• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Modern Man, Primitive Beliefs

MrFrankZito

Thinker
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
226
If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is this: When one leaves the northern hemisphere and ventures south, one enters a completely new world. Primitive cultures and civilizations abound, many of which cling to incredibly strange beliefs. One wonders, how could these people actually believe in that? Surely, we should expect more from the fellow representatives of our species, even if they are behind the scientific curve when compared to the United States. The Fang people of Cameroon are as good an example as any is. The following passage comes from “Religion Explained,” by Pascal Boyer.

The Fang people believe “… that witches have an extra internal animal-like organ that flies away at night and ruins other people’s crops or poisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimes assemble for huge banquets, where they devour their victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell you that a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying over the village at night, sitting on a banana leaf and throwing magical darts at various unsuspecting victims.”

Yes, apparently they really believe such crazy fairy tales, which rightfully are laughed off by we in the sophisticated north. In fact, Boyer makes a point of noting that, “… a prominent Cambridge theologian, turned to me and said: ‘That is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe such nonsense’.”

Well, with that, I probably have given away my thesis. As I am sure almost all of you immediately discerned, all of the preceding self-aggrandizing northern hemisphere ethnocentrism was a thinly disguised ruse meant to illustrate our breathtaking hypocrisy with respect to the esteem in which we hold our fanciful delusions in contrast to the ridicule we express toward the silly superstitions of other peoples. In his wonderful book “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins accurately articulates some fundamental beliefs associated with contemporary Christianity.

Dawkins writes:

* In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.
* The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.
* The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.
* Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.
* If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his “father” (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.
* If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.
* The fatherless man’s virgin mother never died but “ascended” bodily into heaven.
* Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), “become” the body and blood of the fatherless man.

After laying out this patently irrational belief set, Dawkins asks, “What would an objective anthropologist, coming fresh to this set of beliefs while on fieldwork in Cambridge, make of them?” Suddenly, it is we who look positively tribal.

For those raised in the Christian faith, remember this: You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is not silly. You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is not weird. You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is less far-fetched than the beliefs of the Raelians, Scientologists or Fang people. But, alas, that childhood conditioning has made you blind—blind to the fact that the claims of Christianity are deeply, profoundly and shockingly inane. The Christian belief platter, as a matter of fact, is just as fantastically crazy as the Fang people’s collection of lunatic delusions.

Ever eloquent, Dawkins economically summarizes: “The findings of anthropologists seem weird to us only because they are unfamiliar. All religious beliefs seem weird to those not brought up in them.” Liberate yourself from your deep-seated childhood indoctrination and examine the claims of Christianity as though they are completely new to you. Look at them from the perspective of a sophisticated, well-educated adult, as opposed to a credulous child.

Is there room in your consciousness for such utter silliness—for such contempt of scientific knowledge and natural principles?

What is the quickest, most efficient way of abandoning your religious mythology? Overcome your deep-seated childhood indoctrination and think of those myths as if you are hearing them, just now, for the first time. You soon will realize that such lunacy ought to be confined to the lands of the primitives.
 
If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is this: When one leaves the northern hemisphere and ventures south, one enters a completely new world. Primitive cultures and civilizations abound, many of which cling to incredibly strange beliefs. One wonders, how could these people actually believe in that? Surely, we should expect more from the fellow representatives of our species, even if they are behind the scientific curve when compared to the United States.

hey speak for yourself, i'm at the southernmost tip of africa and thought i was doing pretty well ;)

Is there room in your consciousness for such utter silliness—for such contempt of scientific knowledge and natural principles?

of which in this case occam's razor is to be stressed.
 
The Fang people of Cameroon are not in the southern hemisphere.
You might want to reconsider what it is of which you are certain.
 
The Fang people of Cameroon are not in the southern hemisphere.
You might want to reconsider what it is of which you are certain.

That sentence should be 'You might want to reconsider what it is that you are certain of.'

You should question now just exactly what you think you really do know, kerikiwi.
 
What is the quickest, most efficient way of abandoning your religious mythology? Overcome your deep-seated childhood indoctrination and think of those myths as if you are hearing them, just now, for the first time. You soon will realize that such lunacy ought to be confined to the lands of the primitives.

Do the same with any piece of scientific knowledge and you come to the same conclusion. Absent of an understanding of the progress in thought from initial idea, through the testing of the idea to modern acceptance of it, much knowledge we currently accept as describing our universe seems insane.

Animals so tiny they are invisible that float through the air and make us sick? Matter that emits and absorbs no radiation? A system of chemistry which can code entirely for a new organism? Hell, even the idea that this great massive rock we're on moving around that small thing in the sky... it can all sound absurd when isolated from a scientific way of understanding.

While our reality-making system called 'science' is rigid and self-correcting, it is not an innate thing. Thinking tools such as religion make much more sense within a social hierarchy and are much more compatible with the way our brains work. Looking at it that way, science is the more peculiar of the two.

Take care that you don't ascribe values to a way of thinking which indicates a certain judgement. In some such societies, thinking scientifically and critically is detrimental to your well-being. Your answer, therefore, is overly simplistic to the point it is kind of worthless.

Athon
 
In some such societies, thinking scientifically and critically is detrimental to your well-being.
Can you give an example of such a society?

While our reality-making system called 'science' is rigid and self-correcting

Science is not reality-making, but reality-describing.
 
Can you give an example of such a society?

Indigenous Australian and Torres Straight Island and many traditional Pacific Island communities for starters. Disagreeing with local tradition and what the elders dictate will see you ostracized, which in such close communities, where family is everything, is a virtual death sentence. Here, science has no value where traditional values and beliefs are so powerful. I've got not first hand experience of Maori tradition, which you might be more familiar with.

Science is not reality-making, but reality-describing.

Very well. I'm not quibbling over the language. It is one example of a 'reality describing' system. Its most obvious strength - the ability to argue over preceding information in light of contrary observations - is taboo in many social groups.

Athon
 
I realized my inexcusably stupid geographical error after posting this but before you corrected me. Unfortunately, I was unable to find an edit function to save myself some embarrassment.

Here is the revised text, for what it's worth...


If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is this: When one leaves the “Western world” and ventures abroad, one enters a completely new world. Primitive cultures and civilizations abound, many of which cling to incredibly strange beliefs. One wonders, how could these people actually believe in that? Surely, we should expect more from the fellow representatives of our species, even if they are behind the scientific curve when compared to the United States. The Fang people of Cameroon are as good an example as any is. The following passage comes from “Religion Explained,” by Pascal Boyer.

The Fang people believe “… that witches have an extra internal animal-like organ that flies away at night and ruins other people’s crops or poisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimes assemble for huge banquets, where they devour their victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell you that a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying over the village at night, sitting on a banana leaf and throwing magical darts at various unsuspecting victims.”

Yes, apparently they really believe such crazy fairy tales, which rightfully are laughed off by we in the sophisticated West. In fact, Boyer makes a point of noting that, “… a prominent Cambridge theologian, turned to me and said: ‘That is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe such nonsense’.”

Well, with that, I probably have given away my thesis. As I am sure almost all of you immediately discerned, all of the preceding self-aggrandizing “Western world” ethnocentrism was a thinly disguised ruse meant to illustrate our breathtaking hypocrisy with respect to the esteem in which we hold our fanciful delusions in contrast to the ridicule we express toward the silly superstitions of other peoples. In his wonderful book “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins accurately articulates some fundamental beliefs associated with contemporary Christianity.

Dawkins writes:


* In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.
* The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.
* The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.
* Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.
* If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his “father” (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.
* If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.
* The fatherless man’s virgin mother never died but “ascended” bodily into heaven.
* Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), “become” the body and blood of the fatherless man.


After laying out this patently irrational belief set, Dawkins asks, “What would an objective anthropologist, coming fresh to this set of beliefs while on fieldwork in Cambridge, make of them?” Suddenly, it is we who look positively tribal.

For those raised in the Christian faith, remember this: You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is not silly. You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is not weird. You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is less far-fetched than the beliefs of the Raelians, Scientologists or Fang people. But, alas, that childhood conditioning has made you blind—blind to the fact that the claims of Christianity are deeply, profoundly and shockingly inane. The Christian belief platter, as a matter of fact, is just as fantastically crazy as the Fang people’s collection of lunatic delusions.

Ever eloquent, Dawkins economically summarizes: “The findings of anthropologists seem weird to us only because they are unfamiliar. All religious beliefs seem weird to those not brought up in them.” Liberate yourself from your deep-seated childhood indoctrination and examine the claims of Christianity as though they are completely new to you. Look at them from the perspective of a sophisticated, well-educated adult, as opposed to a credulous child.

Is there room in your consciousness for such utter silliness—for such contempt of scientific knowledge and natural principles?

What is the quickest, most efficient way of abandoning your religious mythology? Overcome your deep-seated childhood indoctrination and think of those myths as if you are hearing them, just now, for the first time. You soon will realize that such lunacy ought to be confined to the lands of the primitives.
 
I think that Dawkins has decribed the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) very well, as well as those of the fundamentalist Evangelical Churches in the US. In other parts of Europe, such as Britain, Denmark, and Germany, theologians such as Karl Barth etc. did have a bigger influence.

* Most theologians today are convinced that the Virgin just means an unmarried young woma. It is simply a translation error of the original greek which has, irrc, young woman.
* As for Lazarus, many theologians believe that Lazarus either was skindead or that it was being declared 'dead' by society because he has broken a certain law. (there unclear about what this law was). Others think that it is story invented to tell the tale of resurrection since Lazarus lay dead in the tomb for three days just as the fatherless man did.
As for the Ascension of the Christ (or the fatherless man), there is not a shred of evidence to this. This is clearly a dogma instituted by people from a later age than the time of the fatherless man. (probably around the 4th century or so). A very few people believe that Jesus, the fatherless man,
died in India. (and there is an interesting tomb in North India in which there seems to be the corpse of a man; the corpse has holes in the feet consisting with the wounds inflicting to Jesus when crucified). [Of course the RCC is against this find, even if X-rays scan of the coffin in North India did reveal the info I've written about here].
* if by murmuring thoughs in your head, Dawkins means prayers, yes, this is what we're taught. But some of us, have also experienced how well prayers work. (and Dawkins can't do anything about individual people's religious experíences, prayer & all included).
* The notion of God noticing if you doing something good or bad comes from the Old Testament, not the New. And it comes straight from the Dogmas of the Calvinistic, the Puritans, The RCC, and the Evangelical Churches interpretation of Christianity. It is not a mainstream Lutheran belief - today.
* As for the fatherless man's mother (Virgin Mary). This is, yet again, a belief (only) held by the RCC (and maybe the half-RCC, the Anglican Church).
* And according to Luther, the bread and wine is NOT the body & soul of the fatherless man. This is yet, again, a belief held by the RCC, and maybe by the Anglican Church. The RCC teaches that the bread & wine is indeed the body & the soul of the fatherless all the time, while Luther only teaches that the bread and wine is the soul & body of the fatherless man --- when it is present during the Church service. (and this means that protestants and catholics for some odd reason :rolleyes: can't celebrate mass or eat the hostie --- together :rolleyes). The fatherless mand probably doesn't care ;)

As for the fundamental Christian beliefs today, not all Christians interpret the dogmas and the Gospell in the way Dawkins say or think they do. There is a vast difference between the mainstream cultural Christianity of most Danish people and the (fringe) Evangelical Fundamental Churches in the US, as well as how the RCC and the Calvinistic Church interprets & acts upon the texts in the Bible.

It would be the same if I claimed that all atheists agree with Dawkins views on religion. (which I somehow know that they don't - simply because people are different and interprets things differently...)
 
The RCC teaches that the bread & wine is indeed the body & the soul of the fatherless all the time, while Luther only teaches that the bread and wine is the soul & body of the fatherless man --- when it is present during the Church service.

Here's a big part of the problem with religions. They TEACH everything ex cathedra. The only evidence for what they teach is something written a long time before: preferably in an obscure, ancient language and in as opaque a manner as possible. Then centuries' worth of devotees can interpret the ancient writings in what ever way suits them best. Regardless, they all claim to be TEACHING the TRUTH and imparting wisdom. They're really only imparting fanciful horses' bollocks that gets made up and reinvented as it goes along.

What preposterous presumption! How much more reliable to examine the world around you, draw inferences, make hypotheses and test their robustness. The constant babble about "teachings" and "truths" from religiously minded individuals should serve as a regular reminder that with so many different truths around they can't all be correct. Why is it so difficult for some folks to grasp the superiority of reasoned experimentation to gain genuine knowledge of the real world?!
 
Last edited:
Quite aside from the superstitious underpinnings of religion, superstition itself appears to be rampant throughout the world. As a humanist at heart, I admit this does not give me any great encouragement....

Asia is rife with superstitious beliefs, any kind of "ancy" you can name. Likewise Africa, South and Central America....

And of course those of us living in the "developed" world are free of such things...
I fear that magical thinking is innate.
 
Ah yeah... Non-westerners and their stoopid beliefs...

Too bad they do not believe in a holy trinity, the son of god being conceived by a virgin, the original sin, the saints and their miracles, doomsday, 6ky-old Earth, universal deluge, crystal power, mediums, prophecies from Nostradamus, Atlantis, bigfoot, UFOs, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, ley lines, dowsing, [add stupid belief here]...
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom