Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[athon]

I have not read this entire thread, but I would haughtily admonish everyone to watch out for cause and effect.


How do you know that this is the cause and effect situation?

~~ Paul

Haughtily? Hehe. I might make a t-shirt that says 'haughty but nice'.

I agree that 'cause and effect' is one of those messy things that can destroy an argument. Unfortunately this debate has so many straw men and a forest of ad hom's and tantrums, I'm feeling more like I'm Dorothy in Oz than anything.

As I keep saying, it's not a simple cause and effect situation. Poverty might not directly breed superstition, but it's fairly good fertiliser to make sure it grows bloody well. And it's important to recognize that when addressing a situation such as this.

Athon

 

[Slimething]

Or is this something that you just do? Drop by and tell people in threads you haven't read to watch out for cause and effect?

All this sidestepping must keep you in great shape, dann. Answer the question, for once. Do you still maintain that poverty breeds superstition? Time to take off the greasepaint.

 

[dann]

Yes, poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner.

 

[articulett]

Yes, poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner.

So why don't you?

 

[dann]

So why don't you?

I do.

 

[dann]

No.
While that is often mooted, it is crap; witness how the first victims of the Hutu militias were moderate Hutus, and after that anyone who was remotely better off than their neighbours was accused of being Tutu.
Additionally, apart from the Tutsi, the Hutu militias also wiped out (90% genocide) another minority tribe, one who had never ever been favoured by the former colonialists, so the idea that it was all because the Tutsi had formerly been favoured is quite obviously incorrect.

Then what was the point? Tribal chauvinism? Envy? (Well, maybe for another thread or is it relevant in the discussion about poverty and superstition?)

To be much more precise, needfully, a minority who feel persecuted albeit superior, but are not in actual fact persecuted in any meaningful way at all.

That sounds almost like Mensa! (Or at least it reminds me of some of the people from the Danish chapter of Mensa that I have quarrelled with ....)

 

[Gurdur]

Then what was the point? Tribal chauvinism? Envy? (Well, maybe for another thread or is it relevant in the discussion about poverty and superstition?)

Over-population plus a kind of proto-fascist mindset among the Hutu militias.

That sounds almost like Mensa! (Or at least it reminds me of some of the people from the Danish chapter of Mensa that I have quarrelled with ....)

* crosses Mensa meetings off the list of good places to hang out *

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is indeed haughty of you without reading the arguments in the thread. Or is this something that you just do? Drop by and tell people in threads you haven't read to watch out for cause and effect?

Yup, that's my job here. Didn't you know? Sheesh.

So I've read the thread. People don't appear convinced that you've supported your contention that poverty is the cause of superstition. I'm not convinced either. Could you summarize your evidence for this claim for poor future readers who can't see the trees among the forest of this thread?

~~ Paul

 

[dann]

Yup, that's my job here. Didn't you know? Sheesh.

No, I didn't. Why the "Sheesh."?

So I've read the thread. People don't appear convinced that you've supported your contention that poverty is the cause of superstition.

I think I know the "people" you refer to.

I'm not convinced either.

What are your objections to my arguments?

Could you summarize your evidence for this claim?

Yes, I could. As a matter of fact, I think I've done so a couple of times already. If you want me to do so again, it won't be today, however. New Years Eve is approaching fast over here.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, I didn't. Why the "Sheesh."?

Because you could have simply suggested that I read the thread, but no, you had to make this crack: "Or is this something that you just do? Drop by and tell people in threads you haven't read to watch out for cause and effect?"

What are your objections to my arguments?

I don't know what your argument is, man. It all seems like a just-so statement, as in "Yes, poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition ...". I can't find a summary of your insight.

Yes, I could. As a matter of fact, I think I've done so a couple of times already.

Thank you. You can just point me to an existing summary.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Hereeere's a Summary...

Someone dropped into an african zoo un-announced, and mentioned the vet in charge seemed to concentrate on giving out bandaids rather than feeding starving animals, and the only well fed group -- a cage of monkeys --started flinging poo.

 

[Gurdur]

...So I've read the thread. People don't appear convinced that you've supported your contention that poverty is the cause of superstition.

Really? You get two things wrong here; one is that Dann used the construction that poverty breeds superstition, which is to say that conditions of poverty greatly encourage the growth of superstition; the other thing you get wrong is when you claim "people don't appear convinced". That's not true; there are two other posters here who accept the main thrust of the point, and two who don't. Seems odd you ignore the positives. Especially since Dann gave supporting evidence and you haven't even discussed it.

I'm not convinced either. Could you summarize your evidence for this claim for poor future readers who can't see the trees among the forest of this thread?

Since Dann provided a good deal of evidence throughout the thread; I cannot see why you are asking him to summarize it. Your own lack of conviction is your thing; yet you don't seem to have paid any attention to the evidence already given at all.

 

[Slimething]

Yes, poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner.

Oh, finally! So, dann, in your world, if I gave a witch hunter a million euros, said witch hunter would no longer be superstitious. This is established, of course, because none of us have ever seen supersitious, wealthy people. No Winchester House exists, for example.

Really a stupid, simplistic worldview, dann. Poverty and misery contribute to a great many things. For your rant against skeptics to hold water, you have to establish causality. Of course, you would have been right if you could have established that but you can't.

So, admit you were wrong. Apologize like a mature human would. Then you can go away and grow up a little.

 

[Slimething]

Really? You get two things wrong here; one is that Dann used the construction that poverty breeds superstition, which is to say that conditions of poverty greatly encourage the growth of superstition; the other thing you get wrong is when you claim "people don't appear convinced". That's not true;

Absolutely true, gurdur, if only you had even an adequate command of English. In your and dann's minds (such as they are), because people are poor, their foibles should not be criticized. I guess we should give them money then criticize their superstitious claptrap. That is nonsense of high order. Why don't you rail against your own justice system for imprisoning poor people for theft, as privation breeds envy?

And, the second thing: the term "people" includes all humans, gurdur. Again, I ask you to consult a worthy dictionary. Yes, there are two vocal dissidents and two vocal proponents but, if you check the thread stats, you'll see that many people view this thread but don't write in. So, how do you know how many people agree and how many disagree?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You get two things wrong here; one is that Dann used the construction that poverty breeds superstition, which is to say that conditions of poverty greatly encourage the growth of superstition; ...

I got that wrong? You mean he's not saying that poverty breeds superstition?

If Dann is saying that poverty contributes to the growth of already-established superstitions among the poor, due to superstition's handy ability to provide excuses for various problems, then I suspect he is correct to one degree or another. However, what he said was:

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner?

I read from this that poverty is the only source of superstition. Otherwise how could fighting poverty possibly "do away with it"? Perhaps he has softened his position since the OP, or perhaps the OP was an exaggeration, which is why I asked him to summarize his current thoughts.

Seems odd you ignore the positives. Especially since Dann gave supporting evidence and you haven't even discussed it.

I'm not ignoring those who agree with him. In fact, you could summarize his current thoughts if you'd like.

~~ Paul

 

[Checkmite]

So, you know, I would kind of disagree completely with you that the discussion is beside the point, the point including just what you have described in your own words.

I say "beside the point", because by and large, it seems that most people here who disagree with the OP are taking the position that these peoples' being poor is causing them, through some mechanism, to become so superstitious that when something "weird" happens, they think their kids may be witches, and so throw them out.

When I stated earlier in this thread that the solution to this problem lies not in teaching the people that "witches don't exist", but rather eliminating the need to throw a kid out, I meant exactly that. You can go an teach those people that witches aren't real, and get them to believe it to a man - and you'll still face the same problem. The "excuse" for throwing the kid out will change, sure, but that's all. Because it was never about superstition or witchcraft, at all. It was about food, the whole time - and as long as that's the problem, there will ALWAYS be alleged "witches" - or "thieves", or "unnatural", or "too-dangerous-to-keep-at-home" kids - running the streets.

It is the arguing about how this situation is all the fault of belief in witches that I'm insisting is beside the point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is not a case at all of skeptics not being skeptical enough. And it is an oversimplification to say the accusations of witchcraft are merely fabricated to evict an orphan who is now an unwanted social obligation. This is a complex interaction which takes some degree of familiarity with cultural psychology and sociology to see the broader picture.

