Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 24, 2011 at 4:10pm

No it is not. This is what is called a Trojan Horse. Say three things that seem true or reasonable, and follow them by a fourth one that is not. This is a way of priming the reader to accept a fallacy.

 

• There is a holy day—Earth Day.

• There are food taboos.

• There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful.

• Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis.

 

There are all kinds of holidays for all kinds of reasons. Saying Earth Day is like a "holy day" is like saying Labor Day is like a holy day. it isn't.

 

Yes, there are food taboos and self-sacrifice, but those are generally enacted with good reason. I would also hesitate to call them "taboos" as I don't think they quite qualify. Is NOT drinking Drano a taboo, or just a good idea?

 

The fourth point is the trojan horse, the deceiving statement nestled in after the "truths" at the beginning, or if not truths, then things your are not likely to disagree with. The point is that environmentalism is not embraced on "no logical basis." If is very logical. Is trying to prevent companies from pouring toxic waste into a stream illogical? No it is not. Is it illogical to say that man exists and survives within his environment, and that the health of the environment affects the health of humanity? Not it is not.

 

Yes, there is extremism and dogma in practically everything that people adhere too, including religion (of course), political ideology, food choices, and even economic theories.

 

Yet none of this makes a commitment to environmentalism anything like a "religion," which is based on superstition and faith without evidence. This does not apply to environmental concerns.

 

Paul Rubin gets an F-.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 24, 2011 at 4:36pm

What she said!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 24, 2011 at 5:13pm

Exactly my point. The best thing about the scientific method is that everything can end up being falsified if a better theory emerges. It's a paradigm shift, just as religion was replaced by scientific method.

Question is, can you accept a paradigm shift in one of your non-religious beliefs? If not, aren't they very similar to religion?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 24, 2011 at 6:19pm

I wish I had written another OP to be perfectly honest...

I find religion to be part of a bigger problem - that many people end up leaving thinking to others and prefer being spoon fed opinions, be it from religion, party or cause. They therefore refuse to alter their opinion unless whomever is serving them does so, and play a game of blindly following the leader.

When I choose which party to vote for I do not look at which I agree with the most, but with which I disagree the least. That way I do not force myself to follow opinions of others unless I actually agree. I tend to find people who 100% support something to be no different than religious fundamentalists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 24, 2011 at 6:54pm

"...that many people end up leaving thinking to others and prefer being spoon fed opinions, be it from religion, party or cause."

 

To a certain degree, this is a requirement of modern living.  I have a specialized job, and I pour much of my time into developing my knowledge in that specialty.

 

I have quite a bit of general knowledge surrounding the environment, science, politics, economy, human rights issues, etc., but I can devote neither the time nor the means that each subject demands in order to make truly informed decisions.

 

Like all people, I rely on experts to convey important information in layman's terms.  When an issue has specific relevance to my life, or really piques my interest, I delve deeper.  Problematically, we're living in an era with a low signal to noise ratio.  There is an abundance of misinformation, and it is quite difficult for the average person to sort it all out.  Marketers are the most likely party to push their message through the clamor.

 

I don't expect any individual to be perfectly informed or to make the right decision every time.  I do think we need to increase people's level of engagement and connection to the issues that impact us all, as well as increase literacy in areas such as science, politics, and marketing.  People need to be able to identify reliable sources of information.  Who is a reliable expert and who is little more than a mouthpiece?  What are the hallmarks of good research and data, and what is utter bullshit.  Even if a person can't understand all of the technicalities of a given issue, if they can at least understand it at the abstract level and determine how reliable the information source is, they're already a step ahead.  They are operation more on reason and less on bias and faith.

 

But no one is going to increase their literacy levels if they are uninvested in the cause.  This is part of why I like things like energy efficient lightbulbs.  They are accessible.  Anyone can do it.  Will they save the planet with that alone?  No, but it does give people the sense that they have done something to help the issue.  It does give them a sense of entitlement to tell corporations and politicians to do their part as well.  It connects them to a massive issue that requires collective action to solve.  Again, it isn't the solution to all our problems, but it is the doorway to getting people invested in environmental issues on a personal level.  That must count for something.

 

Anyway, I feel like I've used too many words to say far too little.  There are afterwork drinks to be had.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 25, 2011 at 11:13am

I'll take a sip of it too :)

But I would like to pose a hypothetical question: If one scans the brain of a religious person and finds out which parts of the brain is stimulated by religious thoughts, and find that the same areas are stimulated by a deep adherence to other beliefs, shouldn't these beliefs also carry the same categorization?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 25, 2011 at 11:18am

Arcus, clearly you are just going to keep arguing your point until one of us admits to you that "yes, environmentalism is like a religion." I see no other objective to your comments.

 

Based on what I've read so far, I don't see that happening.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 25, 2011 at 3:00pm

I don't know.  I'm not a neurologist and I haven't read any studies on that level of thought categorization.

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 25, 2011 at 3:18pm

Arcus... on the same thought, I bet we'd find singulatarians are activating the religious area of their brains.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 26, 2011 at 10:39am

doone - A question I am left with.

If there are areas in the brain "specialized" to deal with religious thoughts, does that not lend creedence to the concept of religion? And if there isn't, then which parts of the brain deals with religion, and what other thoughts are dealt with in the same regions?

As a side note, I am really eager to check out those scans you were talking about, sounds very interesting. :)

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on February 24, 2011 at 6:08pm

just as religion was replaced by scientific method.

 

If it ony were so. Alas, the religulous are still with us.

 

If not, aren't they very similar to religion?

 

No. Updating our beliefs on the basis of new evidence is a good thing. But being obstinate is not the same thing as being religious (which is devoting oneself to an unprovable premise).

 

Yes, many religious people are obstinate about their beliefs. But obstinate people are not necessarily religious.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 24, 2011 at 10:29pm

No. Updating our beliefs on the basis of new evidence is a good thing. But being obstinate is not the same thing as being religious (which is devoting oneself to an unprovable premise).

 

an unprovable premise? An good example wood be man-made global warming.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page