Can naturalism, rationality and sckepticism be learned after indoctrination?

[Serkat]

Hello, I've had the advantage of growing up in an atheist family and visiting a humanistic school, choosing ethics and philosophy over religious education. Any form of superstition (such as theism) is so far from my world view now that I have absolutely no understanding of how one can believe something without evidence (faith). I've made the experience that religious kids mostly chose religious education over ethics/philosophy and thus never were instructed in the basics of critical thinking and logic. Their path seems to be laid out quite some time before that, starting with bad religious parenting, baptizing etc. I feel that, for a person of faith, it might be as hard to understand naturalism and rationality as it is for me to understand the exact opposite - faith. Through this course, they never learned to fully question everything they take for granted. It is not a part of their mental skill set. Do you think it is possible to learn late in life about this mode of thinking and adopt it? How would this be possible, especially considering the intricate mechanisms of protection that religion offers from the inside? The complete questioning of one's beliefs is already such a damnation that, once a religious person engages in debate, he usually does not consider the change of these beliefs a possible outcome of the debate. It is such a fixed part of one's world view that it seems completely impossible to come to rational conclusions about it. 2 of my friends were brought up religious (1 Christian, 1 Muslim) and also took up ethics/philosophy in our school that was fairly secular anyway. Sure enough, both became atheists. They weren't brought up fundamentalist, but certainly as strong practicing believers. Then I've seen TV debates between atheists and theists and the theists getting their ass handed to them. In these cases I'm really not sure. Does the theist have to maintain his position for reasons of cash flow, might and job or is he really so oblivious to the atheist's arguments because he didn't consider a change in belief as a possible result when he entered the discussion? I really feel that many times religious people go into such a debate, not to question their beliefs, but to represent them as truth, no matter what. Surely, this is not the case for atheists, as they have no beliefs to defend. What would be a possible strategy to actually make it possible for a strong believer to question his faith on a very profound level? Is this even possible? Opinions?

[Photolysis]

Very interesting question. Personally, I think it's almost impossible, unless someone works really hard at it, because they've been indoctrinated into accepting a certain set of beliefs, and it will be imbedded deeply in a person's psyche. Unless of course, the person is intelligent enough to naturally realise something is wrong and that something doesn't make any sense. or is he really so oblivious to the atheist's arguments because he didn't consider a change in belief as a possible result when he entered the discussion? The theist will simply reject any points the atheist makes. The atheist will almost certainly win hands down from a logical perspective, but the theist will reject the argument since it doesn't agree with his beliefs. The evidence and logic don't matter. Essentially, there is an almost impenetrable barrier around the theist's beliefs, immune to almost anything, except for self-realisation. A few will accept evidence, but they misinterpret scientific evidence, or otherwise invent bizarre rationalisations for their own 'evidence'. I really feel that many times religious people go into such a debate, not to question their beliefs, but to represent them as truth, no matter what. Surely, this is not the case for atheists, as they have no beliefs to defend. What would be a possible strategy to actually make it possible for a strong believer to question his faith on a very profound level? Is this even possible? That's exactly why religious people go into a debate. Atheists have beliefs to defend, but the point is that they are willing to change their beliefs based on evidence and logic. That's the difference. The theist won't budge. I think the only way to make strong believers question their faith is when something bad personally happens. They have to realise it for themselves, as no amount of input from anyone else will cause them to question their beliefs.

[Taosaur]

Aren't you overlooking the preponderance of atheists who are more properly 'extheists,' coming from unsophisticated religious backgrounds? Of course you think the atheists win these debates--you already agree with them. To me, such debates are just a cockfight between equally rigid, extreme, and unsophisticated positions.

