Comparisons between religions and cults.

[LuxFerum]

Atheists do not believe in “no-god” because there is no god to not believe in. Belief is not required.

Belief in god is not required.

Many different atheists believe in many different things (concrete things like family and friends, for instance, or more conceptual things like “justice” and “honour”). Some atheists believe in these things to the point where their belief might be considered a dogma or even a religion but equally many do not. There is no requirement for atheists to also be skeptcs, there is no requirement for atheists to be anything except, by definition, non-believers.

By definition, atheist don't have to believe in god, all the rest is allowed.

Therefore to compare “Religious” with “Atheists” is pointless because, not only are the various religions so different from each other as to be unsuitable to form into a single set, so are the atheists!

You just did, didn't you?

 

[Graham]

Belief in god is not required.


By definition, atheist don't have to believe in god, all the rest is allowed.


You just did, didn't you?

Well, yes, hence the rambling nature of my post.

The point, more correctly, is that they can't be tied into a group by anything other than their atheism i.e. they have no other common factors.

Graham

 

[LuxFerum]

Yesterday TLN told me in PaltTalk about the new book of Shermer. Hmmmm. I have observed that the new spin among atheists and agnostics is to try to persuade us that all the manifestations of religiosity are not really religious phaenomena but it's religion that adopted them because they fit well in the theory.

But they have to do that, don't they? They have to show that the non-religious paradigm can explain the world fully. If they can't do that, the theory is doomed.
I honestly doubt that one day some theory will accomplish that.
Those theories are just as bad as any religious theory, they are just a collection of successful experiences. Hardly anything new will come from them, and when it comes, it have a great deal of luck on it. One good thing about them is that some of those theories can be tested easily. Which will put a label on it as a good description of a phenomenon or not. Too bad that in order to test some religions, you have to die. The good part is that everyone will do that test.
As to religion adopting something, I don't see the big deal, science will adopt anything new that can't be described by the previous model.

Right.

Who knows?

 

[Mercutio]

1. You can't reproduce behavior or ideias, only if by that you mean pass to another generation. But that is not necessary. Like I said before those ideas don't need to be alive. You could wipe out every trace of an ideia, but that will not stop someone from having that same ideia, years later, from nothing.

There is no requirement that something be alive in order for natural selection to work on it. (I must tell you sometime of a paper a student of mine wrote about natural selection in teddy bears) Radical behaviorism uses the exact same metaphor (selection by environmental consequences) to explain behavior; in Beyond Freedom and Dignity Skinner explicitly applies this metaphor to cultural change. As for "the same idea years later"...you have just descrbed convergent evolution.

2. Some new ideias have some traits from another one, but they are intrinsically the same. You can't have a mix between pacifism and whatever goes in Bin laden mind. Or whe will have to say that BL is a pacifist when he is not killing or planning to kill.

#2 simply states that offspring resemble their parents. If I teach someone a philosophy, #2 simply states that their newly learned philosophy will resemble mine. Your Bin Laden example does not address this, let alone refute it.

3. Ok.

To expand my previous thought, all #3 states is that if I teach my philosophy to several people, their newly learned philosophies--while similar to mine--may vary slightly from one another. (I can't help but think of the schools pf psychoanalysis after Freud as an example)

4. Nope, there is enough space for all kinds of behavior and ideias, since they are not competing for something, they can coexist.

So there are no religious wars? Ever hear the phrase "this town ain't big enough for the both of us"?

5. Another problem, ideas don't die out.

well, the ones that die out aren't here for us to easily point to. Look to history, though, for failed ideas...(I mentioned the Shakers above)

6. Ideas don't need to adapt to the environment. Sometimes because ideias have the goal to change the environment.

Of course. All behavior of all organisms existst in a reciprocal arrangement with the environment. You change the environment, and it changes you--phylogenetically across generations, or individually through learning.

If you really want to analise ideias with the natural selection theory, you will have to build up a paradigm of how ideias interact with one another, how exactly one ideia overcome another one, how they appear and disapear. For living things that is simple, life and death, reproduction and competition for the resources. There isn't a clear analogy for the world of ideias.

