Spreading evolution, science, and reason efficiently

MonkeyBalls

It's revealing, I think, to look at atheists and agnostics who rail against "militant atheism" and to figure out what's going on here.

Atheists (and theists alike) who loathe Richard Dawkins and other "neo-Atheists", I suspect, find unbearable the thought of their religious loved ones and friends being implicitly made to appear foolish and just plain wrong. They see bold brash truths about the obvious falseness of religion as being an insult to the dignity of those people, a deeply unpleasant feeling that elicits an honorable instinct to defend. And the exquisitely painful implication of what atheists are saying, that you will never again greet your passed away loved ones, is no light matter. I suspect that most of the anger directed at atheists isn't the kind of anger you feel when someone is loudly and arrogantly wrong about something important; it's the kind of anger that masks and reroutes mental anguish - the painful thought that atheists are probably right. This is regrettable. There is no doubt about that.

It's not just an intellectual argument - emotional incentives and deep-rooted immutable drives undergird it. Fact spreading is next to useless in opening minds and changing opinions. The solution is to engage people's emotions, and that's the key to spreading evolution, reason, and science to the masses. The question is how exactly do we do this. Most people balk at the cold, mechanistic world that evolution and science seem to purvey, so that knee jerk response has to be dealt with and replaced with something better.

Any thoughts?

Atheists (and theists alike) who loathe Richard Dawkins and other "neo-Atheists", I suspect, find unbearable the thought of their religious loved ones and friends being implicitly made to appear foolish and just plain wrong. They see bold brash truths about the obvious falseness of religion as being an insult to the dignity of those people

No, they're just obnoxious

MonkeyBalls

bluewolf wrote: »

No, they're just obnoxious

I think you're falling into a trap here (something I've done myself).

MonkeyBalls

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I think you're falling into a trap here (something I've done myself).

Of what? Not liking obnoxious people?

I don't really think Dawkins is one of those though, he's alright

oldrnwisr

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

The solution is to engage people's emotions, and that's the key to spreading evolution, reason, and science to the masses. The question is how exactly do we do this. Most people balk at the cold, mechanistic world that evolution and science seem to purvey, so that knee jerk response has to be dealt with and replaced with something better.

Any thoughts?

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that science and reason should be spread as far as possible and particularly by engaging people's emotions. I don't agree however that this view is in any way cold or mechanistic. I try not to proselytise or evangelise but I defy anyone not to have an emotional experience after viewing this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

www.symphonyofscience.com

MonkeyBalls

bluewolf wrote: »

Of what? Not liking obnoxious people?

I don't really think Dawkins is one of those though, he's alright

Who specifically are you referring to as obnoxious?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that science and reason should be spread as far as possible and particularly by engaging people's emotions. I don't agree however that this view is in any way cold or mechanistic. I try not to proselytise or evangelise but I defy anyone not to have an emotional experience after viewing this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

www.symphonyofscience.com

Yeah that's exactly the approach that's needed. Something is missing though, it's such a rare view to encounter, even among the highly educated. Carl Sagan is one in a billion.

I believe there are innate psychological mechanisms that predispose people to believe in deities, but evolution and science "run against the grain" of these mechanisms, making them much harder to learn, stick in mind, and disseminate

"bold brash truths about the obvious falseness of religion " <- doesn't sound like constructive argument at all. That's what I meant.

MonkeyBalls

bluewolf wrote: »

"bold brash truths about the obvious falseness of religion " <- doesn't sound like constructive argument at all. That's what I meant.

I also don't think that talking about science is "cold"

That's because it's not an argument. It's a statement.

As for, "I also don't think that talking about science is "cold". I don't even know where to begin with that. Re-read what I wrote.

liamw

bluewolf wrote: »

"bold brash truths about the obvious falseness of religion " <- doesn't sound like constructive argument at all. That's what I meant.

I also don't think that talking about science is "cold"

I don't think anyone said it was supposed to be contructive though. Or tactful. There's an interesting debate between Lawrence Krauss and Dawkins where Krauss argues that the most tactical approach would be a softer one where you obviously don't insult the person you are trying to convince.