What you have here are the consequences of disruption of normal societal rules. Put another way, these societies evolved their social interactions over thousands of years when the unwritten rule was, widowed spouses and orphans are taken in by surviving siblings of the deceased parent. These rules are followed because of the emotional satisfaction one gets, but also because of the social stigma of not following them. They evolved because they benefit the group as a social safety net. The unspoken tribal rules amount to society's welfare system. You have no government welfare system.

Then comes disruption of the society with population growth, poverty, war, and so on and so on. Now the mechanism which served the group well for thousands of years is maladaptive. To this social expectation you add the disease of HIV-AIDS which kills a disproportionate number of wage earners/providers.

Surviving family members are now overburdened with orphaned relatives. The belief in witchcraft was already present in the society. It may even have been an established norm in the society to use an accusation of witchcraft for any number of things such as jealousy, rivalry and so on. The belief is real. The motive for making the accusation may or may not be something the accuser is aware of. It's no surprise to see something like this pop up in these circumstances.

On to the claim skeptics aren't skeptical enough about these matters.

Of course they aren't skeptical enough. The beliefs in witchcraft are real. The rest of what is happening is part of a very complex social dynamic. It merely takes an education in the psycho-social/cultural dynamics to form an awareness of the complexities involved. Educate the skeptic in the complex dynamics of these particular belief systems and you find immediate acceptance of the premises. There may be room to debate the finer points, but you don't have skeptics denying there are multiple factors involved in superstitious beliefs.

Such dynamics are involved in all belief systems.

Religion has all sorts of inherent motives in its promoters and believers. That doesn't mean believers are all merely deceitful and don't really believe. Nor do people believe in their religion completely separate from external factors. Churches target lonely people for recruitment. That doesn't mean church members are all deviously searching out vulnerable victims. Past success recruiting vulnerable people makes it logical to seek them out for recruitment. Vulnerable people may take up religious beliefs as a relief from loneliness. The dynamic of loneliness is involved but the belief is real. Do we argue skeptics aren't skeptical enough if they don't analyze all the reasons behind religious beliefs?

I don't think its a coincidence a number of very vocal gay bashers have turned out to be closet gays. There is a psychological mechanism behind having been taught to hate your homosexuality (hating your sexuality has resulting consequences as well). As you hate your inner self some people project that out and voila', you get a gay basher. Do they believe their religion? I would think so. It probably makes them hate themselves even more. Should I bring this dynamic up every time I discuss irrational religious beliefs?

In this case the psycho-social issues are more obvious so the superstition appears perhaps fabricated because we are on the outside looking in. From the inside, it looks similar to other false belief systems. There are similar psycho-social aspects but those are not so obvious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As to the effects of poverty on superstitious beliefs, there all sorts of dynamics involved in irrational beliefs. Poverty and the resulting lack of education has a profound effect.

That doesn't explain the right wing evangelical movement which has a number of highly educated and well off members in it.

 

[articulett]

I do.

Excellent.

So now that you've divined the most efficient way of dealing with superstition in the Congo, we've got got that problem solved. Glad to know you and Gurdur are on it.

So whats the most efficient ways to deal with the AIDS crisis there and the child soldiers and female genital mutilation and the continual raping of females from toddler-hood to old age?

 

[articulett]

Hereeere's a Summary...

Someone dropped into an african zoo un-announced, and mentioned the vet in charge seemed to concentrate on giving out bandaids rather than feeding starving animals, and the only well fed group -- a cage of monkeys --started flinging poo.

Oopsy...you forgot to mention that the animals were bleeding, and that while you...er..."the monkeys" were "flinging poo"--the un-announced visitors thanked the vet, noting that it's a good thing he was keeping the animals from bleeding to death before feeding them hard as it was with Dann...er "the monkeys" flinging poo and all. (!)

But those silly gur...er.."monkeys"--they are dense...and they only understand big things, you know-- like "macroevoltuion" --they can't help that they haven't the brain for the finer details of language and the like. They are just too busy flinging poo at images of themselves in the mirror and trying to get the attention of zookeepers so they can complain about those other awful monkeys in the looking glass. tsk.

(next time read between the lines.)