"For this is what the rationalist argument, at its most aggressive, demands: that we condemn as "stupid" those billions whose beliefs extend far beyond anything reason can support."

IMHO, this comes to the core. 'Reason', ie that part of the mind that exercises Logic, relies upon the data it is programmed with. Logic can only manipulate data it is given - the dataset the individual encounters (we would call that Life) is very largely structured and limited by what the surrounding society's culture regards as important.

an individual who learns and studies astrology during their life, whose surrounding culture strengthens and layers such studies, will most certainly 'perceive' those astrological connections and tendencies far more than an individual that does not.

equally, those who are socialised into tabloidism or media-whoring, will find more 'reasonable' that the lives of "Stars" are somehow important events that need scrutinising.

equally, those socialised into families/sub cultures that are fed on Positivism, Objectivism and Materialism, will believe it is 'reason' that leads them to imagine that they are just blobs of animated matter (they cannot explain however *how* - but religious types rarely bother to question their own beliefs). The fundamentalist of this latter type often believe they are totally "rational" in this belief, often believe they are the Holders of Divine Truth, and often regard anyone who disagrees with them as either lunatics, heretics, stupid, or just plain ignorant.

thus we come back to the article.

and frankly, from my own experiences travelling, it is irrelevant what materialist fanatics may or may not think about other cultures - because those cultures are quite able to accurately critique them back.

i am reminded of a story from the Chinese Revolution. Some young graduates of Mao's universities came to their peasant fields - and in the Spirit of Modernism, Progress, and The Revolution, they decided how they would Progress these Poor Benighted Savages into the Modern Age. They spent years trying to get mules to procreate. The peasants spent years laughing at them behind their backs. (it was too dangerous to do it to their faces).

or take 'Modern' farming - which was forced onto farms across the World. After 50odd years, untold billions of tons of oil, pesticides, fertilisers, catastrophic farming community loss, environmental degradation, and literally planetary-survival threatening levels of pollution - we are now realising that the peasant methods, basic permaculture, crop rotation etc, are infinitely superior.

in most ages, most cultures, there is a dominant Belief - and that belief nearly *always* regards itself as the Truly Rational Way, and becomes an orthodoxy crushing dissent, especially in cultures that have been touched by Rome, or ME monotheism.

it is supremely ironic, as a previous poster mentioned, that this very materialist orthodoxy is being overtaken by another movement from within Science itself - and it is the Positivists, the Objectivists and Materialists, who are now standing revealed as the religious, *irrational*, anti-Scientific fanatics by the progress within Physics itself.

You don't have to think one is "right" to think that one is less wrong about some things...

Read Boyer's humane and bathetic Religion Explained to see how wrong you are about 'rationalists'.

It is fashionable to attack religious belief, unless of course it is held by people who threaten to blow you up. That must be respected, naturally.

Err what about that US President that hears the words of a mythical deity? Religions are just formalized superstitions. Astrology charts or ancient parchments leaders who believe in such mythologies are usually scary in deed not just in thought!

I have often wondered about that question. To this day I am completely baffled by people who seem intelligent, cultured and educated and who believe in supernatural beings, call them gods, angels, spirits or whatever. How can they have exercised their mind and still believe in those things?
I knew a school Head who proclaimed once that when members of staff were away sick, it is because they had done something wrong and God was punishing them.What can you make of that?
Maybe the explanation could be that they simply con themselves into those irrational beliefs. For most people believing in the supernatural or following the dogma of an established religion gives them a sense of security and a sense of community. In some cases,those beliefs are embedded in the culture and they are part of the national identity. So even rational people prefer to stick to those beliefs and be part of the community rather than go against it and finding themselves ostracised.
Religion is definitely the opium of the people and a sweet dream which makes the reality of life and death more bearable for most of humanity. The educated and intelligent are not immune to the attractions of religion.They simply choose not to rationalise on certain issues and carry on deceiving themselves.
Any one can think of a better explanation?

[OK, not allowing posting: stage by stage then, sorry!]

RFM: your argument is very strange. You appear to be arguing (its difficult to tell because you don't lay out your own beliefs) that because of a rare local belief in small part of the World, that the Materialist ideology is the ONLY rational ideology around!?

that the only way to change such a rare behavioural pattern is the absolute destruction of all other ideologies other than materialism?!?

do you not doubt that the Inquisition ALSO argued that their brand of intolerance and yes - superstition - was "saving" some poor souls from some terrible (and equally rare) side-effect from not having absolute belief in their OWN (completely rational) Catholic belief system?

--do you not have ANY knowledge of the tremendous terrors, horrors and nightmares the materialists, positivists, objectivists, behaviourists, marxists, maoists, - all the strange and terrible creatures within the High-Modernist zoo - have inflicted upon people?

the belief that people are merely blobs of clay that can be manipulated as our rulers wish has caused INFINITELY more anguish and suffering than any amount of "muti-making" - horrific and ignorant no doubt that is.

i have found on this Journey of Life, that it is often better to question our OWN beliefs and superstitions, to discover where *we* have gone wrong and put it right, rather than looking for the mote in other's eyes. That way, we can convince through persuasion, through example, and through clear benefits for the Individual and Society, rather than through the use of force in all its various forms.

interesting, the word howlo-cowst (ged it?) is prevented from being published.

wow.

