Showing posts with label Atheist anti-intellectualism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheist anti-intellectualism. Show all posts

Monday, May 23, 2011

So we are all still here hu?

Photobucket
Festinger


I notice the world didn't end over the weekend. I had a plan but had it too late to carry it out. I was going to secretly contact all the Christians posting on CARM atheist and have them not post or show any presence on the net for several days after so that the atheists would begin to wonder "have they been raptured?" I didn't think of it until Saturday. So much for my whimsical contribution to the mockery of a bad idea. You can still read the warning on eBiblefellowship.com

I expect the guy who started all that, especially the guy who gave his savings to buy the posters, I expect them to become more committed to the idea than ever. This is a classic case of cognative dissonance, a major theory in psychology started by Leon Festinger.

Wikipedia

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. A closely related term, cognitive disequilibrium, was coined by Jean Piaget to refer to the experience of a discrepancy between something new and something already known or believed.

Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise,[2] dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.


Notice the guy who started the idea also predicted it in 94. Being wrong once didn't prevent him from trying again, he was probably more attached to the idea. This is exactly what happened int the original case where Festinger developed the theory.

Festinger's original work was published in a book called When Prophesy Fails. The book was about Festinger, then a graduate student, who infiltrated a flying saucer cult. The cult began when a women in the mid west started receiving automatic writing from spirits who predicted the end of the world. The cult wound up believing that aliens were coming in flying saucers to save them. They were actually watching episodes of the classic tv sci fi show "Captain Video" to get "secret" messages form the aliens. The remarkable thing is several times the date came and went for the end of the world and yet the group became more committed each time, went out and got more members each time. Festinger contaminated his data because he asked so many questions and brought in so many "new members" (other graduate students and professors) that they began to suspect that he was an alien. They started taking opportunities in private to say "come on you can tell me I want tell the others, you are one of them aren't' you?" The cult finally disbanded the major people wound up in Scientology.

Photobucket



Of course very few Christians expected this guy's thing to be real. My feeling was if Jesus says he doesn't know the day or the hour, (only the Father does) what chance does this guy have of knowing it? As most of these things go this guy had some bogus theory about how to calculate secret messages from the Bible. His prmise is wrong on face value because he was calculating from the Flood, judging literal years (no way to know even if the flood was literally real--which it was not) when it happened. So there was no basis upon which to calculate anyway. Then he decided for himself that it could be traced that way, no Bible passage says it can be.

What is the basis for such foolish notions? First there is the kind of instruction in Bible reading that many people get in churches. When I turn past (I do mean past) televangelists almost without fail what I hear is total ignorance when they discuss how to study the Bible and how to read the Bible. They are the one's who set up this foolishness of secret codes and private meanings, becuase they don't know the basic scientific means of exegesis or textual criticism. American Christianity is based upon an revolution of anti-intellectualism led by harbingers of frontier life against the early Calvinist elites who founded the big schools in the east (such as Harvard and Yale). This revolution was called "the second great awakening" and it's legacy has been the sanctioning of uneducated guesswrok in reading the Bible and a profound suspicion and distrust of academic learning.

Although there may be broader ramifications for anti-intellectualism in America:

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
book by Hofstadter (quoting reader review on Amazon)
Hofstadter is careful to define what he means by the intellect and intellectuals. The intellect is the critical, creative, contemplative side of mind that examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, questions, imagines. It is the province of writers, critics, skeptics, professors, scientists, editors, journalists, lawyers and clergymen. Just being a "mental technician" in these fields is not enough; one also acts as an active custodian of values like reason and justice and truth.

Unfortunately, America's practical culture has never embraced intellectuals. The intellectuals' education and expertise are viewed as a form of power or privilege. Intellectuals are seen as a small arrogant elite who are pretentious, conceited, snobbish. Geniuses' are described as eccentric, and their talents dismissed as mere cleverness. Their cultured view is seen as impractical, and their sophistication as ineffectual. Their emphasis on knowledge and education is viewed as subversive, and it threatens to produce social decadence.

Instead, the anti-intellectuals believe that the plain sense of the common man is altogether adequate and superior to formal knowledge and expertise from schools. The truths of the heart, experience, and old-fashioned principles of religion, character, instinct, and morality are more reliable guides to life than education. After all, we idolize the self-made man in America.
my money is on this reaction of the second great awakening.