[NonDualistic]

For a person of ingrained "learned" faith or belief, I believe it takes a blow that shatters that base upon which that faith is founded for one to profoundly question ones own beliefs. Such a blow can be either catastrophic or even very subtle. For every individual such is a different experience. Sometimes the blow can have the distinct effect of bolstering those same beliefs rather than breaking them down. Other times the blow can completely destroy the base and also that which sits upon it. Yet also the base can be shattered and the faith/belief that was on it survive to be reconsidered and rebuilt in a more logical fashion. Depends entirely on the individuals psyche. Dont kid yourself, such a blow that can turn religious zealot to hardened atheist can also turn hardened atheist to religios zealot. Its a two way street, where the fallout can land anywhere inbetween the two extremems. For me the initial blow was very subtle, but a blow that produced cracks in the base that continued to spread as years went by. That blow came from reading words of Christ in the bible, and comparing to the actions and implementation of religion itself. For me the issue was not in that the teachings were untrue, but that they were being taken in a inaccurate way. It was then and there that I began to see spiritual teaching as being based in metaphor rather than being based in direct literal meaning. From there I began to examine Greek phiosophy, reason, logic and the sciences for more decisive look at spritual teaching. Eventually I found eastern teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism and others. I see now that spiritual teachings are not essentially untrue regardless from hwere they arise, and therfore there is no need to adopt a hardline atheistic view, as such is just as skewed as a hardline religious view. No, in my view, spirituality and science have just as intimate a relationship as energy and matter do. Though, outward appearances would serve to suggest otherwise.

[Moonbeam]

Julia Sweeney has a funny show called "Letting Go of God" where she talks about losing her religion. There is a book called "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" by Dan Barker. Those are just a couple of examples of people who went from believing to not. I have known people who went to Catholic schools and turned out to be atheists. My BF was brought up Catholic, went to college, took biology and was assigned to read Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker", realized evolution was a fact and everything he had been told was a lie. Some (a lot of?) people are not very philosophical, or just don't enjoy thinking about things like that, and I think people like that may go along with what they are told for a long time, but if they are sufficiently intelligent to understand, and if they are exposed to the right information they will change their minds. Of course you think the atheists win these debates--you already agree with them. To me, such debates are just a cockfight between equally rigid, extreme, and unsophisticated positions. You think Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are unsophisticated? What qualifies as sophisticated to you? Atheists for the most part are not rigid or extreme. Someone who changes their mind based on new evidence is by definition flexible, no? That is what atheism is. A religious fundamentalist knows all they will ever know; no new information will add anything, and everything they need to know is in one book written thousands of years ago. Someone whose ideas are based on scientific evidence is constantly updating as new information is made available. How can you equate those two positions as the ends of a spectrum, when they are actually complete opposites? P.S. Seriously, Tao, why do you think things that people just made up are the same as things that we have proof for? I'm not sure what you "believe", I don't know if you said and I missed, or you never said, or you don't believe anything but just like to say nobody else knows anything either. I'm not sure if you are against "people who say other people are wrong" or "people at the extremes but everybody in the middle is OK, as long as they don't really say they know anything at all", or what exactly. I don't understand this defense of vague things like "human wisdom traditions" (from another post of yours)--you make it sound like voodoo has to be given the same consideration as mathematics. Should any religious practices be discouraged now that we know better (due to science)--what do you think about the cannibals who give themselves kuru by eating their dead relatives; would it be wrong to tell them that might not be a good idea? Or would that a case of just another extremist trying to impose their viewpoint on someone? People used to think gods made the thunder and the waves in the ocean; we figured out how that really works, so now they think gods made the universe. Why is one any different than the other, if you don't have any proof of either?

[Taosaur]

You think Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are unsophisticated? What qualifies as sophisticated to you? In the way they personally integrate facts and experience into a cohesive world view, individuals on both sides are quite sophisticated. In their understanding of variant viewpoints and cognitive/perceptive styles, and more generally the relationship between phenomena and the mind? Not so much. Someone whose ideas are based on scientific evidence is constantly updating as new information is made available. Both sides adjust their understanding based on new inputs, whether studies or sermons. What's more, both thrive on similar experiences they probably assume the other can't have: the thrill of discovery for atheists and being in The Spirit for Christians, both of which require novel inputs that reconfigure one's worldview. Both, however, also cling to their fundamental paradigm, unable or unwilling to entertain the validity of other points of view. How can you equate those two positions as the ends of a spectrum, when they are actually complete opposites? 'The ends of a spectrum' is the definition of 'opposite.' EDIT: another good definition of 'opposite' is 'identical in every detail but one.'