But I don't have a problem with 'militant atheists' a.k.a. people who speak very directly about the bullsh*t that is religion. If someone is really so offended and sensitive about the subject, perhaps it's time for them to rethink their own position and the basis of it.

You don't have an issue with satirical comics on religion though bluewolf which really are far more demeaning on religion than direct comments...

liamw

liamw wrote: »

I don't think anyone said it was supposed to be contructive though. Or tactful. There's an interesting debate between Lawrence Krauss and Dawkins where Krauss argues that the most tactical approach would be a softer one where you obviously don't insult the person you are trying to convince.

But I don't have a problem with 'militant atheists' a.k.a. people who speak very directly about the bullsh*t that is religion. If someone is really so offended and sensitive about the subject, perhaps it's time for them to rethink their own position and the basis of it.

You don't have an issue with satircal comics on religion though bluewolf which really are far more demeaning on religion than words...

Comics aren't really part of a conversation though. You're not directly posting them AT someone.

I guess maybe we're on different wavelengths here, I may have misunderstood OP on it.
I think I would take Krauss' view on it as you've described above though.

edit: sorry that I'm a bit all over the place with my posts, headcold fuzzy head...

MonkeyBalls

No prob on the misunderstandings, it's very easy, especially on message boards.

I'm 100% convinced that just relaying the data from science is largely ineffective at shaping worldviews, especially in adults. The main reason, to simplify, is our evolved mental modules are not "primed" to take in facts that run counter to our spontaneous intuitions. There's gotta be a way around this, a newer, better approaching to dissemination evolution, and it's not just the softly-softly be-nice hold-their-hands approach, because scientists have tried that and it doesn't seem very effective overall. Emotionally-rooted incentives are key.

liamw

Honestly MonkeyBalls, I lost faith (excuse the pun) in humanity when it comes to this. I reckon the only way to get through to most people is by changing the social norm. Conformity conformity conformity. There will come a time I think (within a generation or two), when it is not the social norm to baptise your child for instance, and only then will people stop doing it.

It's nothing to do with beliefs. It's adhering to social standards. Most people just won't break away from it. I had a conversation with a girl I met about it and she agreed with everything I had to say about how baptisms were wrong.. for about 2 hours (yes I wrecked her head)... and at the end of it she still said she would baptise her child even though she thinks religion is bullsh*t!

liamw

bluewolf wrote: »

Comics aren't really part of a conversation though. You're not directly posting them AT someone.

So perhaps your issue is simply with offending someone? I can understand this, but really I don't think beliefs should be in any way immune to this.

Or maybe it's people who go out of their way to cause havoc (knowing that people are uncomfortable with their religious beliefs)?

Bloody Nipples

In general, people don't get much exposure to evolutionary theory. I'm out of primary school a decade now, but the curriculum while I was there was just English, Irish and Maths every day, Religion a few times a week and History and Geography once in a blue moon.
In secondary, Science was optional at Junior Cert and at Leaving Cert, it was only relevant if you did biology which was also optional (and I can't remember if it was even on the course).

So realistically, the idea of which approach to use when presenting the scientific data is pretty academic when the info probably isn't reaching a significant proportion of the population.

I'm only speaking from experience as I have no idea how this matches up globally but in Ireland, I'd see introducing the idea at primary level as going a long way in gaining acceptance for the idea.

Turtwig

People who think rationally are in a huge minority. That's why communicating new ideas is so difficult. Rational folk speak one language irrational folk speak another. It's not about spreading science or reason. It's simply about one thing : doubt. What distinguishes a skeptic is that the skeptic will always doubt his own position and will eventually change his or her own view in light of new evidence. Get people to understand that the best way to assess a claim is via skepticism and you'll get them to embrace science and everything that follows. Sadly, most people prefer proving others wrong to increasing their own understanding. After all if they're wrong, then you're right, right?

liamw wrote: »

Honestly MonkeyBalls, I lost faith (excuse the pun) in humanity when it comes to this.

You might find this thread helpful then.:)

raah!

They teach evolution in leaving cert biology. They don't teach "evolution means religion is wrong", if that's what you mean. Why they should teach it outside of biology is beyond me. There aren't as many creationists amongst irish theists as you probably think there are.