This common man stuff and common sense and so on usually means popular misconceptions and prejudices are enshrined as "common sense." When I was a kid the old people said "it's just common sense to keep the races apart." The same goes for the Bible, people want to feel that God is talking directly to them from the pages of the book and they don't some snob with a degree telling them what he says.

The other aspect of the equations, why we have this sense of "end times," in the first place, rooted in theology. Why does time have to "end?" Jurgen Moltmann, a major theologian of the twentieth century, explores this idea in this work Theology of Hope. (summary of book). He shows that the Israelites journey is spacial, through the desert toward the physical goal of a promised land. What happens once they reach it? Now the journey become temporal. They are no longer searching for the land, now it's a journey of time. They journey through history. Thus the bench mark of the end of times becomes the temporal goal. This theory might be in doubt due to modern scholarly notions that the journeying of the Israelites as been historically disproved. Lawrence H. Shiffman, Ethel and Irvin A. Edelman Professor in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, says this is not a consensus. There is still a large segment of scholars who don't accept this idea.

Shiffman writes:


Further, this theory must explain away the historical and archaeological evidence. Numerous cities from this period show a cultural change at precisely the point when the Israelites are said by the Bible to have appeared. Indeed, the newcomers, since they came from the desert, show a lower level of material culture than the Canaanites whom they displaced. This situation fits well the notion of Israelite conquest and infiltration. Second, the Israelites, throughout their history in the land, were concentrated in those areas easiest to defend against the superior arms of the Canaanites, a fact that supports the notion that they were invaders. Third, the doubters have claimed that few cities from this period show evidence of armed destruction. But careful consideration of the biblical narrative, with due attention to the account in Judges and the evidence that the Canaanites were never entirely displaced, eliminates this inconsistency fully. Indeed, the archaeological record supports a reconstruction of the historical events of the conquest when both Joshua and Judges are studied together. Finally, these scholars often claim that the Bible is the only source supporting the Exodus. But they forget that several different accounts of the Exodus exist in the Bible, in books written at different periods, thus providing corroborative evidence for the basic scheme of events.

Still it seems there would be more to the idea of end times than just enshrining it in Hebrew Hopes. The early chruch got into the act when the gentile churches, not aware of the apocalyptic genre of writing, took literal the symbolism of Revelation. No doubt all of that plays a role. Yet it seems there must be a psychological pay off that people long for. There must be an end to this vial of tears we call "the world." This seems especially acute when we wake of and hear of tragedies like what happened in Joplin last night.

People need a goal they need a pay off, other than death. Yet the wrong prediction that sucks others into false hope is not the way to go. We do not have false hope. We have to cultivate the inner life in a relationship with God to understand the reality of the true hope we do have. We need to be aware of God's reality in our lives so the present nature of eternity is always pressing upon us. We should live a position which is aware of two points at once, the concrete now which is here in life, and the eternal which we will someday join. I probably look too lovingly at the past, but being a historian I can't help but think that knowing the past is a good way to demarcate the present.

(see an actual episode of Captain Video)

Monday, April 12, 2010

Atheists show their true colors: Anti-Intellectualism

 Photobucket

I hope this is not representative of all atheists. I know it is not! I know Hermit for example will feel revulsion for these ideas. I also know that we can find fundamentalists who just as readily spout such garbage. When I was an atheist being one was identified with learning, with Universities, with being intelligentsia. Now the "New" atheism shows that's really about anti-intellectualism.


a thing from CARM by one of the stupidest people I've ever ran into. his screen name is "screename" so very cleaver.

University's need money. They have huge overhead and need to stay profitable. If it means creating degrees in fields that are, well, questionable, many of them will do it. It makes good business sense.

What are some useless degrees, in the sense that they offer little to humanity, or any value to the world?

I submit that Theology is one of those useless degrees. It is popular, because there are so many brainwa... highly suggestive Christians in the world that think they are on to something profound. However, in reality, it is a self-serving field that doesn't honor good thinking in the terms of the proven value of philosophy or science or psychology.

 again

Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
No, phys. ed. and communications are helpful.

You are gullible if you think Universities exist as pinnacles of human thought and motivation. They regularly offer degrees in fields that offer no more value than the people taking the course and the person teaching the course. Don't be naive. Yes, you can get a degree in poetry and then what? You teach poetry to a bunch of people who want to teach poetry to a bunch of people who want to teach poetry?