I disagree, but am running out of time. I'll refer you to Skinner again for a book on exactly this. (although, in a twist, cultural evolution can also be Lamarkian, of course!)

Yes, but they will ever be just a parasite in a more developed specie, not because natural selection told him so, but for its intrinsical characteristics.

Do you really wish to make this statement?

I disagree. In the same way that our skin protec us from infection, a healthy brain protect us from extremistc views.
The only way to get an infection is by making holes in the skin to make it suceptible to microorganism. Same thing for the brain, you can only get fragile when you are under a very stressful situation. That is the breach that an ideia needs to infect someone.
You say that a healthy brain is sucsceptible, I say that a healt brain can be damaged and became sucsceptible.

Look at your paragraph; your definition of a damaged or susceptible brain is circular. You only know it is "damaged" if the person succumbs to pressure, then say they succumb because of a damaged brain.

Im sorry, but the analogy of the pressure of shocking someone(not against his will), in a controlated experiment and the pressure to blow yourself up with others(against theirs will) is just silly.
I would shock the guy even if he got the right answers just for fun.

Read the experiment again. The shocks are against the will of the "learner". This experiment has been cited in explaining how one can become a torturer (I forget the author, Cleo knows though), and other extreme behavior.

If you would shock them...does this mean you have a diseased brain?

 

[elliotfc]

Mercutio said -- he may correct me if I don't word this opinion accurately although I do-- that nothing distinguishes the Jedi Knights or the followers of marginal and extreme cults from the followers of the Catholic Church ( for example).

The Jedi Knights thing is cute, but unfortunately obscures a legitimate question.

I actually don't have that big of a problem of people using the word "cult" to marginalize a religion. Heck, what would you expect from people brainwashed by the "cult" of science (har har har). Anyhow, the oldest definitions of the word cult are neutral, only recently is the word a pejorative.

If you want to call a religion of 1.5 billion a cult, it seems that cult no longer means anything. The word no longer has a purpose. Seems anti-productive. I mean, I've studied the anthropology of religion, and for anthropologists, cults are relative *novelties* which have a tenuous relationship with the societies in which they function as a fringe/minority practice. Yes, that is not a strict and objective definition (we're talking social science here). But for anthropologists, it is the behavior and extra-relationships that define cults, and not the beliefs.

-ELliot

 

[LuxFerum]

There is no requirement that something be alive in order for natural selection to work on it. (I must tell you sometime of a paper a student of mine wrote about natural selection in teddy bears).

I repeat, What is your model of the interaction of ideias?
Without that, the reference of natural selection is just as good as a magic word. How ideias fight with each other? How they pop up inside someone's head and how they dissapear?

So there are no religious wars? Ever hear the phrase "this town ain't big enough for the both of us"?

No war will ever be explained by a simple circunstance. It require a lot more than a simple disagreement to convince one group to kill, rape and steal another one and make they think that that is not a crime.
I doubt that you don't have any conflicting ideias in some subject.

well, the ones that die out aren't here for us to easily point to. Look to history, though, for failed ideas...(I mentioned the Shakers above)

Lets just say cannibalism.
Do you think it is dead?
Do you think will ever be dead?

Look at your paragraph; your definition of a damaged or susceptible brain is circular. You only know it is "damaged" if the person succumbs to pressure, then say they succumb because of a damaged brain.

Nope, is not circular. I never said that a damaged brain is the one who succumbs to pressure. I say that you can damage a healty mind by submiting it to pressure, like torture. Do you think that a victim of torture would describe the experience as something that improve his mental health?

Read the experiment again. The shocks are against the will of the "learner". This experiment has been cited in explaining how one can become a torturer (I forget the author, Cleo knows though), and other extreme behavior.

In the link you provide:

and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."

This clearly induce the individual to beleive that the other one was there, as he is, by his will. And he, as him, accepted the risk of this experiment.
And as to become a torturer, everybody knows that Harvard, is not a torture chamber, everyone will assume that the experiment will not permanently damage the other person, that will just be some short time disconfort.
I don't see the tapes of the experiment, but I really doubt that someone continue with the shocks after the other people show some signals of strong disconfort and asking for the interruption of the experiment.
If that happened

If you would shock them...does this mean you have a diseased brain?