[Moonbeam]

In their understanding of variant viewpoints and cognitive/perceptive styles, and more generally the relationship between phenomena and the mind? Not so much. What do you mean, their "understanding of variant viewpoints"? If you have ever read anything by Dawkins, you would know that he understands religion very well. Asimov was an atheist and he wrote books about the bible. If you mean they do not understand "mystical" experiences, you should read Sam Harris. Disagreeing with "variant viewpoints" (my understanding of that would be religious views; do you mean something else?) does not mean that you don't understand them; on the contrary, it means you have thought about them enough to understand and reject them--as a lot of casually religious people obviously have not. The latter is what I would call "unsophisticated", but you seem to include everyone, no matter how thoughtful and well-educated and informed, if they don't agree with your vague philosophy that seems to be everybody is right, except people who are either fundmanetalists or people who demand proof. It almost seems that you are arguing that the unsophisticated people are the people who are right--if you've thought about it enough to go to one extreme or another, you disqualify yourself. What do you mean they don't understand "the relationship between phenomena and the mind"? That sounds like some philosophy of yours that other people may not share, not an actual lacking on their part. Both sides adjust their understanding based on new inputs, whether studies or sermons. What's more, both thrive on similar experiences they probably assume the other can't have: the thrill of discovery for atheists and being in The Spirit for Christians, both of which require novel inputs that reconfigure one's worldview. OK, it's starting to seem as you are the one lacking in understanding here. You are just wrong--by definition, fundamentalist religious people do not change their mind with new information; by definition, a person who does not use faith changes their mind as new information is made available. If you don't see that, you are the one with the gaps in your understanding, not the atheists. Both, however, also cling to their fundamental paradigm, unable or unwilling to entertain the validity of other points of view. No, obviously not true. Demanding proof for statements made does not mean that you are unwilling to entertain the validity of other POV, it means that you don't believe every bit of bullshit that people's minds are capable of producing. 'The ends of a spectrum' is the definition of 'opposite.' I knew you were going to say that. You know what I mean. You argue like another person around here who never says what they believe, only that everybody else is wrong. You didn't answer me about who is it exactly that you think is wrong? You obviously seem to think both fundamentalists and atheists are wrong. So is it only people who think other people are wrong, whom you think are wrong? That gets a little weird, cuz then you have to be against yourself, because you think atheists and fundamentalists are wrong. Seriously, who are saying some people are wrong, I can tell who some of them are, but exactly what is it that you believe? You didn't answer me about whether it is appropriate to tell a Fiji islander that they shouldn't eat dead people, or a Haitian to avoid some voodoo practices, because both of those may spread disease? Do you think that is not accepting their "variant viewpoint" or their "mind-phenomena relationship" to point out how their religion may be harmful? Is it equally valid to pray for someone with an infection as it is to give them antibiotics? Why or why not? If you can't answer those questions, I will know you are full of shit. No offense.

[Taosaur]

