In response to Gita's Orson and his resolve to not scale walls.

[Abhi Kantamneni]

(I have been framing this 6S in my mind for a while now, but upon reading this particular 6S from Gita, my nebulous thoughts evolved into words.) 

I have just started doing a regular podcast on rationality and the need to subject every theory to the rigors of the Scientific Method.  In the case of people like Orson's student, I think the battle is already lost, for they have chosen a side and pulled up their defenses and nothing you can or will say to them is going to make them change their stance.

Like my dad says, "You cannot wake up people who are only pretending to be asleep".

However, in order to wage a successful battle against the hijacking of young impressionable minds by religious zealots, I think it is imperative that we develop good talking points. If we evolve a system of delivering our message in short, quick bullet points that help foster objectivity then we will find that we may not have to scale the wall after all.

We will be tearing it down instead and build bridges across the artificial boundaries of sex, creed, culture and lifestyle. 

[Robert Crisman]

@AK: As to the similarity of archtypes, I'd say it's a result of the similarities of the social organizations of the peoples who invented those archtypes. The Christians, who really got going in the Hellenized culture of the eastern Mediterranean, had a whole grab-bag of archtypes from pre-existing religions to choose from, the main one being the heroic Mithras, who served in great degree as the marble from whom they sculpted Jesus.

[Edward Dean]

Oh stop it y'all....are you telling me God is dead and nobody invited me to the funeral????????:)

As for allowing children to know a godhead, is in the same context that we give them stories of Santa, the Easter bunny and Jack and the beanstalk. Illusory myths are all a part of human culture to explain our pre-knowledge fears.

[Abhi Kantamneni]

@Robert :- I wonder what it is in human nature or our evolution, that leads us to develop common archetypes for religious symbolism.  The journey of infinite mystery you speak of, is very very intriguing. I think that for people who subscribe to any religion, that journey has ended for them prematurely.

[Stephen Buss]

It seems my adequate halo is in need of being sent elsewhere! Your dad seems like an obvious choice. 

[Robert Crisman]

@AK: Could be your dad's arrogance in this matter is a form of self-defense against the far more numerous religiosos that exist in most cultures. As for the idea that not believing might be an "epic fuckup," well, imagine a universe minus Humans Writ Large (all gods) in which we can proceed scientifically to come up with some answers regarding who and what we actually are in relation to the universe. Given that every answer seems to beget a million questions--themselves answerable--we'd find ourselves on an infinite adventure of mystery and discovery that would leave the old throttling myths, along with our old tired mistakes, in the dust at long last.

The first Greek philosophers--Thales, Democritus, et al.--started this journey, which threatened among other things the god-ridden slave society that prevailed. Plato, a champion of slavery, shortstopped the journey with his metaphysics, rendered in scientific terminology which he stole from Democritus, whose writings, incidentally, he wanted burned.

[Abhi Kantamneni]

@Robert, I am sorry I completely missed the meaning of the word 'policy'. My dad, by nature is a soft and an unassuming man. With regards to his atheistic views, however, he appears to be as close minded as religious people are, refuses to engage in a civil debate.  However, I agree with you. Arrogance is a character trait that is not exclusive to any group.

@Mike Not believing would be an epic fuckup, like you said, more so if the odds were a simple 50:50 exist/not exist wager. However, like Dawkins (heh) said "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further" , the wager is now 1:298347298 possible gods of all the cultures in all of humanity, so I think we will do just fine :)

[Mike Handley]

Very nice job articulating an important discussion, which I hope remains civil.

I'm afraid talking points are useless in this debate, Abhi, as long as there are people who think a book was literally written by the hand of God, even if the readers embrace some chapters, summarily dismiss others, and can't agree on the meaning of myriad verses. Not believing could be an epic fuckup, but it's as much a valid choice (certainly a smarter wager) as any other on the shelf. The important thing is not to hide the shelf from young minds.

[Robert Crisman]

@AK: By policy, specifically with regard to individuals, I mean choice. People choose to believe, generally out of combination of fear coupled with the idea that God shall somehow confer prosperity upon them if they but toe the line their preachers lay down. This fear and opportunism is in turn buttressed by ignorance, itself a choice in the long run, given our access to info these days.

The search for info is, of course, governed by interest: if ignorance and fear chafe badly enough, you will do what it takes to root out the info you need to get past it.

And yes, the choice to believe in the Word bespeaks a mindset, itself shaped by social and political forces, in corporate-controlled media, schools, et al., in which the policy is to keep people ignorant of just who and what we are in the world. This policy is engendered by the recognition that a fearful, ignorant people is one most easily controlled in the service of corporate controllers.

I'd just add that, while your dad might have been brash and arrogant in expressing his atheistic views, I don't equate atheism with an individual's manner of expression. An atheist can be as arrogant as, well, a christian; it's the idea itself that must be examined and tested to determine its validity.

[Abhi Kantamneni]

@Teresa :-  In this day and age, marriage and religion are the sort of institutions that no sane person would invent, if they weren't already aware of their existence :).

With regards to my dad, he is an atheist and a doctor by profession, however I had quite a different battle to wage:- to retain my rationality and objective reasoning, without inheriting his brash and arrogant atheistic views.

@Sandra Thanks! Hes aid that to me when I was much younger, in a different context but I have found it useful to explain a lot of human behavior.

@Robert. I agree. However I do wonder sometimes, perhaps it is the mindset that begets the policy? For example, I cannot imagine, at least not withing the near foreseeable future,  a President of the nation who was not openly and vocally Christian.

[Abhi Kantamneni]

@Toby I agree with you wholeheartedly. Part of the reason why I am critical of Richard Dawkins and his brand of atheism, is that it ends up alienating people when you call them stupid for believing what they do. Dawkins preaches to his own choir, his books are bought and his message spreads only among like minded people.

I would like to be the Carl Sagan of atheism, where I try to breakdown complicated rationality arguments to a much much simpler form that everyone can enjoy.

@Gita It is funny you should mention the book, because I acquired the BBC series only yesterday. By 'acquired' I mean I downloaded it off the internet. (sssh) I think that as more and more people move out of religion and start thinking objectively, the ones that are left behind become more and more fanatical, because as time progresses, science makes it harder and harder for them to defend their belief system.

So I am afraid that whatever small seed of doubt they might have had, is probably covered in layers of self delusion by now.