From susceptible to damage to diseased.
I would like to clarify that by damaged brain I do imply that there is something physicaly wrong with the brain ( I should have used mind).What I meant is that it is a mind in a stressful situation, and that it doesn't have to stay that way for the rest of their life.
Like someone who consider about suicide after breaking up with his/her boy/girlfriend. Some will pass throug this, some will not.
Other stressful situations will let the mind permanently damaged.

To answer you question:
No.
As far as I see, that experiment don't show anything about transforming someone in a torturer.

 

[Atlas]

If that happened

Hey Lux, it happened.

The "teacher" could hear the screams of the learner. The "teacher" would begin to protest, but the monitor engaged in a scientific experiment would employ different psychological techniques to convince the "teacher" to continue.

I imagined the man in the white coat coached the "teacher" somewhat less coersively than the SS did under Hitler - but they continued to encourage the "teacher" to ratchet up the shock to see if the learner would become more proficient.

My imagined encouragment statements...
"I know it's tough but this is science, please continue."
"You agreed to participate, now let's go we're almost done."
"Look, You're totally absolved of responsibility. You're doing it for me, science, and the instution."
"Please, this is important, your contribution is appreciated."
"Sit back down! You have signed this paper and you will continue."

The "teachers" would sweat and some would tremble but they followed orders. Remarkable.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mercutio said -- he may correct me if I don't word this opinion accurately although I do-- that nothing distinguishes the Jedi Knights or the followers of marginal and extreme cults from the followers of the Catholic Church ( for example).

I would disagree with Mercutio, but I would also disagree with the idea that marginal=cult.

The best distinction between a cult and a religion that I’ve found looks at the relationship between the group and the larger society.

A religion supports society and encourages participation. By performing rituals that affirm life event (marriage, funerals, baptisms, etc) and by passing on customs and rituals, they encourage family unity. By promoting charitable acts and civic participation they reinforce the community. Religions also encourage their members to be law abiding.

Cults, on the other hand, encourage isolation from the larger group. Cult members may be asked or pressured to sever ties with family members who are not believers. No emphasis is placed on charitable works or civic participation because the greater society is seen as something they must be removed from, and of course religious rules are placed above secular law.

By this definition, I’d call Jedi Knights a religion, despite their lack of supernatural origin.

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

Hey Lux, it happened.



My imagined encouragment statements...
"I know it's tough but this is science, please continue."
"You agreed to participate, now let's go we're almost done."
"Look, You're totally absolved of responsibility. You're doing it for me, science, and the instution."
"Please, this is important, your contribution is appreciated."
"Sit back down! You have signed this paper and you will continue."

The "teachers" would sweat and some would tremble but they followed orders. Remarkable.

Um...it is actually worse than that, Atlas. There were only a handful of different "prompts" that were given, and they were all delivered very calmly and matter-of-factly.

"please continue"
"the experiment requires that you continue"
"whether the learner likes it or not, we must continue the experiment"
and the least effective,
"you have no other choice; we must continue the experiment"

In the condition of the experiment that is depicted in the movie, you could hear the learner screaming through the wall...then falling silent...and still the "teachers" continue...50% went all the way to the end, to 450 volts.

Lux, you think perhaps it was the respectability of Harvard (Yale, actually). Milgram replicated it in an office with no visible ties to the university, with only a very slight reduction in obedience.

 

[Mercutio]

I had this response mostly written, then my computer crashed. This is the short, faulty-memory version...sorry...

I repeat, What is your model of the interaction of ideias?
Without that, the reference of natural selection is just as good as a magic word. How ideias fight with each other? How they pop up inside someone's head and how they dissapear?

Note that the requirements (you listed 5, I had it in 3) for Natural Selection do not specify a mechanism. It is enough that they happen. Darwin did not know about genes, of course.

No war will ever be explained by a simple circunstance. It require a lot more than a simple disagreement to convince one group to kill, rape and steal another one and make they think that that is not a crime.
I doubt that you don't have any conflicting ideias in some subject.

And natural selection rarely if ever takes place in response to just one environmental variable. The theory is extremely simple, but the practice is extraordinarily complex.

Lets just say cannibalism.
Do you think it is dead?
Do you think will ever be dead?

1) I have no knowledge with which to anser this. 2) It is impossible to predict how natural selection will shape future behaviors, just as we do not know whether a niche might be filled by a new bird, a mammal, a reptile...there are too many variables. But...if conditions return to, say, as they were in Russia at the end of WWII, I would not be surprised to see, as we did there, a trade in human flesh...

Nope, is not circular. I never said that a damaged brain is the one who succumbs to pressure. I say that you can damage a healty mind by submiting it to pressure, like torture. Do you think that a victim of torture would describe the experience as something that improve his mental health?

You say "In the same way that our skin protec us from infection, a healthy brain protect us from extremistc views.
The only way to get an infection is by making holes in the skin to make it suceptible to microorganism. Same thing for the brain, you can only get fragile when you are under a very stressful situation. That is the breach that an ideia needs to infect someone.
You say that a healthy brain is sucsceptible, I say that a healt brain can be damaged and became sucsceptible.". When you use the phrase "the only way", this is what I see as circularity. If we take a healthy individual (as we do in the Milgram experiments) and induce these behaviors, are you saying their healthy brains must first be damaged, and only then will they act this way? Given that the only evidence we have of "damage" is the "acting this way"....I stand by my assertion of circularity.

In the link you provide:

This clearly induce the individual to beleive that the other one was there, as he is, by his will. And he, as him, accepted the risk of this experiment.
And as to become a torturer, everybody knows that Harvard, is not a torture chamber, everyone will assume that the experiment will not permanently damage the other person, that will just be some short time disconfort.
I don't see the tapes of the experiment, but I really doubt that someone continue with the shocks after the other people show some signals of strong disconfort and asking for the interruption of the experiment.
If that happened

See Atlas, above. Yes, these people continued. Yes, they thought it was real. Yes, they were perfectly healthy normal people. I really, really recommend seeing the video.

From susceptible to damage to diseased.

oops. Sorry, I meant to type "damaged".

I would like to clarify that by damaged brain I do imply that there is something physicaly wrong with the brain ( I should have used mind).What I meant is that it is a mind in a stressful situation, and that it doesn't have to stay that way for the rest of their life.
Like someone who consider about suicide after breaking up with his/her boy/girlfriend. Some will pass throug this, some will not.
Other stressful situations will let the mind permanently damaged.

...and unless you have some way of measuring the "damage" aside from whether or not they commit suicide (or whatever other behavior), it is a circular concept!

To answer you question:
No.
As far as I see, that experiment don't show anything about transforming someone in a torturer.

Ok...I humbly suggest you read it again. The notion that I can take an ordinary man off the street and convince him to deliver powerful electric shocks to a stranger, against that stranger's will and despite that stranger's protests, then screams, then silence...well, it kinda puts me in the mind of torture. But maybe that's just me.

 

[varwoche]

The priest of my neighborhood gives people a reason to live, not a reason to die.

Belief in afterlife cheapens life.

 

[LuxFerum]

Note that the requirements (you listed 5, I had it in 3) for Natural Selection do not specify a mechanism. It is enough that they happen. Darwin did not know about genes, of course.

No, that is not what I mean, here is a successful aplication of natural selection
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

A good example of natural selection was discovered among "peppered" moths living near English industrial cities. These insects have varieties that vary in wing and body coloration from light to dark. During the 19th century, sooty smoke from coal burning furnaces killed the lichen on trees and darkened the bark. When moths landed on these trees, the dark colored ones were harder to spot by birds who ate them and, subsequently, they more often lived long enough to reproduce. Over generations, the environment continued to favor darker moths. As a result, they progressively became more common. By 1895, 98% of the moths in the vicinity of English cities like Manchester were mostly black. Since the 1950's, air pollution controls have significantly reduced the amount of heavy particulate air pollutants reaching the trees. As a result, lichen has grown back, making trees lighter in color. Now, natural selection favors lighter moth varieties so they have become the most common. This trend has been well documented by field studies undertaken between 1959 and 1995 by Sir Cyril Clarke from the University of Liverpool. The same pattern of moth wing color evolutionary change in response to increased and later decreased atmospheric pollution has been carefully documented by other researchers for the countryside around Detroit, Michigan.