So does this mean that I should not condemn in any way the African practice of using human body parts, in particular the body parts of albino people, as an ingredient in muti which is supposed to provide the user with magical protection?

How are we supposed to convince the people who practice this form of muti-making that what they are doing is without merit? We can try outlawing it, calling it murder if we will, but that hasn't really stopped the practice? We can respect the belief in supernatural magic, as some would say, but I don't see how muti-making using human body parts will retain its appeal if the belief in supernatural magic dissapated?

Of course, we can still respect the belief in magic, should we be so inclined, while still outlawing the practice as murder, which it oddly enough seems to be, but how can we say we respect traditional beliefs when, as soon as those traditional beliefs come into conflict with our other values, we condemn it as a crime? Yet, I am sure nobody would have a problem with calling a muti-maker who has killed a person for his body parts a murderer, or so I hope.

However, why is it acceptable to call this practicioner of traditional beliefs a murder, but it is somehow going over the top, or even fanatical and intolerant, when we label the practice of believing in supernatural magic ignorant? Afterall, from what other basis was the muti murder committed if not from the basis of ignorance about the magical protection afforded the user of muti made from human body parts? And what happens when we suddenly discover one day that magic is not supernatural, but is in fact natural? Does that mean then that there is room in the natural world for muti-murders?

Probably we wouldn't go that far, which means that we are not simply going to accept claims about the supernatural to be true simply because they are made. But by what measure are we going to determine which beliefs about the supernatural are wrong and which are right? Presumably, we are going to turn to science for this, are we not? Or are we going to expect people to prove their claims about the actuality of their magic before we reach a decision on its social acceptability or not? And with that, will we not then be right back to where we are right now? Or will the argument that the supernatural cannot be investigated by reason hold true then as well?

The BIG difference between religious beliefs and scientific knowledge is that scientific knowledge is only valid if the scientist brings EVIDENCE and proves his point as FACT. If he can't do it or if another scientist comes up with a more convincing set of evidence then he is discredited and that scientific belief is abandoned.And that's how scientific progress is made.Science is not based on blind faith but on facts.Nobody denies there may be bad science but then all you need is another scientist to debunk that science WITH EVIDENCE and come up with another theory.
Religion does not have to bring any evidence AT ALL and people can believe absolutely anything they want and all they need to say is " I believe".
How can people then equate science as a "new religion" and scientific knowledge as same as religious beliefs. It is disingenuous to claim that science is like a religion and that therefore you can just treat it as another kind of superstition. The scientific approach is unique and couldn't be more different than the mystical approach to the world.
So to say that some irrational beliefs today may turn out to be facts tomorrow. Well yes if those beliefs can be proven scientifically to have some foundations in reality.( like mules cannot breed!) Often though it is the other way around. Things which were attributed to the actions of gods in the past, like storms and thunder, are now easily explained by science. More and more "unexplained things" become "explained" and are robbing the religious minded of their delusions and of their power to delude others.
I don't think that any time soon some scientist is going to provide evidence that ,actually there is an old white guy with a long beard up in the sky watching the world and deciding who is passing their exams or recovering from their illness, depending on the quality of the prayers sent to him.
WAKE up! it is not going to happen!!
THERE IS NO GOD! get over it!
Your friendly atheist fundamentalist.

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve”

Karl Popper

danielle: yes, of course there is a difference between Science and Religion, and for me a quick summary of that distinction is this:

Religion is what you believe, Science is the tool of questioning.

as soon as you *believe* something, no matter how well supported by evidence it is, you have removed it from the province of Science (where you *must* question), to Religion. This is the reason why so many are (frankly, accurately) pointing with increasing scepticism at some of the philosophical schools within Science, such as materialism, objectivism etc, because although there has been enormous strides within physics about the 'Nature of Reality', also many cultural/social/philosophical movements (such as post-modernism), many self-proclaimed 'scientists' are completely rejecting these more advanced scientific concepts, - PURELY because these precepts fly in the face of their own current religious beliefs, to wit: materialism, objectivism, atheism.

there is an enormous difference between the Ideals of Science, and the behaviour of many of the people who like to drape themselves in its cloth - it would be astounding if this was not the case. THIS is the core of this debate, not whether or not Gawd and girlfriend(s) exists, but the rejection of new scientific values/structures/evidence because of the religious values held by some currently claiming themselves as Scientists.

to put this bluntly - what exactly IS your definition of "God"?

'bloke-onna-cloud'? Cos most God-Believers wouldn't accept this definition in the slightest. The truly Scientific approach is, *MUST BE*, agnosticism. The acceptance that we *simply do not know*. To proclaim the non-existence of something that you have not defined is most assuredly non-Scientific. That requires the ignorance, arrogance and bigotry of Religion.

oh thou Fundie!! :P

btw, my quote came from this discussion:

[--can't post the link. :(

could google it?]

you might find it interesting. :) xx