Fine, at least that is better than theology: Learn theology to tell people what to think about theology.
 same thread a guy named "striving for accuracy:

Quote Originally Posted by 1TrueDisciple View Post
Using your utilitarian criterion, so are degrees in philosophy, dance, art history, general studies, comparative religions, leisure studies, Latin, communications, physical education, women's studies, art therapy, and poetry to name just a few degrees actually awarded by universities today.

Striving for Accuracy answers 1 true disciple
Yep. Bunch o garbage. Not that these studies have no value, obviously, but as a degree? Nonsense. These are classes to break up your schedule and decorate your degree; make a well rounded person, not something to devote your life to. They are hobbies given status they do not deserve.

what a bunch of know nothing. I've never seen a group of people as egar to destroy thought as these guys. You should be an atheist man.

You know nothing about communication. I was a college debater, all college debate coaches are communications professors. That's the degree you get, public speaking, to teach debate. It's vastly useful. noly someone who hasn't taken any courses woudl think it's not worth a degree.

why does learning have to be "useful" to be valuable? most of science is not useful in a direct way. It's only after a bunch of learning for learning sake happens that we can find stuff make to make use of.

with a communication degree you can run any political campaign at any level, break into advertising or any advertising related field. public relations, teach, and a bunch of other things. Everyone should learn public speaking. Even if you don't' do any speaking it bouts your confidence and spurs new learning and makes you feel better about yourself. It's practically psychotherapy. I bet if those kids who killed all the people at Columbine had taken public speaking they would not have done that. I'm serious, it is well known to work as therapy.

there are a whole bunch of jobs related to it, even journalism or announcing.

Universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton were started by religious people to teach religion. did you not know that? It's not like all these universes just a few years ago said "he let's see what other things we can add to make money, I know religion is big money let's add some religion courses."


do you see what's happened. Atheists sued to be the intellectuals, before the internet. Now they are the scum. they are the uneducated rabble who hate books and learning and want to destroy universities. At least they want to destroy liberal arts everything they not able to do well because they are not bright enough.

Dawkins purposely aimed his appeal at such people because he thought if his movement copied the fundies then it would have success like they did.

Atheism has become an anti-intellectual movement. Theology is one of the most intellectual subjects. but people who don't know anything about have not right to say it's not stupid, because you ar just falling your ignorant gums.

Nuclear science is stupid. I know nothing about it so I'm right no?


how do you think Bullet companies get dancers? do you they just say "Ok anyone thinks they can point their toes come on in?" are you so out of the arts and such philistine that you can't figure out that now days these things are a life long pursuit that start in childhood? so obviously a degree in dance is essential if you want a career in dance. Same with Music.

this is so telling. atheists aer such haters of knowledge and they arts they don't want degrees to be given in music. o your cause is really headed for the top. The vast masses are going to flock to you, Not only do they not want you to have any hope when your kid is dying but they don't want to have good music either.

You sound sound a propo form the Witch on the lion the witch and the wardrobe, always winter and never Christmas.

that can be the official atheist slogan, "vote for Always winter and never Christmas."

my friend and former atheists Tiny Thnker (an anthropologist) comments on this on my boards. I think his comments are worth reading:

Tiny Thinker:

To put some of my unformed essay into words...

A liberal arts education is about growth and reaching our potential as creative and intelligent beings. It is to seek the fullest flower of our humanity. Science, medicine, engineering, the law and the rest are in service to these aspirations. The humanities in particular are the point of University, their source and their destination. The other disciplines were created to further this search. The liberal arts and specifically the humanities are the heart and soul of the University and its mission. Don't believe it? Then ask "Why?" What is the point?

"I am studying medicine."

"Why?"

"To help people."

"Why? Why not let them suffer? Why not let them die?"

Take another example:

"I am studying the law."

"Why?"

"To fight injustice."

"What is injustice and what concern should it be to anyone?"

From the scientist in the lab isolating a new coding sequence of DNA to the journalism student taking notes for a lecture on ethics, the core motivation goes back to the humanities. Even if one is solely motivated by profit and the desire for a good paying job. Greed is something that the humanities can tell us a great deal about. Whatever your inspiration, it has its roots in the arts, philosophy, theology, and the rest. The other fields and their endeavors are valueless, meaningless, without the light that is studied, tended, inspired and professed by those in the humanities.