You see, it not only say that the explanation for the difference in the numbers of moths is because of natural selection. It explaing clearly why one type is bigger than others. It tells you the exactly cause that makes one moths die easier.
Your explanation don't say anything more than "it is because of natural selection." It really don't explain why one ideia is more popular than other, or what we can do to change the situation.

And natural selection rarely if ever takes place in response to just one environmental variable. The theory is extremely simple, but the practice is extraordinarily complex.

Or I could say it is because of newtons laws, we just have to calculate the speed and position for every atom in the earth and we wil have the same result.
But again, this explanation don't explain anything, and yet, in a materialistic point of view, it is absolutely right.

1) I have no knowledge with which to anser this. 2) It is impossible to predict how natural selection will shape future behaviors, just as we do not know whether a niche might be filled by a new bird, a mammal, a reptile...there are too many variables. But...if conditions return to, say, as they were in Russia at the end of WWII, I would not be surprised to see, as we did there, a trade in human flesh...

That is what Im saying, your explanation don't explain the problem, it is as good as nothing.

You say "In the same way that our skin protec us from infection, a healthy brain protect us from extremistc views.
The only way to get an infection is by making holes in the skin to make it suceptible to microorganism. Same thing for the brain, you can only get fragile when you are under a very stressful situation. That is the breach that an ideia needs to infect someone.
You say that a healthy brain is sucsceptible, I say that a healt brain can be damaged and became sucsceptible.". When you use the phrase "the only way", this is what I see as circularity. If we take a healthy individual (as we do in the Milgram experiments) and induce these behaviors, are you saying their healthy brains must first be damaged, and only then will they act this way? Given that the only evidence we have of "damage" is the "acting this way"....I stand by my assertion of circularity.

Let me try this analogy:
Computer=Healty mind
Internet connection=Stressful situation
Suppose that the only way to get a virus is by the internet.
Without the internet, you will never get a virus.
In the moment you connect it to the internet, it will be posible for it to get some virus. This computer now have a flaw in his security.
An antivirus software can help to protect the computer against some of the virus, but cannot protect from them all.
Ok ,"the only way" is not quite right, since an ideia can pop up inside someone's mind, but if that ideia survive without any stressful situation, I would put then in the same class as serial killers that really have a physicaly damaged brain.

Im still unconvinced that Milgram induce those behaviors.

See Atlas, above. Yes, these people continued. Yes, they thought it was real. Yes, they were perfectly healthy normal people. I really, really recommend seeing the video.

I wan't to know one thing:
Did the guy ask for it to stop? Did he beg?
Just some scream and silence won't do it for me.
That is where I would draw the line, with some pressure I could do a little more perhaps, but not much more.
In one Jackass episode, they tested some selfdefense devices and one of them was a stuntgun. They eletrocted Noxville to the point where he have to say:
-Stop, or I gonna kick your a$$!
In his most serious tone.
Of course they pressed the button one more time, after giving him some time.

Ok...I humbly suggest you read it again. The notion that I can take an ordinary man off the street and convince him to deliver powerful electric shocks to a stranger, against that stranger's will and despite that stranger's protests, then screams, then silence...well, it kinda puts me in the mind of torture. But maybe that's just me.

Shocks aint that bad, I would be more worried about the persons fellingls than about the physical pain.
Actualy I can think in something worst, there is a show in the discovery channel, that shows the cases that appears in a real emergercy room.
Sometimes, for some reason, they couldn't administrate analgesics, and they had to do something really really painfull, with the guy screaming in agony for them to stop.
Or some medic in a war zone, some years ago, were you would have to amputate a member without any pain killers, and with the guy conscious all the time.
Those cases are far more terrible than some chocks, and you would get help from people on the street to perform some of those barbaric acts.
And the medics who would see this almost every day would not become a torturer.

