Comments by wonderer*

Comment #234301 by wonderer* on August 21, 2008 at 6:15 am

It seems to me that an important aspect of the thinking that goes on around this subject arises from the fact that our thinking involves various cognitive processes which don't necessarily come up with the same results. Aspects of our emotional systems, subconscious intuitive/pattern recognizing systems, and logical/conscious thought, are all involved in varying ways.

It seems to be deeply wired in us to interpret events as the result of actions by free agents, and our emotional systems seem to be largely organized to work with/reinforce such a point of view. Anger, guilt, gratitude, etc are things we make sense of in terms of viewing ourselves and others as free agents. As social primates, conceptualizing about, and memory of, who has been 'responsible' for what, play an extremely important role in our social interactions.

Intuitive (pattern recognizing) aspects of our minds seem to 'naturally' integrate our emotional responses, and our tendency to look for agency, along with cultural viewpoints, to yield an intuitive view of ourselves and others as free agents.

However, logical consideration of the relevant science yields the counterintuitive understanding that actual free agency is an illusion. But, having that logical/conscious understanding doesn't change our intuitive/subconscious view of ourselves and others as free agents. So this subject tends to be difficult to consider without cognitive dissonance.

2. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #196341 by wonderer* on June 19, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Brother Jed gets around. I took a beautiful autumn afternoon off work last year to go discuss things with him at Purdue U.

It was fun, but I clearly had him on the ropes with my arguments and counterarguments, and I felt kind of sorry for him. He was acting pretty worn out by the time I left. It's amazing to me, but it seems that people have been financially supporting him in doing this stuff for ages. He was doing his schtick at least 25 years ago when I was in college. I remember his wife "Sister Cindy" too. She was quite a hottie at that time. She might have had some luck in getting me to see the light. But I think overall, Brother Jed turns more people away from Christianity than towards, so I'm not sure his outspoken wackaloonery is necessarily a bad thing.

3. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #195952 by wonderer* on June 19, 2008 at 5:49 am

21. Comment #195899 by Barry Pearson

I seriously wonder: who else COULD reach that audience?

Very insightful post.

I hold a sort of trickle down view of humanity's education - where everyone speaks different languages, and everyone learns from others to the extent that they understand the other's language, and teach others to the extent that they can communicate their understanding in the student's language.

There are serious communication barriers between someone scientifically minded who was raised as an atheist, and a True Believer. In some ways those communication barriers may be insurmountable without a translator. Because I was the child of a fundamentalist preacher, and because I had enough curiousity to eventually drag me out of the mental trap of Christianity, I can speak and understand the language of both scientists and Christians.

This allows me to act as a translator, which I actively do. In fact there is one particular Baptist minister who turns to me for translations of things RD has said. And I myself have needed the translations of others, in developing a clearer understanding of reality.

Therefore I urge others to have empathy for those who do this kind of translating, as well as those who need this kind of translating. We are all born ignorant, and we'll all die only somewhat less ignorant. Atheist xenophobia towards those who don't understand as we do, is no more constructive than theistic xenophobia.

4. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #147331 by wonderer* on March 20, 2008 at 7:07 am

367. Comment #146768 by jac12358:

YES! - and yet that belief does not make it true. Which is why I brought it up. But which I can't imagine why people think I shouldn't have.

I can say, from my own personal experience that the question of free will is difficult to process mentally, and I think that difficulty leads a lot of people to be dismissive of the subject.

I have no objective/rational reason to believe that free will exists. However, I do have objective/rational reasons to believe that people behave in a way I find more subjectively desireable if they see themselves as having free will, and therefore responsibility for their choices. (At the same time I think it's quite common for people to see themselves as excessively responsible for their own actions, leading them to seek forgiveness from a deity.)

There are no clear boundary lines, and we are innately driven to emotionally/subjectively see ourselves and others as having free will, regardless of our intellectual understanding of the subject.

