Groupthink

[trophonius]

Is it merely human that people, regardless of their religious beliefs, accept without question statements which affirm their beliefs

Comments

[compulsivelyme]

I'm not familiar with the contorted logic that you refer to, nor do I understand what the A in your equation above refers to. (Although it doesn't matter, I suppose, since you believe atheism is a pathology below). I think some, maybe many atheists would agree with some tenets of Objectivism but naturally not all. I believe Ayn Rand was a nutcase but I don't think that having overlapping philosophy with her is necessarily an insult as you are trying to use it here

[asylum_at_sea]

No, that is not what I said. I think science has a tradition -- the so-called scientific tradition -- and I certainly think we should respect it for its own sake. I don't respect the scientific tradition for the sake of obtaining a degree, for instance, but for its own sake.

But, hey, who cares about tradition?

[compulsivelyme]

Well, actually, that is the phrase that you attempted to mock me about.

I don't have a problem with tradition. I have a problem with tradition for tradition's sake-- things that we do only because we've always done them. Science, having demonstrated to be extremely valuable in practice, definitively does NOT fall into that category.

But again, correct. I do not care about doing things ONLY because that's the way they've been done for a long time. Anything else?

[asylum_at_sea]

I have a problem with tradition for tradition's sake-- things that we do only because we've always done them. Science, having demonstrated to be extremely valuable in practice, definitively does NOT fall into that category.

And the special pleading begins.

For what sake do you respect the scientific tradition? For the sake of some scientist who tells you to do so? No? For some other sake?

But again, correct. I do not care about doing things ONLY because that's the way they've been done for a long time. Anything else?This is a strange way to understand tradition. Tradition isn't merely a set of actions repeated for the sole purpose of repeating them. Tradition is a set of values. It can amount to an entire world-view. To support a tradition is to support its values and its world-view. I presume that this is precisely the answer you will give me to the above question as to why you support the scientific tradition: because you feel it has accomplished much, that it engenders good philosophical views towards knowledge, etc. But these

[compulsivelyme]

This is quite a bit of scrambling on your part to obfuscate your obvious misinterpretation of what I originally said.

Tradition may be a set of values or a philosophy, but is not necessarily. Tradition is solely defined as something passed down over a long period of time-- a set of practices with long continuity. That's it. In the US we traditionally put a fork on the left side of the plate in a placesetting. That's not a value or a philosophy. That's just a thing we do because we've done it for a long time.

So let's return now to my original sentence.

I have no respect for tradition for tradition's sake.

I do things as part of my cultural tradition. I understand that people do value traditions. However, I do not per se RESPECT anything just because it's the way it's been done for a long time. That includes religion

[asylum_at_sea]

There's no scrambling at all here, as this is actually quite straight-forward: you value the scientific tradition for the same reasons that theists value their respective religious traditions; just as you 'do not per se RESPECT anything just because it's the way it's been done for a long time', neither do theists, as they respect their religious traditions because those traditions uphold their values, have accomplished much good (in their view), and so-on. In this way, you are, in every meaningful sense, motivated for the same reasons as a theist.

If you really think people adopt religious beliefs for the same type of reason that people place forks on the left side of a dinner plate, I'm not sure how to help you. Maybe you would benefit from getting to know people with different beliefs than you, as this seems to be a simple self-centeredness and myopic inability to understand the motivations of others.

[compulsivelyme]

In my mind it's demonstrably obvious that much religious practice is in place because that's simply how it's been done for a while (or how it's been written to be done), and in fact many religious people openly admit they appreciate that their practice is the same as they remember from their childhood and wish to "pass it down" to their children. That's an upholding of tradition. I didn't say that was the only reason, but I do believe it's a key one

[asylum_at_sea]

in fact many religious people openly admit they appreciate that their practice is the same as they remember from their childhood and wish to "pass it down" to their children.

I openly admit that I appreciate that my father plays guitar, and if I ever have children, I would very much like to share that with them, should they want to play as well. Does that mean I like music simply because my father liked it? Or might I like it for another reason? (Actually, the ironic history here is that I love music despite my father liking it, as I rebelled when he tried to teach me.)

Science has universal value and has demonstrably made life better for nearly everyone. Religion can claim nothing of the sort.

Let's suppose that were true. Who cares? Theists obviously disagree with you about that. Does the fact that they're wrong somehow magically change their motivation from "I believe religion has universal value and has demonstrably made life better for nearly everyone, therefore I want to promote it" to "Well, my parents did this, so I'm going

[compulsivelyme]

"When I pointed out that you and I both respect the scientific tradition for its own sake...."

Actually, I never said anything about agreeing with or respecting something for "its own sake." What I said was that I don't respect tradition for TRADITION'S SAKE. And you started arguing, incorrectly, about what the word tradition means.

There's a difference between why churches profess to exist and why they actually do. I'm not interested at all in the former.

[asylum_at_sea]

Actually, I never said anything about agreeing with or respecting something for "its own sake."

...Do we really need to have an entire conversation about what the word 'it' means? ...Bill Clinton, is that you?

There's a difference between why churches profess to exist and why they actually do.

Oh. Ok.

Just so I have this straight: you know the real reason people believe what they believe, despite whatever reason they actually give you. It doesn't matter when someone says that they believe this or that because of this or that reason: you know that they really believe it just because their parents believed it. They're just placing a fork on the left side of their plate.

What was that other person below saying about atheists not being fundamentalists, that you can present them with evidence and they will be convinced, etc?

[compulsivelyme]

I don't agree with tradition for tradition's sake. Tradition's sake. That's it. Period. End of story. That says nothing whatsoever about how I feel about anything else for its own sake-- that was YOUR argument you were trying to attribute to me. Wrongly.

Better reading comprehension would really serve you when you want to get into discussions with people.

[asylum_at_sea]

Science doesn't have a tradition?

[compulsivelyme]

I honestly should have ignored you the first time you misunderstood what I said.

[asylum_at_sea]

No, no, I understand you now. When you say that you don't respect tradition for tradition's sake, you don't mean what most people mean -- respecting tradition so as to benefit that tradition -- you mean respecting tradition because it is a tradition. We cleared that up ages ago.

And what I keep insisting is that theists don't either. You're criticizing them for something they claim they don't do: they claim to believe in God because they actually believe in God, not because their parents believed in God; and they claim to want to promote this belief because they believe doing so creates goodness in the world, etc., not because their parents did this.

And now you've made it clear: there's apparently a difference between what they claim their reasons are, and what their reasons really are, and you're privy to this secret knowledge that they themselves either don't have or are hiding from the rest of us

[meus_ovatio]

Well it is fairly obvious that nearly the entirety of human history is actually one big conspiracy theory to keep Joe Atheist from doing drugs.

[asylum_at_sea]

I thought the main purpose of religious institutions, explicitly, was to promote belief in and worship of god, to encourage a pious life, which involves engaging in charity, etc.

How do you interpret this as "wield[ing] power to manipulate"? It's like you think you're living during the Spanish Inquisition.