OK, it's starting to seem as you are the one lacking in understanding here. You are just wrong--by definition, fundamentalist religious people do not change their mind with new information; by definition, a person who does not use faith changes their mind as new information is made available. If you don't see that, you are the one with the gaps in your understanding, not the atheists. You are the one lacking in understanding here. You are just wrong. (sorry, couldn't resist). Seriously though, even Biblical literalists take in new information, including scientific discoveries and political happenings, and work it into their overall understanding, adjusting their ideas here and there. Obviously they don't draw the same conclusions that you do, but their outlook does change. Again, you're drawing an inhuman caricature of your opposition, a stereotype. You argue like another person around here who never says what they believe, only that everybody else is wrong. You didn't answer me about who is it exactly that you think is wrong? You obviously seem to think both fundamentalists and atheists are wrong. So is it only people who think other people are wrong, whom you think are wrong? That gets a little weird, cuz then you have to be against yourself, because you think atheists and fundamentalists are wrong. Seriously, who are saying some people are wrong, I can tell who some of them are, but exactly what is it that you believe? Heh, in order to answer this question I tried to picture who I was addressing and you came out as Ayn Rand crossed with her heroine from Atlas Shrugged. Let me know what you think of that. Anyway, my own view now is largely the result of ten years of on-and-off Buddhist practice on a foundation of childhood deductions, intuitions and visionary experiences. My "philosophical" reading has been principally Buddhism, Taoism and Comparative Religion. Also, I wouldn't discount science fiction authors as philosophical inputs. My close secondhand experience of religion (friends and acquaintances) has been very relaxed Judaism and a wide variety of Christian denominations and outlooks. While I've sat in on some Christian services and Jewish holidays, my only religiously motivated attendance has been Buddhist meditation and teaching centers. My position on gods is that they exist as much as you or I: somewhat, but not particularly. What are gods? I would say they're an aggregate of human ideas, emotions and practices continuous with aspects of the non-human world. Do they have discrete physical existence? Can you go to Godland and shake their hands? No, but I would not write off their mode of existence, nor put too much stock in our own. They certainly outlive us, and have a lot more influence than most individual human beings. You ask, So is it only people who think other people are wrong, whom you think are wrong? I've known people with highly rational, skeptical Christian outlooks and others with equally irrational and unexamined atheist or anti-religious perspectives. In a world full of mystery, I think deeming someone irrational, amoral, deluded or evil on the basis of their system of belief (or observation, if you'd rather) is narrow-minded and frustrates progress. Regarding Voodoo and cannibalism, I value education and think every human endeavor has room for improvement, including--and perhaps especially--religion.

[Moonbeam]

Seriously though, even Biblical literalists take in new information, including scientific discoveries and political happenings, and work it into their overall understanding, adjusting their ideas here and there. Obviously they don't draw the same conclusions that you do, but their outlook does change. Again, you're drawing an inhuman caricature of your opposition, a stereotype. I'm sick of saying that relying on faith and not relying on faith are two entirely different things, which they so obviously are. It's not an "inhuman caricature"; unfortunately, it seems to be the tendency of most people to use faith rather than evidence. That's why it has to be pointed out so often; the scientific method doesn't appear to be natural to people, and developing weird self-reinforcing superstitions does seem to be. (Interestingly, this can be seen in animals as well.) There are probably biopsychosocial evolutionary reasons for this, but it can be overcome. Heh, in order to answer this question I tried to picture who I was addressing and you came out as Ayn Rand crossed with her heroine from Atlas Shrugged. Let me know what you think of that. Hey, maybe you're not so crazy after all...(*glances at Ayn's picture on coffee mug and thinks I could do worse*) My position on gods is that they exist as much as you or I: somewhat, but not particularly. What are gods? I would say they're an aggregate of human ideas, emotions and practices continuous with aspects of the non-human world. The first sentence is metaphysical BS, the last means that they don't actually exist, and if/when people ever lose their superstitions, the gods will disappear. So that's good. (Humans can't know anything about the non-human world, by definition, I would say.) Do they have discrete physical existence? Can you go to Godland and shake their hands? No, but I would not write off their mode of existence, nor put too much stock in our own. Well, people do have discrete physical existence, which is often threatened by people who believe in these as "aggregates" of yours as something more than a vague idea that because people think they exist, they somehow do. That does matter you know; to some people in some places it is a matter of life and death; to others of us it is oppressive and restrictive. They certainly outlive us, and have a lot more influence than most individual human beings. Well, if you would have said at the beginning that the idea of God(s) is what you mean exists, rather then the God(s) themselves, it would have saved us a lot of typing. In a world full of mystery, I think deeming someone irrational, amoral, deluded or evil on the basis of their system of belief (or observation, if you'd rather) is narrow-minded and frustrates progress. Only if you think hurting, killing, oppressing people, etc. is amoral or evil. Otherwise, I guess there's no problem with anyones's "system of belief". What do you mean by "progress"? You can't mean scientific progress, because religion is usually what frustrates that. If you mean religious progress, well, that's just a matter of getting people to believe in new made- up thing and leaving the old behind, right? Which can be a good thing, I agree--in general, Christianity is getting weaker as people realize they can't actually follow what that god wants them to do. I say it would be better and quicker if more people just learned to reject faith. Regarding Voodoo and cannibalism, I value education and think every human endeavor has room for improvement, including--and perhaps especially--religion. Isn't that what I'm advocating? Improving things by getting rid of harmful practices that people superstitiously think have benefit? It's obvious that voodoo and cannibalism are bad religious practices, I'm just extending that thought to the bad stuff taught by the monotheistic religions, which people seem to have a blind spot regarding. The best way would be if people would let go of their superstitions. I guess second-best would be your sort of vague, thoughts are as real as people, everything's cool, and the universe is freaky so don't even bother to try understanding, outlook. I really have no problem with people who have ideas which make no sense to me, yet are benign in the sense that they don't want to interfere with my life. However, once you are on that slippery slope, someone else comes up with another idea that makes no sense and is also threatening to other people, and there is no defense against if you have already given into make-believe. The aggressive ideas are going to win in the end (as they actually have)--a form of natural selection.

[Taosaur]

I'm sick of saying that relying on faith and not relying on faith are two entirely different things, which they so obviously are. That's one assumption you're grasping rigidly to support your claim of access to the sole arbiter of truth, in your case science. Like the fundamentalist, you hold certain principles as axioms (the universal application of the scientific method, for one) and filter all new information through that framework. You both adjust your understanding over time, and neither of you touch the core beliefs. Hey, maybe you're not so crazy after all...(*glances at Ayn's picture on coffee mug and thinks I could do worse*) I would describe Ms. Rand as a borderline sociopath, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that front. The first sentence is metaphysical BS, the last means that they don't actually exist, and if/when people ever lose their superstitions, the gods will disappear. So that's good. (Humans can't know anything about the non-human world, by definition, I would say.) By "non-human" I meant the parts of the world we don't call human--grass, trees, weather. Social forces could go either way. I didn't mean anything supernatural--while I accept the existence of gods, heavens, hells, Buddha realms, demons, dragons, elves and etc., I don't consider them to exist "outside of nature" anymore than we do. I find the distinction between physical and mental objects overstated--they interpenetrate and overlap, and I would say religious symbols/metaphors partake of both. Being reliant on humans for their present form hardly discounts their existence--the steel, carbon and silica of the Empire State Building rely on humans for their present form as well, but I doubt you'd claim the building doesn't exist. Well, people do have discrete physical existence, which is often threatened by people who believe in these as "aggregates" of yours as something more than a vague idea that because people think they exist, they somehow do. That does matter you know; to some people in some places it is a matter of life and death; to others of us it is oppressive and restrictive. There's a word for assigning blame for complex issues to a convenient and ultimately arbitrary culprit; it's called scapegoating, and it just sidesteps detailed analysis and perpetuates the problem. Atheists are perfectly capable of oppression and ideological jihad--Mao provided proof to the tune of at least 30 million lives. Well, if you would have said at the beginning that the idea of God(s) is what you mean exists, rather then the God(s) themselves, it would have saved us a lot of typing. I don't recognize that distinction, which is pretty central to my rejection of materialism. Only if you think hurting, killing, oppressing people, etc. is amoral or evil. Otherwise, I guess there's no problem with anyones's "system of belief". Again, the system of belief is not the origin of the problem--not recognizing it as a system of belief, however, causes problems whether the system in question is secular or religious. I threw "amoral" and "evil" out there as dogmatic theists' characterization of atheists, by the way. What do you mean by "progress"? You can't mean scientific progress, because religion is usually what frustrates that. If you mean religious progress, well, that's just a matter of getting people to believe in new made- up thing and leaving the old behind, right? Which can be a good thing, I agree--in general, Christianity is getting weaker as people realize they can't actually follow what that god wants them to do. I say it would be better and quicker if more people just learned to reject faith. I'll just disagree with every point you made there. The scientific method is a "made up thing." Computerized Axial Tomography is a "made up thing." Religion is technology. Art is technology. Their use is not as easily grasped as a lever or a wheel, but we employ them because we benefit from their use. Not everyone needs them--I will likely never employ calculus in my life, and have no use for piloting skills, but I recognize their value and have no interest in eradicating them from the earth, even though both have contributed to countless bombings that have cost millions of lives. As for progress, off the cuff I'd say increased freedom, reduced suffering, and an improved capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. I wouldn't say choosing a "right answer" to fundamental mysteries, or even a "right way" of getting answers contributes to those goals. Think of it in evolutionary terms: is it better to be resistant to malaria, or to heart disease? Is longevity better, or eidetic memory? The more traits expressed in our population, the more fit we are as a species. Barring a massive die-off, no genome "wins." In a culture-producing, technology-producing, information-sharing species, ideas--particularly the fundamental ideas that make up personal philosophies and worldviews--are no different. Isn't that what I'm advocating? Improving things by getting rid of harmful practices that people superstitiously think have benefit? It's obvious that voodoo and cannibalism are bad religious practices, I'm just extending that thought to the bad stuff taught by the monotheistic religions, which people seem to have a blind spot regarding. The best way would be if people would let go of their superstitions. And I'm extending that thought to science and materialism, where people seem to have at least an equally large blind spot. I'll focus the thought as well: people can practice Voodoo and cannibalism all they like if they reform those practices so that they're safe and ethical (e.g. don't touch grandma's brain or you'll get sick, and don't kill people to eat them). I guess second-best would be your sort of vague, thoughts are as real as people, everything's cool, and the universe is freaky so don't even bother to try understanding, outlook. let's put that in the dictionary under "backhanded compliment."

[Moonbeam]

That's one assumption you're grasping rigidly to support your claim of access to the sole arbiter of truth, in your case science. Like the fundamentalist, you hold certain principles as axioms (the universal application of the scientific method, for one) and filter all new information through that framework. You both adjust your understanding over time, and neither of you touch the core beliefs. Fundamentalists don't adjust their beliefs! That's the definition of a fundamentalist! Whoops, I messed up; rest of post below.

[Moonbeam]

I would describe Ms. Rand as a borderline sociopath, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that front. Yea, I know. Libertarianism has evolved a lot, and I'm a liberal libertarian, so I'm pretty far removed from her. By "non-human" I meant the parts of the world we don't call human--grass, trees, weather. Social forces could go either way. I didn't mean anything supernatural--while I accept the existence of gods, heavens, hells, Buddha realms, demons, dragons, elves and etc., I don't consider them to exist "outside of nature" anymore than we do. Oh, I didn't know what you meant. I find the distinction between physical and mental objects overstated--they interpenetrate and overlap, and I would say religious symbols/metaphors partake of both. Being reliant on humans for their present form hardly discounts their existence--the steel, carbon and silica of the Empire State Building rely on humans for their present form as well, but I doubt you'd claim the building doesn't exist. No, but don't find the distinction between physical and mental objects as overstated, so that's probably why I wouldn't say that. There's a word for assigning blame for complex issues to a convenient and ultimately arbitrary culprit; it's called scapegoating, and it just sidesteps detailed analysis and perpetuates the problem. Atheists are perfectly capable of oppression and ideological jihad--Mao provided proof to the tune of at least 30 million lives. He didn't do it in the name of atheism--that's the difference. Millions of people have been killed in the name of religion. And people like Mao and Stalin (the other big atheist killer) use a religious-like control of faith and unquestioning obedience, so it has more in common with religion than it does people on the side of ending oppression. That's probably where Stalin at least learned his tactics. I don't recognize that distinction, which is pretty central to my rejection of materialism. That's why we really are arguing at cross purposes--the way you think is so foreign to my mind that sometimes our conversation aren't even about the same thing. I really can't understand someone who believes in elves, dragons, gods, and I suppose the easter bunny and the tooth fairy, yet who calls people who have devoted their lives to "real" (I know that word has no meaning to you, like yours don't to me) knowledge "unsophisticated." Again, the system of belief is not the origin of the problem--not recognizing it as a system of belief, however, causes problems whether the system in question is secular or religious. Again, I'll never understand how someone can read the bible or the koran and say that. Only if you think words have no meaning can that be true. I'll just disagree with every point you made there. The scientific method is a "made up thing." Computerized Axial Tomography is a "made up thing." You are not understanding what I mean by "made-up". I mean fantasy. CT scanners are not a fantasy, they are a tool, just like hammer. Above, you say dragons and elves are real, so I guess you can think the opposite and that CT scanners are sort of fantasy, I don't know; if you have no distinction in your mind for "things that everyone can see and make use of" and "things that someone claims exist, but don't". Religion is technology. Art is technology. Their use is not as easily grasped as a lever or a wheel, but we employ them because we benefit from their use. Not everyone needs them--I will likely never employ calculus in my life, and have no use for piloting skills, but I recognize their value and have no interest in eradicating them from the earth, even though both have contributed to countless bombings that have cost millions of lives. I disagree that religion is technology, and that the overall effect is beneficial. Sure, some religions aren't so harmful, make people feel better, whatever--but the problem is the biggest ones are not like that. I agree that real technology has a lot of potential to harm people too. However, no one is killed in the name of calculus, as they are in the name of religion. As for progress, off the cuff I'd say increased freedom, reduced suffering, and an improved capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. I concur. I wouldn't say choosing a "right answer" to fundamental mysteries, or even a "right way" of getting answers contributes to those goals. I'm just saying getting rid of the obviously harmful ones do. Do you want to go live in a place with Biblical or Koranic fundamentalist law? Why not? That's the whole point. Same as moving past cannibalism and voodoo (which are hard to clean up; especially the first, and I feel the same way about the monotheistic religions). I know religion (faith) is probably never going to go away--it's somehow evolved as the way our minds work, and most people don't realize enough about the instincts that they have to learn to control them. Think of it in evolutionary terms: is it better to be resistant to malaria, or to heart disease? Is longevity better, or eidetic memory? The more traits expressed in our population, the more fit we are as a species. Barring a massive die-off, no genome "wins." In a culture-producing, technology-producing, information-sharing species, ideas--particularly the fundamental ideas that make up personal philosophies and worldviews--are no different. The people with the aggressive memes are more likely to survive and impose their will on others. Aren't there fewer religions now than there were in the past? Which ones are "winning?" I maintain that the only hope is to fight back with reason; if reason doesn't win, it's going to be a particularly obnoxious religion that does. And I'm extending that thought to science and materialism, where people seem to have at least an equally large blind spot. I'll focus the thought as well: people can practice Voodoo and cannibalism all they like if they reform those practices so that they're safe and ethical (e.g. don't touch grandma's brain or you'll get sick, and don't kill people to eat them). Sure, I agree--practice any religion as much as you like as long as nowhere in it says that I have to also (or any non-willing person). let's put that in the dictionary under "backhanded compliment." Hey, at least your still talking to me! Maybe you're right--by not rejecting anything you seem to have something that the fundamentalists don't have--the ability to tolerate talking to me. Maybe. (And atheists aren't the same as fundmentalists!!! Don't say that again or I'll come blow up your house!!! Seriously, I don't think anyone's right to believe anything they want to could or should be taken away from them, but I think arguing about it with them is fine. That's the difference between me and a fundamentalist, and I'd say that's a big one, wouldn't you?) I guess ultimately believing in everything you can't prove is no different than believing in one thing you can't prove. That's what I didn't understand about you.

[M-Cat]

I will likely never employ calculus in my life, and have no use for piloting skills, but I recognize their value and have no interest in eradicating them from the earth, even though both have contributed to countless bombings that have cost millions of lives. If technology has killed millions of lives then stupidity has killed billions.