It's rather ironic that in a thread espousing "the spread of reason" you say we need to appeal emotionally to people. And as your motivation for this you cite peoples negative reactions to the "emotional appeal" of people like Dawkins. The method of directly and forcefully telling people they are wrong is one such method of "emotional appeal" and is even very useful alot of the time.

Bloody Nipples

I agree that they shouldn't teach it outside biology, I was suggesting that they teach basic science at primary school level. It would be of a lot more use to the student in the long run than some of the compulsory subjects. Even make them watch "Planet Earth".

MonkeyBalls

raah! wrote: »

It's rather ironic that in a thread espousing "the spread of reason" you say we need to appeal emotionally to people. And as your motivation for this you cite peoples negative reactions to the "emotional appeal" of people like Dawkins. The method of directly and forcefully telling people they are wrong is one such method of "emotional appeal" and is even very useful alot of the time.

No. Show me that you understand my point first, and then I'll engage you in conversation.

MonkeyBalls

Malty_T wrote: »

People who think rationally are in a huge minority. That's why communicating new ideas is so difficult. Rational folk speak one language irrational folk speak another. It's not about spreading science or reason. It's simply about one thing : doubt. What distinguishes a skeptic is that the skeptic will always doubt his own position and will eventually change his or her own view in light of new evidence. Get people to understand that the best way to assess a claim is via skepticism and you'll get them to embrace science and everything that follows. Sadly, most people prefer proving others wrong to increasing their own understanding. After all if they're wrong, then you're right, right?

The question is: why are people irrational in the domain of religion (while perfectly rational in other domains?). We are selectively irrational in reliably occurring ways. Rationality, with respect to religion and evolution, is not something that spontaneously comes to humans. If you think of the human brain as a magnet that evolved over millions of years, religions are the iron filing that come whizzing towards it; reason (about causality, goal-directedness, probability) is like another repelling magnet, and has to be forcefully pushed into the brain.

Turtwig

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

The question is: why are people irrational in the domain of religion (while perfectly rational in other domains?). We are selectively irrational in reliably occurring ways. Rationality, with respect to religion and evolution, is not something that spontaneously comes to humans. If you think of the human brain as a magnet that evolved over millions of years, religions are the iron filing that come whizzing towards it; reason (about causality, goal-directedness, probability) is like another repelling magnet, and has to be forcefully pushed into the brain.

Rationality, on any topic, is simply something that does not come spontaneously to humans.

raah!

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

No. Show me that you understand my point first, and then I'll engage you in conversation.

"People are resistant to new atheism, which is science. It's because they secretly know it's true. I'm a teenager"

Zombrex

Teach critical thinking skills at secondary level, ftw

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

Teach critical thinking skills at secondary level, ftw

Primary level would be infinitely preferable.:)

MonkeyBalls

Malty_T wrote: »

Rationality, on any topic, is simply something that does not come spontaneously to humans.

That's cute but incorrect. We are designed to be rational - without educational enforcement - in some domains that pertained to survival and reproduction in the EEA, such as in the day-to-day practicalities of living, finding food, avoiding predators, statistically accurate categorisations of various environmental variables, reciprocal exchanges, many intuitive logical inferences. We are inherently good in some domains and poor in others, such as probability, complex mathematics, and some forms of abstract logic. You're not keeping up with what I'm saying.

@ rah: Poor. Try again.

raah!

Well, your post was rather incoherent and poorly connected.

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

It's revealing, I think, to look at atheists and agnostics who rail against "militant atheism" and to figure out what's going on here.

Atheists (and theists alike) who loathe Richard Dawkins and other "neo-Atheists", I suspect, find unbearable the thought of their religious loved ones and friends being implicitly made to appear foolish and just plain wrong. They see bold brash truths about the obvious falseness of religion as being an insult to the dignity of those people, a deeply unpleasant feeling that elicits an honorable instinct to defend. And the exquisitely painful implication of what atheists are saying, that you will never again greet your passed away loved ones, is no light matter. I suspect that most of the anger directed at atheists isn't the kind of anger you feel when someone is loudly and arrogantly wrong about something important; it's the kind of anger that masks and reroutes mental anguish - the painful thought that atheists are probably right. This is regrettable. There is no doubt about that.

So, here you are either saying that those atheists/agnostics (and later, on theists) who react badly to dawkins don't like his style of arguing.

Or making the ridiculous claim that those atheists/agnostics are opposed to the calm dissemination of the truth, since this makes their relatives feel bad. This interpretation is difficult to take since in your text you identify the "militant" atheists, as well as their "bold brash" style of delivering their arguments. Perhaps you wanted to make this point but were unable to communicate it.

It's not just an intellectual argument - emotional incentives and deep-rooted immutable drives undergird it. Fact spreading is next to useless in opening minds and changing opinions. The solution is to engage people's emotions, and that's the key to spreading evolution, reason, and science to the masses. The question is how exactly do we do this. Most people balk at the cold, mechanistic world that evolution and science seem to purvey, so that knee jerk response has to be dealt with and replaced with something better.

Any thoughts?

Now it's not even clear what the "it's" here refers to. I presume you mean "it" to be the "spreading of evolution" in the title. This isn't really grammatically correct. The last time you used the word "is" was with reference to something being unfortunate. That's not an argument.

So again, your whole post then is under-run by the classic "everyone's a creationist, I'm the only freethinker who knows all about evolution". That nobody accepts evolution. This isn't really true. Even on these boards there is probably only one actual creationist.

It's also rather absurd to say that "we need to use emotional appeals to spread reason". In order for this to make any sense you have to be using the word "reason" to mean "rational acceptance of things with which people are emotionally uncomfortable". It's obvious too that you can't just mean "science" in the general sense, since this is not something people are generally opposed to. You mean "science when it contradicts religion/things people like". If you had used "science" in the general sense you would not have needed to include "evolution". Even when you used it in the particular (wrong) sense you used it there evolution would have been a sub category of it.

So that turns out to be just a ridiculous triple tautology under any interpretation. You've essentially said "spreading hats, red hats, and hats and red hats efficiently".

So perhaps you should learn to speak.

With regard to spreading science to the masses: Popular science is not science. Why would you want people to possess a superficial and often incorrect knowledge of this or that aspect of science?

With regard to them giving money to scientists, this is achieved by the prospect of technology. "The masses" are already very much convinced of the usefulness of technology. The idea that they should be interested in the actual goings on of science just shows that you really don't understand the complexities of certain areas of science. Watching Carl Sagan, for example, does not really mean that you understand physics, or any of those things discussed in the video. It only means you were entertained in a certain way. And perhaps that you will not disagree with someone else who has watched Carl Sagan.

MagicMarker

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

We are designed to be rational

:eek:

pH

Maybe Dawkins should tell everyone that God dictated "The Selfish Gene" to him via an angel, that should help shouldn't it OP?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Teach critical thinking skills at secondary level, ftw

After all that religion in primary school?

Cognitive dissonance, ftw!

smokingman

I think the best way to go about it is to teach the wonder and awe of the universe instead. It may be taken in and re-written by any minds eye as they see fit but the wonder of how amazing it is, is what binds religious and atheist mind alike. Religious people may ascribe this to a creator, atheists will ascribe this to actual facts but the drive to teach people true reason will not be successful otherwise.

Cold hard facts may be the lifeblood of science but we humans are not all about that. Our actions and reactions are always conditioned by our emotional responses and if we can add that in to the mix when we are trying to explain science, success will follow. We need the emotional connect as well.

I have retold people stories and explanations of science I've heard or read from astrophysicists, molecular biologists, scientists of all kind, and the only ones that struck a chord were the ones that evoked an emotional response - awe.

Try to explain the cold hard facts and you won't get far. Explain to people, for example, where the billions of carbon atoms in their body come from (the death of a star) and they walk away feeling good and having a better appreciation for science. Tell them to have a look up at the moon and let them know that what they're seeing is actually from 1.2 seconds ago. Likewise with the sun, over 8 minutes ago; the north star, 434 years ago.

We aren't Vulcans and science teachers needs to remember that.

Dades

The truth sets people free. But not everyone wants to be free.

In fact some of them hammer at the gates shouting to be let back in.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

After all that religion in primary school?

Cognitive dissonance, ftw!

Ok ok ok, primary school then. Kingergarden FOR THE WIN!

MonkeyBalls

raah! wrote: »

Well, your post was rather incoherent and poorly connected.

