Originally posted by moonbus And don't they know it ! "Boko Haram" means literally "education is forbidden".
actually it means "western education is forbidden" but, given what that means in practice, in purely practical terms it means exactly the same thing as "education is forbidden" although they would deny that fact claiming our education is 'fake' and only their 'education' is 'real'; such is their obnoxious abhorrent religious delusions.
Originally posted by humy actually it means "western education is forbidden" but, given what that means in practice, in purely practical terms it means exactly the same thing as "education is forbidden" although they would deny that fact claiming our education is 'fake' and only their 'education' is 'real'; such is their obnoxious abhorrent religious delusions.
What they call 'education' is brutalization and infantilization.
Removed
Joined
10 Dec '06
Moves
8528
25 Mar '16 14:25
Originally posted by moonbus There would seem to be an obvious evolutionary advantage in children following their parents, both literally and figuratively (at least until they become self-sufficient). I don't see any obvious evolutionary advantage in believing and propagating absurd ideologies and outright falsehoods. We haven't been around very long, compared to, for example, crocodile ...[text shortened]... . As Nietzsche remarked, consciousness may be an evolutionary experiment which ultimately fails.
What makes you think that "crocodiles and sponges" aren't conscious and "we" are?
Originally posted by joe shmo What makes you think that "crocodiles and sponges" aren't conscious and "we" are?
what is 'conscious' is very ill defined but sponges have no brain so it seems reasonable to me at least to say they are not 'conscious'. Not sure about crocodiles.
Removed
Joined
10 Dec '06
Moves
8528
25 Mar '16 15:19
Originally posted by humy what is 'conscious' is very ill defined but sponges have no brain so it seems reasonable to me at least to say they are not 'conscious'. Not sure about crocodiles.
They may not specifically have a brain, and yet sponges have a level of conscious greater than that of rocks.
Originally posted by joe shmo They may not specifically have a brain, and yet sponges have a level of conscious greater than that of rocks.
I disagree. I think 'conciousness' is a bit higher order than simple 'reacts to the environment'. I think sponges can rightly be said to not have any conciousness whatsoever. I think a crocodile on the other hand does have one. Whether we are 'more concious' than a crocodile would require a more specific definition.
Originally posted by moonbus There is a lot to be said for leading a person who is mired in falsehood to work something out for himself, rather than simply telling him he's wrong. That is the Socratic method, and also the basic tool of psychiatry. Just telling someone he's wrong breeds resistance and hostility. Laying out the facts doesn't always work, however. Both Creationists and no ...[text shortened]... ole narrative framework to get him to see some facts differently, and that is awfully hard work.
I was thinking more in terms of one off conspiracy theories than complete religious or political ideologies. I agree that the more deeply the (faulty) narrative framework is embedded the more difficult it is to convince someone. Having said that non-creationist theists, that's to say theists who agree with the scientific narrative but have God responsible for the initial singularity, manage to find a compromise position where they don't have to abandon their religion in the face of evidence but don't have to believe a load of old nonsense either. I don't think it's necessary to get people to completely alter their narrative, just work out what's most important to them.
With someone influenced against "Western knowledge" by a group like Boko Harem one could point out that the early Muslims actually saved it. A lot of the Ancient Greek philosophical writings that Western knowledge is based on was actually preserved through the European Dark Ages by the Muslims who at that time had great respect for secular knowledge, even if it didn't quite fit with their religion.
Originally posted by DeepThought I agree that the more deeply the (faulty) narrative framework is embedded the more difficult it is to convince someone.Having said that non-creationist theists, that's to say theists who agree with the scientific narrative but have God responsible for the initial singularity, manage to find a compromise position where they don't have to abandon their rel ...[text shortened]... to get people to completely alter their narrative, just work out what's most important to them.
Yes, it is extraordinarily difficult to make headway against a conceited ideology. Evidence alone won't do it. One side presents evidence and the other side simply denies it or distorts it without end. In the case of the age of the universe, for example, the nature of the evidence is such that to understand it in detail requires at least a university education in physics, which I confess I don't have. I too just accept more or less 'on faith' that physicists know what they are talking about and that to deny that red shift and radio-active decay really happen would entail throwing overboard a huge amount of knowledge for which there is very strong evidence. Something similar is going on in the evolution debate: to understand the evidence in favor of it in detail would require at least a university education in anthropology and possibly also in genetics. I too accept more or less on faith that anthropologists and geneticists know what they are talking about and that to deny that evolution really happened would require the abandonment of a huge body of knowledge. The evidence that the earth moves is also not the sort of thing one can hold in one's hand and see for oneself; it is abstract and technical. One has to remind oneself how counter-intuitive it felt in ancient times, right up to the Middle Ages, to entertain the idea that the earth is moves. But Creationists have somehow managed to get their minds round the idea that the earth moves, although the evidence for it is similarly abstract to the evidence for evolution and deep time.
Catholic Church has finally been brought to accept that evolution really happened: they now say that it really happened (without committing themselves to how long it has been going on, i.e., deep time) by saying that God's hand started it and guides it. It may take another 500 years, but the Church might even accept deep time--if we wait long enough!
Originally posted by moonbus Yes, it is extraordinarily difficult to make headway against a conceited ideology. Evidence alone won't do it. One side presents evidence and the other side simply denies it or distorts it without end. In the case of the age of the universe, for example, the nature of the evidence is such that to understand it in detail requires at least a university educat ...[text shortened]... may take another 500 years, but the Church might even accept deep time--if we wait long enough!
I'm reading Eric Kaplan's Does Santa Exist? at the moment, it has a story about a psychiatrist whose patient believes that he is dead. So the psychiatrist asks him if he thinks that dead men bleed and the patient replies that they don't. The psychiatrist whips out a scalpel and makes a small cut on the man's arm and blood comes out. The patient looks at it in amazement and says: "Well, who'd have thought, dead men do bleed after all!"
gullibility
25 Mar '16 06:51
Back to Top