I do think that it's important for atheists wanting to seriously engage theists in discussion, to have a handle on this hypocritical aspect of the human condition. I see it as a very core issue underlying theists' need for God as an existential explanation.

5. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #146750 by wonderer* on March 19, 2008 at 10:59 am

364. Comment #146740 by jac12358:

And, as ever, I continue to be puzzled that most people THINK I am confused (know/believe/have faith that I am confused?) when I am not. I know this because when I read your comments I agree with what you are saying, and see you are hung up on a point I am not making, or saying something I am not. So my true puzzlement is why I can't better communicate my ideas to you. True, I do get triumphant at times, and sarcastic, but also I say "yes I agree, but" over and over and over, which should point you either in the direction I am going, or indicate that there is a direction in which I am leading which is at present undetectable to you.

jac,

I've enjoyed reading the things you've written here. I think the topic of us understanding our own programming is fascinating. Would you agree that a bit of hypocrisy on the part of individuals is, (if not totally, nearly) inescapable? That, a belief in free will (however illusory) is a necessity for our success as a social species?

6. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138542 by wonderer* on March 4, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Even if they hadn't defined militia, the right to bear arms is still protected by the 2nd Amendment. State definition or no, American Citizens are entitled to possess a legally purchased fire arm.

Possess yes, bear? That's a different story with a lot of variation from state to state. I do think the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous in this day and age. I kind of think the ambiguity itself leads to people's views being polarized one way or the other on the issue.

7. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138528 by wonderer* on March 4, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Another factor affecting such things is that as the national constitution hasn't defined "militia" some state constitutions have.

For example the Indiana Constitution Article 12 Section 1 read:

"A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."

This effectively makes Indiana residents over the age of 17 inactive militia members with a right to bear arms.

I don't know how many other state constitutions have language defining "militia".

8. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128216 by wonderer* on February 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm

4. Comment #128184 by Elles on February 16, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I started cackling violently at the Ben Stein quote. I might go see this film just for comic relief.

I think it could be a good thing for intelligent people to go to this movie and laugh loudly as appropriate.

9. What would Darwin have made of the Human Genome Project?

Comment #125482 by wonderer* on February 11, 2008 at 12:25 pm

3. Comment #125334 by rod-the-farmer

...Can anyone recommend some published research on what happens to a cult whose prime belief is suddenly and irrevocably struck down ? What do they DO with their time, assets, religious practices, etc. ?

I haven't tracked down the primary research, but Robert Cialdini talks about this in his book "Influence".

Here's a link that briefly discusses the subject:
http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/influence_ch4.htm

The power of belief is illustrated by the participant-observer research carried out by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter into a doomsday cult known as the Guardians, and documented in their 1956 book When Prophecy Fails. After their prediction that a flood would inundate the world and they would be carried away by spaceships did not transpire, cult members exhibited increased fervor in their beliefs. So invested were they in their beliefs that they could not risk giving them up: "The group members had gone too far, given up too much for their beliefs to see them destroyed; the shame, the economic cost, the mockery would be too great to bear" (127). In Freudian terms, their defensive behavior protected them from recognizing an unbearable truth. Cialdini explains that the moment the physical proof contradicted their beliefs, the cult members turned to the only other proof that would save them: social proof--they turned from "secretive conspirators to zealous missionaries" in an attempt to gain other converts, even though their beliefs had been shown to be baseless. "The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more the idea will be correct" (128). Without saying so directly, Cialdini's example of religious social proof could be considered an allegory for all the examples of millennial belief down through the ages of human civilization.

10. God the psycho

Comment #122282 by wonderer* on February 5, 2008 at 5:07 am

61. Comment #122203 by madame_zora

As a salesman, I was trained that the best result to insure a sale was to play "Love 'em and slap 'em"- it's just good cop/bad cop all over. This is always what seems to work best.

Well said. There's a lot atheists can learn from the fields of sales/marketing and public relations. I think we atheists tend to be inclined to look down on such manipulative things and those gullible enough to buy into them, but it's naive of us to overlook how much such things truly do matter.

11. God the psycho

Comment #121918 by wonderer* on February 4, 2008 at 11:04 am

30. Comment #121860 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 9:08 am

...My disagreement is that he does not seem to share this view. He seems to think that those who are more polite are just playing a self-indulgent game. I am sure he was only saying this in response to those who have criticised him, but that still does not make it right.

I agree Steve,

As someone who's been a very regular poster for more than a year in a forum dominated by religious fundamentalists, I can say there is definitely value in having a repertoire of styles available.

I use harsh sarcasm, or extremely patient explanation, depending on the situation. The ability to put people in their place is an important capability for earning respect, but once respect is earned, mutually respectful dialog can ensue. Patient, reasonable, explanation of an atheist viewpoint is something many theists have never seen.

Through earning respect and seducing theists into a mutually respectful dialog, mind opening on the part of theists can occur. I think it's unrealistic to hope a theist will admit he was wrong, but they clearly can learn that atheist thinking is not the simplistic straw man they assume it is. There's a lot of value in just putting a human face on atheism. Also, I do see things I express echoed in others. Clearly understanding gets propagated regardless of whether it is acknowledged.

We social primates have a totally different mindset when we perceive a situation as US vs THEM. In that situation, we only hear what the other is saying enough to formulate a counterattack. Skillful dialog, can result in WE humans (atheists and theists) carrying on a consciousness raising conversation.

Here's a link to a forum thread where perhaps some of what I'm talking about can be seen:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=817672

BTW Steve,

Thanks for requesting that the P.Z. Myers' 'Neuroscience of Religion' presentation be posted here.

12. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118945 by wonderer* on January 31, 2008 at 7:50 am

rod-the-farmer said:

I would be very interested to hear your arguments, please. Up to now I have avoided "arguing with fundamentalists", as non-productive, OR, a stress point in family relationships. While I do not consider myself well-read in the area of psychology (not nearly as well-read as I am in the world of science), perhaps there is room for a rank amateur to have a go...

I had written a long response to you but the website ate it. I don't have time to duplicate it so I'll give you my response in a nutshell.

"Arguing" wasn't necessarily a good description of what I do that is effective. What is effective, is more akin to seduction.

For those wishing to serve humanity as a missionary to the godfull, the book "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" should be the first book of the bible IMO.

The question, "How do you distinguish actually having a relationship with Jesus Christ, from having the delusion of a relationship with Jesus Christ?" can be a mind bomb for fundamentalist Christians. The trick is in getting them to actually think about it. Conscious development of social skills enabling one to really implant that question in someone's mind is valuable.

Sorry, I don't have time to write more, but reading "The Game", and being armed with that question, is a pretty good starting place.

13. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118484 by wonderer* on January 30, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Steve Zara

Because it shows an approach to understanding reality that leads to a flawed approach to science.

The "grey areas" in science are usually investigated using an Occam's Razor approach - start simple and tentatively add factors based on evidence.

Another approach is quite different - assume a certain complex set of beliefs, and look for areas where those may be compatible with reality. This is the approach of religion.

The second approach is problematic in science, as it means people will stick with beliefs far beyond the point at which evidence should lead to something else.

The problem for me in working with a religious scientist is how they flip between the two approaches.

I think both approaches are important to progress in science. I see them as a logical approach and an intuitive approach.

Yes, people can get overly infatuated with an intuition about the answer to a question, but sometimes the intuitions are critical for making a leap to a novel solution. Who's the benzene ring guy?

Being able to effectively alternate between the two modes seems particularly valuable to me.

14. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118428 by wonderer* on January 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm

"The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology."

Actually, as someone who does a lot of arguing with fundamentalists, my experience is that the place to draw the line most effectively is at psychology. Psychology as a science is lagging behind biology, but in practice with arguing with theists, the topic of the mind is both an area they can relate to, (because they really do have one) and an area where modern psychological understanding can be shown to be superior to theistic understanding.

The problem with biology as the line, is that you can't get theists to really think about it. With skillful questioning, you can trap them into considering how the mind operates though.

15. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89391 by wonderer* on November 20, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Comment #89384 by Diacanu

It's gonna take a 56 hour straight with no sleep fight with I dunno, Stephen fucking Hawking to break him.

Nah, most people don't admit to having been wrong when confronted by those pointing out their wrongness. It's just too psychologically difficult. DG just needs some time away from here, and he'll likely come to see the error in his thinking on his own.

16. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89358 by wonderer* on November 20, 2007 at 11:32 am

Comment #88882 by Dianelos Georgoudis

And theism gives theists one more reason to help those who are unfortunate beyond one's own benefit. Atheism's logic would be: Why should I care for the unfortunate, we shall all be dust one day. Let the bleeding heart theistic morons help these people, or at least keep them off my back. And if the downtrodden represent any danger for my way of life, why, they are my enemies and the reasonable thing is to destroy them. (To avoid misunderstanding: I am discussing the atheistic logic not the atheist practice which more often than not follows the image of God within. But if you think I am misrepresenting atheistic logic then please suggest how atheistic logic would motivate an atheist to help others beyond what personally benefits the atheist.)

You are misrepresenting atheistic thinking.

If you truly want to understand this, then read on. I'm not going to try to prove anything to you, but I will tell you that there is a whole world of things you clearly don't understand, and that lack of understanding is reflected in the quote above. If you actually think about the following and begin to understand the depth of the perspective, your views on many things may shift towards something more in touch with reality.

Humans are social primates that generally speaking live their lives within the framework of a social community. As social primates, humans (again generally speaking) have innate mental characteristics that incline them to operate prosocially within the social community they live in.

A human social community is a system in which individuals provide positive and negative feedback to each other in a way that generally promotes prosocial behavior. A spontaneous smile or frown is automatically generated feedback from one human to another. There are a zillion ways we receive feedback from others, on what is socially desireable or undesireable.

Like our cousins who evolved differently, we vie for status within the social hierarchy. One aspect of social status is moral standing. Behaving in a purely selfish manner results in being seen as having low status in the social hierarchy. A balanced view of all the factors in play (AKA maturation) informs individuals that purely selfish behavior isn't in one's own best interest. There are benefits that come with a reputation for high moral standing, that aren't available to the individual who acts on a purely selfish basis.

In addition to issues of status, we just tend to feel good when we help others, and feel bad when we harm others. Such emotional reactions to pro/antisocial behaviors on our own parts, are quite understandable for beings who evolved while benefitting from the survival advantages a social group provides.

In addition to these more primitive/emotional aspect of our behavior, we have conscious appreciation of the fruits of culture, and desire to preserve the advantages of culture for ourselves, our progeny, and others we love. It's not hard to understand that continually trampling the downtrodden underfoot is likely to lead the downtrodden to rebel against society leading to a degradation of one's standard of living.

What you suggest to be "atheistic logic" is just a straw man you've created in your imagination. You haven't actually thought with any depth about the huge variety of parameters that go into how humans choose how to act within society. You wouldn't say such silly things as what is quoted above if you had any substantial understanding of the feedback system that human social interaction is.

If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are.

You are confusing your insight into the "positive" aspects of your own social primate nature, with "the mind of God". (I'm not sure you've made clear, what you do with the "negative" aspects of your social primate nature.)

The reason that we humans tend to help those in distress is that helping those in distress tends to keep the social band strong. The reason we humans don't tend to randomly torture others, is that torturing members of the social group weakens the social group as a whole.

Now what I've said here is definitely simplistic, but it's a much more realistic and comprehensive explanation of human behavior than those proposed by religions. You have accepted what is essentially a primitive superstitious explanation for what you are. The fact that you've done a lot of philosophizing about the matter doesn't change that sow's ear to a silk purse. I suggest that doing a lot of research on human nature will lead you to a much more satisfying understanding of the nature of reality.