 

[LuxFerum]

The Catholic Church insists that HIV can be transmitted through pores in condoms, despite this being clearly bunkum. In this instance, religion is disconnected from the real world. Further, whilst Catholic acceptance of evolution is a commendable triumph of common sense over dogma, how many other dogmatic beliefs do they continue to retain in the face of scientific evidence? Even if the answer were none, could the same be said of all the other religions in the world or even the majority of them? If only the Catholic and Orthodox churches amongst all the churches in the world accept evolution (and I’m not saying this is the case, merely exploring the value of your example) would this mean that religion is general is connected/disconnected from the real world?

From one condom manufacturer

No method of contraception can provide 100% protection against pregnancy or the transmission of HIV and sexually transmitted infections.

So, I can't really see the point of blamming the church for someone getting HIV. Are condoms 100% safe? No.
The church say that you must not use condoms? No problem, they also say that you shouldn't have sex outside the marriage.
If you follow the church laws you will be safe.
If you don't follow the church, that is your problem, you are the only one to blame for some disease that you might get.

 

[LuxFerum]

Belief in afterlife cheapens life.

Not if this belief require that you make the most of your earthly life.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In another thread Mercutio and I had an argument as to how legitimate is to compare the cult of Jedi Knights with the Christians.

I want to explore this topic a bit further. It seems logical to me that the mechanism that creates the religious feeling is similar all around the world but still I think that while we might be able to follow some similar patterns there is a point where the religious feeling starts to differ among groups.

Mercutio said -- he may correct me if I don't word this opinion accurately although I do-- that nothing distinguishes the Jedi Knights or the followers of marginal and extreme cults from the followers of the Catholic Church ( for example).

In my opinion this theory seems that it is based on the premise that religion is a form of lunacy so we cannot really distinguish the different religions and there is nothing that distinguishes the followers of David Koresh or Phelps from the followers of the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

I am interested to see how many people in this forum really agree with that theory.

I haven't read this thread, but I did read the other one, and all I can conclude is:

Geez Cleo, I never realised you were that intollerant.

As soon as someone compares religious experience of one group to christianity, you feel insulted. You call people with different religious ideas "lunatics", and you claim superiority simply because your form of religion is slightly more organised and has been around a little longer than the other one.

The bottom line is that religious beliefs are a personal thing. If you prefer the Jedi principles as they were formed in the brain of George Lucas to those that were formed in the brains of a few Middle Easterners a few thousand years ago, so be it. Both, in my opinion, are based on a pretty story with lots of fantastical and magical things happening. With heroes that suffer hardships and setbacks. Helping people in need and trying to save the people. It's not about the plausibility of all of it being real, it's about the application of the lessons gleaned from those stories in your life. If you think the Jedi principles are stupid and laughable, well, they're no more laughable than the 10 commandments or the Wiccan rede.

How very intollerant and petty of you to dismiss peoples beliefs simply because you don't understand them. Maybe it's you who should take a good hard look at your own values and actions, and how they compare to those of the man you claim is your big example ...

 

[LuxFerum]

Oh came on exarch.

If religions and cults are all the same, why some religions last for more than 1000 years? If they are just as good, the market would be very well distributed among all those cults, and with the cult growing rate, none of then would survive for more than one generation.

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

I haven't read this thread, but I did read the other one, and all I can conclude is:

Geez Cleo, I never realised you were that intollerant.

As soon as someone compares religious experience of one group to christianity, you feel insulted. You call people with different religious ideas "lunatics", and you claim superiority simply because your form of religion is slightly more organised and has been around a little longer than the other one.

Well, one of us is comprehension impaired. I read what Cleo said and got no such message from her words, but basically the opposite.


Bringing up a point from earlier in this thread, I see a progression from belief to faith to "blind faith" as a sequence. Faith should effect thought and deed; I suggest "blind faith" should strongly effect thought and deed.

Where problems begin is having faith and blind faith in any human.

 

[Mercutio]

Im still unconvinced that Milgram induce those behaviors.

I wan't to know one thing:
Did the guy ask for it to stop? Did he beg?
Just some scream and silence won't do it for me.
That is where I would draw the line, with some pressure I could do a little more perhaps, but not much more.

From memory, but since I have seen that film probably 2 dozen times, pretty accurately (if you want better, I have Milgram's book at my office)...

He said "ow!" a few times, then "that's enough--let me out of here"
More and louder "ow!"s, then "I absolutely refuse to continue" ...leading up to "You have no right to keep me here! Let me out! Let me out!" and "I told you I had a heart condition, my heart's starting to bother me now! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out!"... more "You have no right to keep me here!" and "I can't stand the pain"...and of course, each time the actual shock is given, an increasingly loud and anguished howl of pain. And then, unexpectedly, silence. Still-increasing shocks, but deathly silence.

I have seen students of mine in tears at this movie, seeing what we are capable of. It was filmed on the last day of the experiment, because Milgram recognised that people might not believe his results. If you are still unconvinced after Atlas and I confirmed it (and it is not like the Milgram book is impossible to check up on, and the movie is certainly available through university libraries--just what sort of sources do you require?), I can only suggest that you get your library to order the tape. As Atlas said..."Hey, Lux, it happened."

Now...my students will watch this and, knowing that 50% of subjects went all the way to 450 volts, ponder what they would do in the subject's shoes. I ask them how many would go all the way...out of 200+ students, I usually get about 5 hands raised. They don't want to believe it, even after they see it. I think that goes beyond skepticism to denial.

 

[Mercutio]

You see, it not only say that the explanation for the difference in the numbers of moths is because of natural selection. It explaing clearly why one type is bigger than others. It tells you the exactly cause that makes one moths die easier.
Your explanation don't say anything more than "it is because of natural selection." It really don't explain why one ideia is more popular than other, or what we can do to change the situation.

Ok...I must wait to get to my office. There are examples in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, and you can infer some quite easily in Diamond's Guns, Germs, & Steel.

Oh, and is it just my paranoid imagination, or have there been questions raised as to the peppered moth example? I seem to recall recent allegations of data-fudging, but with my memory, I would not want to accuse...

 

[exarch]

Re: Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

Originally posted by hammegk
Well, one of us is comprehension impaired. I read what Cleo said and got no such message from her words, but basically the opposite.

Then you should read this thread first.

She starts out being quite upset about Mercutio comparting people calling themselves "Jedi knights" to people calling themselves "good christians", but then goes on to say that all adherents of the Jedi principles are lunatics, the same kind of generalisation she (falsely, i.m.o.) accused Mercutio of.

I stand by my statement that she is quick to call others foolish for believing the weird ◊◊◊◊ they do, while the same could be said for her an any followers of other religions and pop groups and sports teams and what not, and even atheists.
In fact, this was one of the things Julia Sweeney said in her lecture that really stuck with me.

So I guess I'm not the one who's comprehension impaired here. You may want to either revise that statement or see if it applies to yourself then

Bringing up a point from earlier in this thread, I see a progression from belief to faith to "blind faith" as a sequence. Faith should effect thought and deed; I suggest "blind faith" should strongly effect thought and deed.

Where problems begin is having faith and blind faith in any human.

I think fighting against blind faith is what the JREF is all about. Making people see why the things they so adamantly believe to be the uncontestable truth, are in fact not so.

I think the point Mercutio was trying to make was not about faith or blind faith though, but about false faith. People who are only devout followers in appearance, not in their actions or thoughts. They are in essence bigots, who say one thing and do or think another. Those exist in any religion, and probably just as many (relatively speaking) among the Jedi knights as among christianity or any other religion. They are quick to adorn themselves with titles and virtues, they think they're better than other believers, but in the end they're only fooling themselves.
They differ from the real fundamentalists in that they only pretend to be die hard believers.