A Different Approach
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2012, 09:46 AM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 08:17 AM)Ghost Wrote:  If you're a creationist and you accept Darwin, your socially constructed reality can't function. It collapses. This leaves people suffering from identity crisis and forces them to adopt a new reality model. This is why so many Atheists reject religion all in one go. They hear something and poof, their whole world implodes. The reverse, of course, is true for Darwinists.

While I agree and appreciate the view on extremists, I'm gonna head a few off at the pass by addressing this paragraph....

"This is why so many Atheists reject religion all in one go. They hear something and poof, their whole world implodes." Really? This statement would put many an Atheist on your ass in a New York minute. Maybe you just enjoy defeating your own premis; a punching bag is an invitation.

Quite a generalization there. Atheists reject religion all in one go, do they? And their "whole world" is based on such precarious and localized information, that it's a house of cards ready to topple any second?

You'll need to advise those who have survived the rape of their mind by some religious leader, that their new found freedom is a shaky world ready to implode. I can't really say anything; I've never had an issue with my non-theism by comparison to others' struggles.

For quite a few, it's been just too fucking long... and just typing that phrase out, I beat out each letter on my keypad. There are quite a few out there who are simply mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.

Ghost, getting others to hop up on the fence with you probably isn't going to happen. Certainly not until people have worked out their own shit for themselves. I mean, I understand where you are coming from but... good luck with your unfight... somehow, I'm thinking non-effectivity is not what the teaming crowd is up for. For many, a plea for clemency is beginning to be a bit late in the game.

*****

Just a personal thing...
Do people still use the words "Darwinist" and "Darwinism"? I only ask because I'm an older person and I have never really used these words except to discuss a few bits of early twentieth century literature, and even then I took them to be fairly archaic. I've always just used the word evolution to do discuss the scientific theory and anything surrounding it. Darwin was a guy who has been dead now for 130 years. Might be time to move on... but maybe that's just me. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like kim's post
08-08-2012, 09:58 AM
RE: A Different Approach
Creationism and Darwinism address different sets of issues, with some overlap, bit they are not simply two answers to the same question, so the direct comparison in your analysis is odd.

Science is not different by culture. Scientists of all nations, races and culture routinely collaborate with success. To say that different cultures have different views of reality addresses issues other than the scientific.

Darwinism has ample, repeatable evidence. Creationism has none. There is no debate among serious people on this issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 10:02 AM
RE: A Different Approach
Ah, no. Big Grin

It's one thing if yer talking about Canadian creationists... do you even have those? But the American strain requires antivirals.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
08-08-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 10:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  ... Canadian creationists... do you even have those?

Ha! I'ma laugh right there. Big Grin

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 10:16 AM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 09:16 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 08:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  Nice thought, but it is the creationists who are on the offensive. They keep trying to inject their religion into science classes.

I am not going to stop defensive measures on this, and if that defense is perceived as offense, so be it.

I think that you're addressing something different than what Matt is alluding to.

Fighting for separation of Church & State is something that every citizen should fight for, even if they are a theist/deist, particularly in matter concerning education.

However, when it comes to general discussion with a creationist, I completely agree with Matt.

It's why I've begun shifting my own advocacy efforts towards the youth (e.g. young kids) as well as towards glorifying science, technology, and critical thinking skills like skepticism.

Sure, there are folks that are making a difference by debating creationists in real life and online (the Atheist Experience comes to mind) and that those efforts result in the occasional creationist deconversion, but I think that the more important and ultimately successful route is to plant seeds with the youth and attempt to inoculate them from indoctrination.

I am not disagreeing with you.
I am not always clear on just what point Ghost is trying to make.Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 10:32 AM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 10:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am not disagreeing with you.
I am not always clear on just what point Ghost is trying to make.Consider

Maybe I read over it too fast, but I thought the point was don't confront people on an individual level about their views...

One of my co-workers is a YEC. Didn't know this until I asked, when he answered I had to hit myself to keep from bursting out laughing (that would have been mean...)

The worst part is, he's an engineer by training and education -- I knew he was a hard-core Christian, but I figured his education alone would have kept him from being a YEC.

Since he's a co-worker, and I have to work with him everyday, I let it pass without argument...gotta keep a decent work environment in tact...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 10:34 AM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 10:32 AM)Seasbury Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 10:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am not disagreeing with you.
I am not always clear on just what point Ghost is trying to make.Consider

Maybe I read over it too fast, but I thought the point was don't confront people on an individual level about their views...

One of my co-workers is a YEC. Didn't know this until I asked, when he answered I had to hit myself to keep from bursting out laughing (that would have been mean...)

The worst part is, he's an engineer by training and education -- I knew he was a hard-core Christian, but I figured his education alone would have kept him from being a YEC.

Since he's a co-worker, and I have to work with him everyday, I let it pass without argument...gotta keep a decent work environment in tact...

I would have laughed out loud. My self-control has limits.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-08-2012, 11:10 AM
RE: A Different Approach
Thanks for the responses everyone.

