update/
Picking up when Mellow drops in with #11, then #19 and #22…
at which point Eve, Nymphalidae, and yours truly try again to figure out what the hell Mellow Mono exactly believes in…
…and culminating in a great series of comments featuring Eve, Nymph, the late great Sean, and myself.
My fave being Eve’s #40, which to this day remains the final word on that thread.
Hope you guys enjoy the writing, the arguing, and my attempts at humorous but rationally righteous asshole-ity on those old reply threads.
I’ve got to get back to work now. Still love the site, and try to stop in every day for a read. Raindog, your posts still make milk come out my nose.
Keep up the great work, everybody! Thank you for making the world a bit more rational, doubtful, godless, fascinating and fun.
Hope this spin through the wayback machine was a useful diversion. It was for me.
MellowMono? Care to jump in?
You can start with looking over the questions I asked in Comments #35 and #38 from the second thread.
Otherwise your god is still useless to anyone but you.
Thanks.
31 January 2008, on 12:08 pm
Hey MoeHammered! I for one have missed you! Glad to see you back and thanks for the links to those great comment threads.
Yes, what you say about MM is true. His god is still useless to anyone but himself. Like I say, people make gods in their own image, according to their own desires and their own imaginations.
31 January 2008, on 3:39 pm
I was wondering where you’d gotten to, MoeHammered. Sort of expected you around sooner.
You haven’t changed, though. Still assuming that anyone who disagrees with you on religious matters can’t be “rational, science-loving, natural-world studying”. In fact I am all of those things. But in the absence of God they would lose their value of if humans stopped valuing them. Is that OK with you?
31 January 2008, on 7:03 pm
MoeHammered, long time no comment! Yes, the site changed when Sean died, no way of avoiding that, so we understand how difficult it may be to come back here.
Now I remember those threads! Unfortunately, I’m tied up at work today and can’t comment at length, so when I get a chance I’ll read up. I’m beginning to recall more of MellowMon’s discourse…
To MM, I leave this homework for now: notice how vague / fuzzy / amorphous / indefinite your concept of god becomes in your very own expression the more you’re pressed about it. As soon as we respond to a specific statement you make, you use diffuse, nay, even confusing language not to answer us directly, but to issue further statements just as hazy.
“In the absence of god they would lose their value of [sic] if humans stopped valuing them”? Well, of course! Even the concept of god loses value if humans stop valuing it; that’s the experience of most agnostic/atheists, for goodness sake. The actual presence or absence of any god truly has no bearing on what humans value because no actual presence of any god has ever been proven - and thus everything all humans value or not is done in the absence of god.
More later…
1 February 2008, on 10:42 am
Hey, Eve; Hey, Stardust – thanks for welcoming me back.
Hey, MellowMono. Let’s get right into it:
Lemme get this straight - what you’re asking me is if your ridiculous strawman concept is “OK” with me?
Monkey BALLS, man! You’re the one arguing that human value, and really any value of the real world, only has significance in the presence of god – YOUR god-concept, specifically. My whole point is that your fundamental reasoning, as Eve so eloquently puts it, is “vague / fuzzy / amorphous / indefinite”. Your god still is, as you yourself put it, “useless to anyone but you”.
I call bullshit. Your assertions are bullshit.
“I haven’t changed”?? Why would I? You’re the one coming around, trying to tell all of us godless slobs that our worldview has no real value. I’m not assuming now – nor did I ever – that you can’t be “rational, science-loving, natural-world studying”.
I’ve always really hoped that you COULD be a rational person. And to that end, I kept asking for the rational basis for your opinions and your “Mellow Monotheism”.
Apparently, it is so mellow you still have no need to really explain it coherently.
All you can explain is that your peculiar, amorphous brand of deism is better than non-belief – which you claim to have “done” already.
More superiority.
My assumption, sir, is that your rationality and love of science seem a bit incongruous with your irrational deism. Which you consistently don’t explain.
Rather, you keep talking about assumptions I’m not making and the fact that I “don’t change”.
(Well neither do you. So there. Nyah.)
But neither of those complaints are answers to my original questions about YOUR beliefs and YOUR reasons for them.
I refuted your assertions about the need for god. Any kind of god.
And I haven’t changed there, either.
I still refute them.
And you still give me nothin’.
Dude, I went to the trouble of making an extensive list of questions about your god, and a desire for proof and explanations (which, as a rational, science-loving person you should be both able and happy to provide!). Then I went to more trouble to remind you of those questions, showing links to the original comments where you hemmed and hawed rather than directly answering.
I still don’t have my direct answers. You asked what would constitute “proof” of a god-figure capable of intervening in human affairs… and I wrote out a list containing numerous, specific examples!
But for all that effort, on your side nothing has changed - still platitudes and superiority, but no answers, no proof, no explanations.
Further, I again call bullshit on your labeling of GifS-talk about sky-daddies as “flip”.
The folks here say those things because sometimes it feels like the only way to deal with the irrational, arrogant, didactic, authoritarian, fundagelical world we’re surrounded by!
A world that consistently refuses to answer our scientific, rational questions about this divine power that supposedly exists and apparently wants to run our lives – always through human intermediaries who claim to be ordained by that divine power to order us around.
Calling all of that “insanity” helps keep us sane.
Calling it bullshit is simply accurate.
How do you not see that? How can you not appreciate the whack-a-doodle religion tsunami we are actively struggling against every day?
Increasing global influence of real-world theocracies!
Terrorism and bigotry from religious fascists!
I reject ALL OF IT as irrational and unworthy of anyone’s respect, tolerance, time, or resources.
And that rejection is a very dangerous idea to many people.
People who lust for power and wealth and get it – no, are GIVEN it freely – because of religion.
Because of their belief in a god.
As atheists, we are being marginalized in our own society because we are rational, skeptical, and science loving, finding wonder and passion and creativity in the natural world…
…with no need for god – ANYBODY’S GOD.
So, when you or anybody starts popping in and telling us we should really give the whole “god” thing another try, that we’re just being stubborn jerks and making everybody else feel poopy and value-less…
I call bullshit.
There are still no real answers from you! Just candy-ass dodges and obfuscation, bitching about assumptions that you manufacture and offering up crap, strawman arguments about how everything would lose value without god – again, YOUR god - who you don’t ever bother to prove exists or even explain at all!
I god like that has NO VALUE to ANYONE.
Now I remember why I bailed for so long.
I was done with you.
You offer nothing. You explain nothing. YOU assert that your homespun brand of “deist-spiritual” monkeyshines are more important than the rational, passionate, free-thinking pursuit of exploring the natural world – all of which have no real value without your god.
As I said before, Mellow – I had really hoped that you would be different.
Like the rest of the crowd here at GifS, I would LOVE to hear something new about god.
New proof, a new take, some new insight into the value of a divine sky-daddy.
Something that casts a new light onto the dark, nasty pall of the conscious, interventionist god concept.
You, Mellow, believe in some variation of that concept: a supernatural, divine presence who, according to you, intervenes in human behavior.
But not the child rape, or torture, or mass murder parts.
Explaining how your god’s reasoning works on those issues (without painting a picture of a god who is a raging prick more worthy of scorn and disgust than worship or respect) has been difficult for you.
But I was genuinely curious and interested in your answer.
…Which never came.
Unfortunately, a typical result. What a shock: the “Problem of Evil” is still a problem.
Nevertheless, you keep showing up on our doorstep, trying to teach us the error of our godless ways.
Because you have something SO much better.
You’re so much better than us – your worldview, your values, your soul.
But you explain none of it.
You offer no proof.
Just platitudes and more candy-ass excuses.
Evading the core questions.
There are plenty of people, Mellow, who want to teach us atheists the supposed error of our ways, to bring us back into the fold.
To abandon our own core beliefs in reason, science, skepticism, and free-thought.
To embrace woo-woo mysticism, mythology, and the unconditional love of THEIR god.
Who they, of course, speak to directly. And often speak for. And know the mind of.
All you have to do in order to feel the love and joy and warm fuzzies they supposedly feel is to follow their god’s rules! “Love them back”… by hating the people their god tells you to hate, to do certain things but never do certain other things - and make sure nobody else ever does them, either.
And always giving money to support the ministry. Sweet tax-free money.
Oh – and good ole’ blind faith and blind obedience. Those are the most important.
It makes me wanna fuckin’ puke.
So those of us that hold dear the values of rational open discourse, science, truth, reason, passion, free speech, and free creative thought - we are painted as having no moral base. That our values are questionable or non-existent because we don’t have some all-powerful supernatural mafia kingpin keeping us in line.
That we aren’t really citizens of any worth because our doubt and our questions make baby jesus cry.
Or worse, that we are heathen infidels worthy of being shot, burned, stoned, or blown up.
Because god loves us too much to allow us to live our lives without him.
So gimme’ that ‘ole-time blind faith and obedience. Gotta have that.
Despite my hope that you would bring something new to the table, Mellow, you didn’t.
And still you don’t.
We the ever-curious godless keep asking more questions, new questions, always hoping for new answers. We keep seeking proof that never comes.
But we value knowing the truth about something this big, so we’ll keep searching.
I just wish we didn’t keep hearing the same old garbage, the same old supernatural pseudo-science or appeals to mystical authority, the same lies and hostility and exclusionary threats.
The same claims of superiority of values because god has shown someone the “REAL way”.
The “true path”.
The rest of us are just “wandering in the dark” according to them.
I see just fine.
Calling me blind doesn’t make it so.
Yet, on the flipside, if I ask someone else to tell me what exactly they see, and they either can’t or they refuse to… or worse, what they tell me doesn’t make any freakin’ sense – that, to me, is either blindness or insanity.
I’m still waiting for your answers to my numerous questions on those original threads, Mellow.
Until you come up with something better than the empty wishful thinking and assertions that your values are better than ours because you believe in some kind of god - who by their very (unexplained) nature gives everything divine value – until that happens, please go away.
You’re simply not contributing anything to the conversation here.
We are atheists because so far it is the only thing that makes rational sense in this world.
Each day has value for us because we value our lives, our families, our friends, our lovers, our pets, and all of the fascinating wonders of the world around us and the amazing cosmos we inhabit.
And just as importantly, we value the thrill of discovery, of gaining new information and new insight into science, technology, design, the arts, music, sport, politics, society and our living eco-environment – all without ever needing to surrender our skepticism and reason to somebody’s god.
Read that again, please. I say nowhere that you don’t do those things.
But for some reason, they don’t have the same “value” to you unless your undefinable god is part of it.
Explain why. Give me proof of your reasons. Tell me what “thing” motivated you into a belief system that requires a supernatural explanation rather than a rational, reasoned one.
Otherwise – I call bullshit.
For those of you who read this far, thanks for your time and attention.
1 February 2008, on 12:31 pm
MoeHammered
Standing Ovation here! Oh, and I think I love you.
1 February 2008, on 1:23 pm
Preach it, Brother MoeH!
2 February 2008, on 12:37 am
MellowMono…
I am to-the-point. This is your exam question. It is worth 85% of your grade. I don’t grade on a curve. Ready?
1. Define TRANSHUMAN
2. Illustrate your definition with at least 3 examples.
2 February 2008, on 1:02 am
ooo Barbie, I am waiting to here MellowMon’s answer and see what grade he gets!
2 February 2008, on 2:47 am
“Transhuman”
As I used it above, a source of ethical values that does not perish even if we all do. A means by which (to borrow from what some of you have said) dignity, freedom, opportunity, awe at the natural world would retain their worth even if (as often seems quite possible) human beings stop valuing them.
2 February 2008, on 1:10 pm
Mellowmono…
Problems with your definition:
1. You are quite the Platonist.
2. A “Source” of “ethical” “values”: I would require that you explain these beauties before even attempting to continue down this road. I can already feel the chiggers in my shorts…
3. This Source/Cave/Realm/ lies “beyond” the “mere” human???? See, we are going to dance in circles around this bombshell.
4.So, “essence” precedes existence??? How is that Mellowmono????
5. An axiology exists for whom and by whom??? Who interprets??? It’s the old “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the sound…etc.”
6. I once tried defending an axiology for chipmunks. Trust me. It just won’t work.
7. You failed the exam (no examples of TRANSHUMAN situations…) but I am sure other Gifsters will offer you a peer-review session.
8.Thanks for playing.
2 February 2008, on 6:52 pm
Not a Platonist so much as someone who’s very uncomfortable with the notion that a value is important only because people say it is.
Think of a value we both think is important, like freedom. Would it stop being important if the majority of our fellow humans (or everyone) decided it wasn’t important? If it wouldn’t, then it must have some basis other than human agreement. But what sort of basis would do? An idea isn’t physical; it exists only in a mind. It’s hard to say how it could be derived from biology (you can survive without freedom; most people did until recently).
You can certainly object that God (or some ultimate consciousness) isn’t necessary to sustain values. But if “God” isn’t necessary, and if there’s even one case where humans aren’t enough, what’s left?
3 February 2008, on 9:36 am
Ah, Mellow Mono.
What’s left? Reality.
If there are things that are of value to the human race, we need to work to sustain them and fight to preserve them. Not just because we “say” they have value - they have PROVED their worth and their value time and time again.
Sorry you’re uncomfortable with that. But, as you and other science-loving people are well aware, rational reality doesn’t give two shits what you’re comfortable with.
Falsifiable experimentation, quantifiable results, and verifiable proof show us that values such as freedom, creativity, safety, education, and truth are - as a general rule - better than their alternatives.
But guess what? NOT ALWAYS. That’s the beauty and the challenge of real life. There aren’t simple, black and white rules that we all need to follow. Part of the whole “value of freedom” thing.
I don’t “object” to the idea that God or some ultimate consciousness is necessary to sustain “values”. That is simply the way it is.
Objecting to that is like shaking your fist at a storm, expecting it to stop. Besides, where did you get the idea that “values” were some set-in-eternal-stone concepts? Like everything else, they change. WE are capable of changing them!
That is the beauty of our intellect and reason! We can CORRECT mistakes as well as make them!
We can IMPROVE a bad situation as well as worsen it!
It requires us to be vigilant, to work hard, to speak out - and to shout down those who say they have the “REAL” answers, who claim their values are the “TRULY” important ones…
…but offer no proof, no repeatable details, no reasonable explanations.
Those kinds of claims need to be examined. Their merit needs to be tested. And as our own ongoing experiment in democracy here in the US has shown - just because a MAJORITY believes something (like, say, who should lead the country) doesn’t make it correct or valuable.
We need to be able to learn from those mistakes. To correct them. To fix what we’ve done wrong and to TEACH OTHERS the lessons of our past misfortunes.
Also, your argument that an idea isn’t physical but exists in a mind… is the mind not a physical part of us? I think you mean “tangible”. But for that matter, WORDS aren’t tangible, either. Language is a tool of our intellect, which changes and corrects itself among our collective usage. It develops as societies change and grow.
What does “derived from biology” mean exactly?
We’re not talking about cell membranes, we’re talking about human intellect!
The evolution of our rational brains allows us to explore a truly infinite variety of intangible concepts. But YES, human agreement is pretty crucial to the equation of communication. Without a common “agreed-upon” process of speech, without explanations that make sense in a rational world to other people, “ideas concepts and values” are just so much useless blather.
You seem to have some desperate need for there to be a fundamental “correct” methodology of life - some tangible, quantifiable “goal” that we as a human race are working toward.
Like we’re taking some elaborate quiz.
Many people want that. It creates “meaning” that is inherent to our lives that is above the churning, confusing, challenging realities of our existence.
Well, despite your discomfort with that, it just doesn’t seem to be the case.
We have to work hard for value in our lives. We have to rise above our discomfort and stake our claims on what is meaningful to us as a race. Why do we need a “creator” to bestow “inalienable rights” onto us, if we’re capable of thinking of them on our own?
Or… do you believe we don’t think for ourselves, Mellow? Do you really believe there is a divine power that whispers these concepts of “value” and “meaning” into our brains?
Some of the great ancient thinkers believed that.
But then we used science to figure out that idea ain’t so much the case.
As I’ve said before, Mellow, these aren’t new ideas you’re offering.
“God of the gaps”
“We can’t be moral/honest/fill-in-the-blank without some divine sky-daddy”
“But there just has to be something more – I really want there to be!!”
Heard ‘em before. Debunked them as irrational or incomplete arguments.
Seriously, take half a day and go tooling around the infidels.org site – just click my moniker.
They have collected the work of much better writers, philosophers, and scholars than I – both new and old – who have been over and over this stuff.
But their ideas are bound to make you pretty uncomfortable.
Oh well. So it goes in the real world.
The one I and all of us here at GifS are proud to live in.
And we’re willing to speak out, to argue and fight, to stand our ground for the values which have time and again proven to be useful, important, and beneficial to our species:
Reason. Scientific discovery.
Love. Friends and family.
Freedom.
I imagine plenty of people during the Bronze Age felt “comfortable” with their simple ignorance.
I prefer the thrilling, challenging discomfort of the modern world.
3 February 2008, on 7:24 pm
Bravo Moe, you rock!
Especially like the point at the end of your comment regarding the discomfort that religion or a Gawd concept ameliorates.
When I was nearing the end of my belief in Gawd (no longer a Christian, but similar beliefs to MM), I became extremely uncomfortable/anxious attempting to hold onto vague, poorly reasoned beliefs, very similar to MM. The discomfort that I feel now, knowing that there is no “transhuman” source of “X” (fill in X with any concept of your choice–value, meaning, etc) is miniscule compared to the unease I felt at trying to prove, even to myself, a divine source (or even the need for said source.)
Again, well put. Keep the excellent comments rolling. I’m gonna go check out infidels.org.
4 February 2008, on 7:07 pm
*sighs*
MM, MM, MM…
I’m going to make this all about you; why don’t you tell me the exact story of your conversion, the moment when you became absolutely, incontrovertibly convinced that God existed and He was precisely the way you conceive of Him in every particular? And as Barbiebrains requested, be very detailed; we want specifics, not some vague “well I sorta got the impression that maybe…”
Do you dare?
4 February 2008, on 8:46 pm
Sorry Mellow…
I just don’t understand what you mean by TRANSHUMAN…beyond the human??? A source beyond the human???
Aren’t “values” interpreted, negotiated and renegotiated??? Maybe the correct term is constructed. How about, “Values are constructed.” There are no “givens”. Existence is all. How you negotiate beauty, freedom, justice, gender, sexuality…is, well, a matter of perspective.
You, as a subject, negotiate meanings. You negotiate situations. You negotiate language. That is all there is…why would anyone pine for more???
5 February 2008, on 2:15 am
Thanks MoeHammered, I’ll check the site out.
Eve, you ask me for a certainty and precision that I don’t feel and have never expressed. I was brought up an atheist and spent many years as an existentialist (which I truly think is the logical endpoint of naturalism). It stopped being enough for me quite a while ago and I’m moving on to something else. I don’t claim any sure knowledge that there is anything else. I call myself a monotheist because thus far it is Jewish spiritual values that have most impressed me, although I am not a Jew. I like the idea of a God that cares nothing about Himself, only about His creation. And that our job is working with Him to make His creation better. Which by the way you can do without believing in God.
5 February 2008, on 6:42 pm
MM: I like the idea of a God… (emphasis mine)
And that right there is the entire crux of your argument. It’s not that you believe some kind of being that could be conceivably called a god really exists. It’s not even that you think such a being really exists.
It’s that you’re enamored of the idea, the human invention, the human concept, that there might be such a being. Everything else you claim stems from your romance with this idea.
I do this all the time, by the way, when I’m writing fiction. An idea for a character occurs to me and it’s like a lightning bolt strikes me; I fall in love with it to the point that I talk about, interact with the character as if he/she/it were real. But the difference between you and me is that I realize it’s not; it’s a figment of my imagination, something my amazing human mind has come up with. It only lives in my brain and in the words and pictures I transfer to paper.
Damn! Gotta get back to work. More later…