Textbook attempt to save face, to try to maintain the upper hand.

Your bloviated response reeks of fail, trying to muddy the waters.

"Or making the ridiculous claim that those atheists/agnostics are opposed to the calm dissemination of the truth, since this makes their relatives feel bad."

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Again: Re-read it, prove to me you're not a dope and are worthy of my attention, and I'll get back to you.

I skimmed the rest of your post. Your obtuseness is tedious. Your predictable type bores me to tears with your idiocy. Strawmanning to try to keep the upper hand because I bitch slapped you, and using distraction tactics of semantic obfuscation in cases where anyone who isn't autistic could interpolate the correct interpretation.

Don't try to outwit me or out-intellectualise me, you will lose.

By the way, all of this could have been avoided and niceness could have permeated the land if you hadn't started your post with some poncy attempts to criticise (what you failed you interpret correctly).

Now try again, objectively, first by summarising *correctly* what I've written, using my other posts in this thread for guidance. Good luck.

robindch

^^^ Now, now. Peace and Love.

MonkeyBalls

smokingman wrote: »

I think the best way to go about it is to teach the wonder and awe of the universe instead. It may be taken in and re-written by any minds eye as they see fit but the wonder of how amazing it is, is what binds religious and atheist mind alike. Religious people may ascribe this to a creator, atheists will ascribe this to actual facts but the drive to teach people true reason will not be successful otherwise.

Cold hard facts may be the lifeblood of science but we humans are not all about that. Our actions and reactions are always conditioned by our emotional responses and if we can add that in to the mix when we are trying to explain science, success will follow. We need the emotional connect as well.

I have retold people stories and explanations of science I've heard or read from astrophysicists, molecular biologists, scientists of all kind, and the only ones that struck a chord were the ones that evoked an emotional response - awe.

Try to explain the cold hard facts and you won't get far. Explain to people, for example, where the billions of carbon atoms in their body come from (the death of a star) and they walk away feeling good and having a better appreciation for science. Tell them to have a look up at the moon and let them know that what they're seeing is actually from 1.2 seconds ago. Likewise with the sun, over 8 minutes ago; the north star, 434 years ago.

We aren't Vulcans and science teachers needs to remember that.

Excellent post, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

We have to tap into that.

As I've said before, Christianity and Islam (and the countless other cults throughout history) are testament to our gullibility and our desperate need to believe in something transcendent, magical, etheral, anything. As it happens, reality is more extraordinary and mindblowing than the petty tribalisms and superstitions found in the Bible and Koran and other relics of illiterate goat-herders and power-consolidating patriarchs. Every moment of sentience is enriched when you realise it will never come again. Your friends and family and your relationships and experiences will one day be snuffed out. This is all the more reason to enjoy every moment right now while you can, and don't waste your life as a victim of delusion, sleepwalking through this world while waiting for a reward in an afterlife that will never come.

But there are definitely cognitive mechanisms underlying religious belief - it's not just a culturally constructed notion that can be wiped out through fact spreading. We have innate biases, and religion piggeybacks on them. There has to be a way of getting reason to "piggyback" on those innate, universal biases.

raah!

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Again: Re-read it, prove to me you're not a dope and are worthy of my attention, and I'll get back to you.

Perhaps you should repost it. It doesn't make grammatical sense. You can pretend it does. But it's very clear that it doesn't and I showed that clearly in the post.

Now try again, objectively, first by summarising *correctly* what I've written, using my other posts in this thread for guidance. Good luck.

The point is, the first post doesn't make sense. There is nothing to summarise. Other than a load of tautologies. Even in the light of those other posts 90% of that first post is non-sensical and ridiculous. Now, I've shown it's ridiculous. Perhaps you can show us, how it's possible, with the words you used, to make the points you want to make?

It's quite clear that the meaning you intended to be in the post isn't there. Again, you should learn to speak egnlish. And perhaps don't use words you don't understand, as it results in a rather ridiculous collection of tautologies.

The rest of your posts are along the lines of "how can we convince people of the truth" without any actual argumentation. This isn't something I'd be all to interested in engaging with. I do enjoy correcting people like you though.

Now, your first post doesn't mean anything. You can pretend it does. It doesn't, this has been clearly shown in my post. Taking one quote out of my posts starting with "or" is rather silly aswell. This was put forward as one amongst other interpretations.

sponsoredwalk

raah! wrote: »

Again, you should learn to speak egnlish.

raah! wrote: »

...I do enjoy correcting people like you though...

MonkeyBalls

raah! wrote: »

Perhaps you should repost it. It doesn't make grammatical sense. You can pretend it does. But it's very clear that it doesn't and I showed that clearly in the post.



The point is, the first post doesn't make sense. There is nothing to summarise. Other than a load of tautologies. Even in the light of those other posts 90% of that first post is non-sensical and ridiculous. Now, I've shown it's ridiculous. Perhaps you can show us, how it's possible, with the words you used, to make the points you want to make?

It's quite clear that the meaning you intended to be in the post isn't there. Again, you should learn to speak egnlish. And perhaps don't use words you don't understand, as it results in a rather ridiculous collection of tautologies.

The rest of your posts are along the lines of "how can we convince people of the truth" without any actual argumentation. This isn't something I'd be all to interested in engaging with. I do enjoy correcting people like you though.

Now, your first post doesn't mean anything. You can pretend it does. It doesn't, this has been clearly shown in my post. Taking one quote out of my posts starting with "or" is rather silly aswell. This was put forward as one amongst other interpretations.

So much fail. Just stop, son. It makes perfect grammatical sense. I have a serious question for you: do you have asperger's? Because that's the only explanation for your comments. And if you do, I will forgive you immediately.

But assuming you don't: You sound like a parrot, like you just discovered the word "tautology" (you're using it incorrectly by the way) and think that it's a great weapon in your cognitive toolkit.

Your inability to comprehend is not my issue. As you can see, smokingman nailed it.

MonkeyBalls

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Now, now. Peace and Love.

Peace and love to everyone, until they get poncey with me, and I'll respond in kind. Tit for tat, yo.

MonkeyBalls

Just wondering, by the way, if any of you have read Scott Atran's work on religion, or Jesse Bering's?

sponsoredwalk

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

It's not just an intellectual argument - emotional incentives and deep-rooted immutable drives undergird it. Fact spreading is next to useless in opening minds and changing opinions. The solution is to engage people's emotions, and that's the key to spreading evolution, reason, and science to the masses.

In all fairness this seems to me to be the root of your argument but it
also is just grossly contradictory, I mean you are arguing that emotional
incentives are mainly behind people's resentment against "neo-atheists"
then you tell us that we need to employ emotional arguments to argue
for "science & reason efficiently". Clearly that is just shooting yourself
in the foot since you set up an argument railing against emotional
arguments then finish it off by telling us we need to use the same
techniques you've just derided. Lets be clear, the implicit point in what
you're saying is that if these people would use reason then they would
not harbour this resentment but because they are being controlled by
their emotions they harbour resentment. Somehow you arguing that
we should then appeal to people's emotions with rationality right after
telling us how flawed emotions are never sparked a feeling of contradiction
though...

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

By the way, all of this could have been avoided and niceness could have permeated the land if you hadn't started your post with some poncy attempts to criticise (what you failed you interpret correctly).

I think he accurately summed up your post so I would argue that you
not only offered up a self-contradictory first post but also fail to interpret
this fact & furthermore have to rely on slightly aggressive insults in order
to defend your flawed position. In case you respond telling me that I
haven't engaged your post I have, just read above - it's clear what
the contradiction is so don't get angry at me about it

sponsoredwalk

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Peace and love to everyone, until they get poncey with me, and I'll respond in kind. Tit for tat, yo.

Again I think you're just interpreting a valid criticism as some kind of "poncey"
attack.

Dades

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Peace and love to everyone, until they get poncey with me, and I'll respond in kind. Tit for tat, yo.

I'm beginning to mislike your attitude. Your last comments to raah! were overly personal. Step back.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Otherwise, save your responses.

MonkeyBalls

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

In all fairness this seems to me to be the root of your argument but it
also is just grossly contradictory, I mean you are arguing that emotional
incentives are mainly behind people's resentment against "neo-atheists"
then you tell us that we need to employ emotional arguments to argue
for "science & reason efficiently". Clearly that is just shooting yourself
in the foot...

Now you're going to embolden him. Maybe you feel a little sorry for him, like I do. Let me set the point straight and show that the contradiction is imaginary. It's so simple. Evolved emotional incentives to believe in and desire certain things is a "handle" that religion can "pull on".

When we argue about the truth or falsity of religion, we argue in facts and evidence.

But: underlying the argument are humans, and humans are driven by emotions and biases. One way that atheism is unappealing is that it offers no emotionally appealing alternative. And it also tears away at the emotional comfort net that draws people to religion in the first place (which is why it's easier to attack atheism than to endure the emotionally upsetting questioning of one's comforting religious beliefs).

In order to spread reason (by which I refer to evolution, critical thinking, scientific thinking) we must capture people's hearts and minds. Cold abstract theories that ignore the human need for satisfying, deep, transcendent answers will not work, and this is evidenced in the failure of evolutionary theory to win hearts along with minds.

MonkeyBalls

Dades wrote: »

I'm beginning to mislike your attitude. Your last comments to raah! were overly personal. Step back.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Otherwise, save your responses.

Dades, I'm just amusing myself but it's tedious to be polite and sweet to someone who says the following and happens to be hilariously wrong in every case:

Your points are nonsensical and ridiculous!
You should learn to speak engrish!
Perhaps don't use words you don't understand! (while misusing the word tautological about 15 times)
I enjoy correcting people like you!

It's just too funny. It's Kruger-Dunning in full effect.

MagicMarker

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Dades, I'm just amusing myself but it's tedious to be polite and sweet to someone who says the following and happens to be hilariously wrong in every case:

Your points are nonsensical and ridiculous!
You should learn to speak engrish!
Perhaps don't use words you don't understand! (while misusing the word tautological about 15 times)
I enjoy correcting people like you!

It's just too funny. It's Kruger-Dunning in full effect.

Just put him (raah!) on ignore, works for me.

CiaranMT

Just on the point of emotion and rationality/reason etc, during a module I've been studying this semester we watched a video which basically debunked the idea that we need to avoid emotion in order to reason properly.

I can't find the video now, but the logic was that without emotion, one does not know what they want, because they have no reason to choose one option over another.

Pity I can't remember where it was because it was a really strong argument which basically rubbished how our way of reasoning has to progress from Enlightenment-era thinking. Here's a different video which delves into the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wup_K2WN0I

CiaranMT

And here's his full talk, well worth watching.

Zombrex

CiaranMT wrote: »

Just on the point of emotion and rationality/reason etc, during a module I've been studying this semester we watched a video which basically debunked the idea that we need to avoid emotion in order to reason properly.

I can't find the video now, but the logic was that without emotion, one does not know what they want, because they have no reason to choose one option over another.

Pity I can't remember where it was because it was a really strong argument which basically rubbished how our way of reasoning has to progress from Enlightenment-era thinking. Here's a different video which delves into the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wup_K2WN0I

That only really applies for subjective decision making, ie what resturant would you like to go to or what movie would you like to see

Hold very little use when trying to determine objective facts about reality, such as what does an atom really look like. There emotion or common sense often distort accuracy.

philologos

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Atheists (and theists alike) who loathe Richard Dawkins and other "neo-Atheists", I suspect, find unbearable the thought of their religious loved ones and friends being implicitly made to appear foolish and just plain wrong. They see bold brash truths about the obvious falseness of religion as being an insult to the dignity of those people, a deeply unpleasant feeling that elicits an honorable instinct to defend.

How is this obvious? :pac: Your post also assumes a false diachotomy between religion / faith and science.

I really must have been ill last night if jakkass is thanking me :pac:

CiaranMT

Wicknight wrote: »

That only really applies for subjective decision making, ie what resturant would you like to go to or what movie would you like to see

Hold very little use when trying to determine objective facts about reality, such as what does an atom really look like. There emotion or common sense often distort accuracy.

True, but listening to the talk so far and that's not what Damasio is talking about.

I brought it up because people here were arguing for and against the appeals to emotion when trying to convince students of the merits of science. An aside, if you will, to give the lie to what is seen as essential in proper decision-making, i.e. the removal of emotion.