As a general note, I could teach this as a class, so of course I'm speaking in very broad strokes. So if I say anything that seems too broad, please ask me to clarify instead of assuming I'm full of horse pucky. I'll likely be able to clarify. And if I can't, well then that's just good for everyone Cool

Hey, Red Celt.

Who said anything about armies? And who said anything about surrender? Your argument that children will somehow become creationist is unfounded and utterly discounted by what I wrote. You're attempting to reframe the argument to reflect your emotional response and in so doing, you have created and attacked a strawman. Read what I wrote. This is about the mechanics of social dynamics.

Hey, Chas.

Quote:Nice thought, but it is the creationists who are on the offensive.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It happened after therefore it happened because. It's a logical fallacy; the same one that is at work when people suggest that Arabs just spontaneously, all on their own, decided to attack the US on 9/11. It falsely places the beginning of history on that day and ignores the role the US played through hegemony, or American imperialism, in the radicalisation of the very people that attacked them (not to mention the direct arms sales to them).

Absolutely, I agree, the extreme is on the attack, but as I said in the OP, you are contributing to the creation of the extreme. The harder you push, the harder they push back. It's a positive feedback loop. I'm simply suggesting escaping that loop and shifting energy from attack, not to defense, but to building. That way they just become the annoying dog yapping at your feet. Let them hang themselves with their own rope.

This has nothing to do with who started it. It's on. That's the reality. If one strategy, attack, has not only yielded no results but has also exacerbated the situation, then a new approach is needed. That's what I've suggested.

Have you ever found a chick that has fallen from the nest? Your instinct might be to pick it up and make sure it's OK, maybe feed it, whathaveyou. But that is the single worst thing you can do because the mother will reject it, doming it to death, if it smells your scent on it. As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Just because a strategy seems intuitively correct doesn't mean that it works. Attack is emotionally satisfying but what good is that if the results aren't there and if it makes things worse? What I'm suggesting might seem counter-intuitive but it stands up to any serious scrutiny.

Hey, Lightknives.

I agree in principle with everything that you wrote, but I have a single issue.

What you're suggesting is protecting from indoctrination by means of indoctrination. While what I'm suggesting most certainly involves teaching the next generation what they should be FOR rather what they should be against, it isn't limited to children. What I'm suggesting can have an impact on everyone in every age category. It is a way with addressing the issue today, not just tomorrow when the new kids ripen. Namean?

Hey, DLJ.

Quote:Matt said:
"... the nature of cultural transmission is such that if one side articulates the other's memeplex, their cultural system collapses. That outcome is not desirable ..."

Why is it not desirable? Is that not what has happened in the UK with the CofE accepting the Darwin meme?

What I mean is, our understanding of the universe and our ability to interact with it comes from our construct of reality. When that construct collapses, all hell breaks lose in your head because you can no longer effectively understand and interact with the universe. It's what's refereed to as an identity crisis and to put it mildly, it's a shitty thing to go through. Imagine something like, say, being raised a boy and at 43 finding out that you're a girl. That's the kind of thing that can bring down your entire understanding of the world and your place in it. Or imagine you're an Atheist and God taps you on the shoulder and takes you to Vega 9 for a Sternklantchle milk shake. Or you're a Christian and a long lost Carl Sagan manuscript proves unequivocally that there is no God. It's like the keystone in an archway, yank it out and the whole thing comes down. And the aftermath sucks. So if you recontextualise what I wrote:

I Wrote:So the reason that this culture war is intractable is not because people are stupid or stubborn, but because the nature of cultural transmission is such that if one side articulates the other's memeplex, their cultural system collapses. That outcome is not desirable and, more to the point, their cultural systems are naturally resistant to such invasions.

What I'm saying is that the negative outcome of a system collapse is not desirable and wanting to avoid the shittyness of it is part of the reason that the conflict is intractable.

I'm not at all familiar with your Church of England example. Could you elaborate?

And just to tidy your language, Catholicism is a memeplex that is made up of memes rather than simply a meme. But again, I don't know why it might disappear because I don't know your CofE example. Hook a brother up?

Hey, Kim.

"Many" is a colloquial nondescript unit of measurement. It was used in this case to suggest that some Atheists go through this and not at all intended to mean that all Atheists do. Like, "Many hemorrhoid sufferers find it difficult to sit."

What I mean is that there is a tipping point (akin to punctuated equilibrium). Small things might accumulate without causing a significant change. Then suddenly, the proverbial straw breaks the camel's back and the entire structure comes down like a house of cards.

Atheism is a memeplex, or at least part of one. It is not the entirety of the system. It's a part. Like the break system in your car. If you yank out the brake system, your car doesn't work. It's completely intact, but it can't function properly without that system. But still, you might be able to get some use out of it. Now yank the engine, and it's a paperweight. Beautiful, pristine, not a scratch on it, but useless. The other quality of systems is that they are complex. So some Christians might think there's a God and if you yank that out, they might still be Christians. But when the God idea is absolute, when the articulations between it and the rest of the system run deep, yanking it out can collapse the system. It's like a keystone species in an ecosystem. Kill off the wrong one and the whole thing collapses.

Now, the example I gave was of a Christian becoming an Atheist. You seem to have reversed that. But it still holds true. If you believe that everything has a natural explanation and then you meet God, that will likely collapse the fuck out of your worldview.

You're saying something that seems very emotionally charged and unrelated to what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about mechanics. Emotion doesn't factor into it anymore than it factors into addition or multiplication.

I certainly have not made anything even remotely resembling a call for people to "hop up on the fence with me". I honestly don't understand where you get that. My call is to build instead of attack because it's more effective; here's my reasoning. Simple as that. I also specifically said that this applies to any culture conflict. So if you're a scientist, be more scientisty.

If people receive this information and cannot accept it because of their emotional position on the issue, I can do nothing about that. If people want to keep attacking, or if they feel impelled to do so, that's their thing. All I can do is observe and say, "You realise that's not working, right?" and offer my alternative. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

As for Darwinism, it was pretty much an aesthetic choice on my part. Feel free to sub in a better word.

Hey, Jeff.

I see what you're saying, but that's irrelevant. You're right in that culture isn't a fill in the blank survey with 100 questions. Things don't always swap 1:1 because it's way more complex than that. The issue is that the memeplexes, or in some cases, certain memes within them, are incompatible in that they create cognitive dissonance. Because of that, only one can be articulated at a time. So to articulate the new one, you have to disarticulate the old one. The presence of the new and absence of the old, within the context of the existing system can, and often does, lead to collapse.

Science is different by culture, not in the sense that each culture reinvents the wheel, but that translation is involved. I met someone just this weekend who was bilingual, did science in French and when she tried med school in English, she tanked because she couldn't translate everything she'd learned in French. But outside of these translations, which can be managed reasonably effectively with time, science is a memeplex that has been articulated by several different cultures. Just like Catholicism exists in Italy, Canada, Uganda and Brasil, science exists in the US, China, Russia and Nigeria.

But science isn't the whole culture. It's a small part. A memeplex is akin to the gene complex that is responsible for your eye. It's a part of the system. While two cultures can both have the science memeplex, they can have very different overall cultures. The US, France, India, China and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons, but their cultures are quite different overall.

As I said before, reality is the culturally contingent relationship between actuality and meaning. Science isn't actuality, science is meaning.

Whether or not there is any debate between evolution and creationism is utterly unrelated to this particular argument. I agree, evolution is the shit, but it has no bearing on this. This is simply about how cultural systems interact and a strategy for effectively using that dynamic as a method of achieving a desired goal in place of a strategy that is not yielding results and that is progressively putting the desired goal further out of reach.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 11:36 AM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 11:10 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

Quote:Nice thought, but it is the creationists who are on the offensive.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It happened after therefore it happened because. It's a logical fallacy; the same one that is at work when people suggest that Arabs just spontaneously, all on their own, decided to attack the US on 9/11. It falsely places the beginning of history on that day and ignores the role the US played through hegemony, or American imperialism, in the radicalisation of the very people that attacked them (not to mention the direct arms sales to them).

Absolutely, I agree, the extreme is on the attack, but as I said in the OP, you are contributing to the creation of the extreme. The harder you push, the harder they push back. It's a positive feedback loop. I'm simply suggesting escaping that loop and shifting energy from attack, not to defense, but to building. That way they just become the annoying dog yapping at your feet. Let them hang themselves with their own rope.

This has nothing to do with who started it. It's on. That's the reality. If one strategy, attack, has not only yielded no results but has also exacerbated the situation, then a new approach is needed. That's what I've suggested.

Have you ever found a chick that has fallen from the nest? Your instinct might be to pick it up and make sure it's OK, maybe feed it, whathaveyou. But that is the single worst thing you can do because the mother will reject it, doming it to death, if it smells your scent on it. As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Just because a strategy seems intuitively correct doesn't mean that it works. Attack is emotionally satisfying but what good is that if the results aren't there and if it makes things worse? What I'm suggesting might seem counter-intuitive but it stands up to any serious scrutiny.

I don't think that allowing the creationists to insert their gobbledygook into our schools can lead to its dying out; it just creates more believers. I understand your pointing out the positive feedback, but I don't see that the alternative has any hope of success, where success is keeping the gobbledygook out.

What is your non-confrontational alternative? Inquiring minds want to know. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-08-2012, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2012 12:19 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: A Different Approach
This is relativism at it's best.

Whether or not reality is real, or is experienced subjectively means nothing.

This reality is something we can know things about. By testing our thoughts against reality we gain knowledge about it.

Since the body of knowledge is clearly beneficial to all, we can infer that no matter what you think about reality, science is the best truth about the world we have.

That's why this knowledge gained by science takes precedence over all other knowledge claims, and why we value it's teachings over religious ones.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: