Yeah, it sure sounds that way if you read Sky's posts.

Or for anyone who has so little tolerance for 'other views' that they can't even listen to a materialist speak frankly from their own materialist perspective without mis-interpreting it as an attack on spiritualism.

How is this so with some examples please ?.

He did use religion – he preyed upon the ‘beliefs’ of groups of people otherwise there would have been no holocaust. Jewish people had different values, different ‘beliefs’, retarded people could pass their genes so must be cleared from the breeding trough. Hitler built a step by step model – have you ever reviewed Stanley Milgram’s great experiment? Every step a person takes makes that person more vulnerable to going deeper.

The tools that Hitler used were exactly the same, he used people’s religious differences to create looming negative results. He essentially created a new state religion, in which the only right nation was a totally Aryan nation.



He does not claim it should be irradicated, he does advocate for education beginning in lower grade levels than college.

He also made one comment I cannot agree with and I’m not sure if he really meant it or was just trying to show how deeply he feels that religion poses a great threat. He said he thought the United Nations should make it illegal U.N. affiliated nations to allow the religious indoctrination of children.

It’s not that I don’t agree that children are at greatest risk for indoctrination (look at the ages of suicide bombers or for that matter look as the ages of the kids who denied their parents to follow Hitler) but there is no way I could stand for that kind of policing nor the diminishing freedoms it would include.



EVERYONE who holds a particular religious belief has automatically divided the world into us and them – they have automatically determined their group is not only the best but the right one (or they would not affiliate with a particular one). These are first steps – and anyone at any time can add new ones – (Branch Dividians in Waco – Jim Jones Guyanna – Bin-Laden and Islam).



Is there a religious doctrine – an organized group related to a Pantheistic belief? Remember we are talking about groups with established doctrines or beliefs that can become doctrine. I don’t think Pantheism is yet that far along. However, it may get there and that group will have the ability to manipulate and because of their indoctrinated believes they will be more easily manipulated as well.



Why would you replace current religious beliefs and leave the religion when nothing else has changed? We still have the same vulnerabilities because of the innate characteristics natural selection has provided us.



I know you were not able to view the lecture. Much of what you ask I have explained in my recent posts this afternoon. But let me try another way. Religion is a man-made concept which more easily developed because of our nature – those capacities of natural selection that help us survive, they also make us vulnerable because we don’t understand how those capacities work. (well we do to a great extent, but it’s not common knowledge – Yet). So there is no one religion that is in question, but all religions.

Once again we don’t see a lot off problems from the smaller, more individual and non-organized beliefs – but the fact that these beliefs have been developed by humans leaves every one of them open to development and hence to become the future tools of manipulation.

I think that's a great topic! Worthy of its own thread.

Well, this is where the line becomes mighty fine indeed.

Is there an organized 'Group' related to a pantheistic belief?

What about the many forms of Buddhism? Yoga? How about Wicca? What about the "Faery Teachings" which many people may might laugh as as sounding as silly as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but many other people take very serious.

Deepak Chopra is one individual that I'm aware of that has indeed created "Well-being Centers" where he teaches his pantheitic views. He uses the "Vedic Sutras" from ancient India. If that's not "doctrine" I don't know what is. I have a complete set of his lessons. These are actual video footage of him, and other doctors and spiritualists who work at the Chopra Center giving lectures to groups of people who are attending these classes.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that these are not claiming to be the 'word of god', and they certainly don't appear 'dangerous' in any way at all. They are quite positive and focused on love. But just the same they can easily been seen as 'indoctrinated religion'.

Without a doubt!

So where's the line? Where do we draw the line between what's dangerous and what's not?

Christopher Penczak is other example of someone I'm aware of who offers classes on withcraft and shamanism. He goes around teaching people who to commune with the Gods. How to cast circles, and perform magick spells. Again, he does this entirely from a loving and constructive point of view. He is constantly demanding that we always ask the Gods to only help us if it's for the higher good of all harming none. (he says that so often that many 'witches' actually don't care for him because they perfer to us black magick against their enemies)

But that's beside the point. The point is that he is teaching a spiritual view that is indeed compatible with pantheism (even though some people may not understand that because he does speak of the "god, goddess, and great spirit", but those are archetypes, not necessarily actual "deities", in fact, he leaves that up to you.

But if we were going to make a law against any 'indoctrinated' religion that could end up with having actual laws against teaching or writing any kind of religious books!

That would truly suck!

How do they go about drawing a line between these things?

As far as I can see, about the only thing that would make sense is that no religions are allowed to claim to have any actual "words of god" in their doctrines.

That would eliminate all the Abrahamic religions, Judasim, Islam, Catholicism and all forms of Protestant Christianity. Because all of those claim to have books that contain the "Word of God".

Neither Deepak Chopra, nor Christopher Penczak claim to have any "word of God". But they both do indeed use "documented" and "historic traditions", which can indeed be labeled as "Organized indoctrinated Religion".

I'm not about to stand by whilst atheists demand that no religion is allowed to be "organizied" or "indoctrinated". That's baloney.

That would be the same as saying, "Look you can believe whatever you want as an individual as long as you keep your mouth shut about it, don't teach it to other people, and don't write it down!

That's spiritual censorship!

Come on Di! You don't want to support that!

Good Post Redy.

Now let me see if I can simplify this a little bit.

All of the “motivation” could be summed up as “desire to further survival goals” – the survival of oneself or one’s group(s). (Familial, political and religious are the groups that are pertinent to the discussion at hand).

In other words, anything anyone does is fundamentally an attempt at “increasing survival potential of self or group”.

The desire to “fit in” and the desire to “find caretakers” are both offshoots of that fundamental motivation. “Fitting in” is essentially “combining forces”, resulting in working together to attain a common survival goal instead of working separately to attain them or working against each other to attain opposing survival goals. Likewise, “finding caretakers” is essentially the same thing – finding other’s who share common survival goals. (The “caretaker” shares the goal of increasing the survival potential of the cared for.)

So applying that fundamental motivation of all life forms to suicide bombers, the suicide bomber has as his motivation “the desire to increase the survival potential of himself and/or his group.” That is the bottom line. That is his ultimate goal. That is why he does what he does.

Now from there we get to concept of “naturally selected properties” and how they fit in with this fundamental motivation of all life forms.

What exactly are these “naturally selected properties?

And this is the question I’m a little fuzzy on. I don’t know exactly what that phrase means. Are we talking about motivation or ability. That is, are we taking about why or how.

If we’re talking about “motivation” (why), then I think I’ve pretty well covered that. “Increased survival potential of self and/or group” is the motivation in a nutshell.

Or if we’re talking about “abilities” (how), then we must talk about “cognitive abilities”. (Physical abilities have little or no bearing in this scenario.) And mental/cognitive abilities essentially boil down to an individual evaluation of the available data and a subsequent decision based on that evaluation.

And the evaluation must necessarily have as it’s ultimate purpose a determination of the “best” course of action. (“Best” meaning “the one that affords the highest survival potential for self/group”). That is the whole reason for the evaluation.

So again, applying that to the suicide bomber, his evaluation of the available data leads him to the conclusion that a suicide bombing will accomplish that goal of “optimum survival ” – that is, bombing affords higher survival potential for self/groups that does not bombing.

So as I see it, the whole problem boils down to the combination of “cognitive abilities” + “survival goals”.

And if we equate “cognitive abilities” with “naturally selected properties” and assume “religion” to be either a survival goal itself (i.e. “spiritual survival”), or a vehicle used to achieve a survival goal (i.e. doctrines for a sort of “roadmap to increased survival on the spiritual level), then Dr Andy seems to have reached a similar conclusion.

Now at this point, I won’t bother to go into the differing opinions as to whether the cognitive abilities are a product of evolution, or evolution is a product of cognitive abilities, (which Abra touched on earlier) because there’s really no way to prove either one. It’s simply a chicken/egg debate that depends totally on the starting premise. And it really doesn’t matter anyway.

So all we’re talking about regarding the “naturally selected properties” are the two factors I stated above – “cognitive abilities” and “survival goals”.

And the “problem” is a combination of the two. That is, either the cognitive abilities are aberrant, or the survival goals are aberrant, or both.

So what Dr Andy appears to be saying is that both are aberrant (contra-survival) in the case of suicide bombers.

Now I don’t have a problem with the idea that the cognitive process that lead them to the contra-survival decision (suicide bombing) is aberrant. I happen to agree with that. So there’s no reason to address that.

But let’s look at the survival goals factor – specifically the “religious” aspect. (One could really pick any survival goal here – familial, political, religious, or anything else – but “religion” is the one we’re discussing here so I’ll go with that.)

The fundamental premise underlying all religions (not just the Mediterranean ones) is based on some concept of “spirit” and the survival potential thereof. For example, going to heaven constitutes higher survival potential than going to hell. (Note that “survival potential” is not an absolute “dead or alive” concept here. It is a relative thing. Surviving in heaven is “better than” surviving in hell.)

So we have this other factor of “spiritual survival goals” – which is what religion is all about.

Now Dr Andy has focused entirely on what he considers to be contra-survival spiritual goals. That is, he is saying that suicide bombing, and all the doctrines that support it and all the aberrant cognitive processes that lead up to it, are contra-survival in the spiritual/religious sense. And here again, I happen to agree. (But again, that is based on my own personal spiritual survival goals.)

However…

He makes no mention whatsoever of any pro-survival spiritual survival goals – only the contra-survival ones.

And that is, to me, the fundamental bias of his entire presentation.

His conclusion lumps together all spiritual survival goals (under the heading of “religion”) and assigns them the label “dangerous”- specifically and directly excluding any possibility of religion having any pro-survival merit whatsoever. (Abra has addressed this very thing as well.)

Now considering his exclusion of relevant evidence (all pro-survival spiritual goals), combined with his well known position on all things spiritual (i.e. Atheism) it looks to me like he started out with a pre-conceived idea and then just “cherry picked” whatever evidence would support that pre-conceived idea.

It is for that reason that I don’t consider his presentation, or his conclusion, very scientific.

This is a lot of concern over something which is not happening. Even these hard-core materialists simply acknowledged a desire for something FIFTY OR A HUNDRED years in the future.




You go Abra! Now where is this atheist that is doing this, in the present tense?

Well, I'm not feeling up to 'arguing' about it right now. That's for sure.

It also comes down to quantum phsyics too. And that's always a controversial topic. What I often find is that people either don't understand quantum physics well enough to understand the concepts, or they flat-out deny that quantum physics even says what is says.

Instead, then just claim that "we just don't know enough yet to say". If that's the attitude then there's nothing more to discuss as far as I'm concerned.

So my first questions to anyone who wants to discuss this in earnest would be:

1. Do you understand Inflation Theory (in any depth)?
2. Do you accept that Inflation Theory is the strongest scientific theory of the Big Bang we currently have?
3. Do you realize that Inflation Theory is totally dependent upon Quantum Mechanics?
4. Do you realize that Inflation Theory states that the total mass/energy of the universe is basically zero for all intents and purposes?
5. Do you realize that Inflation Theory demands that the laws of quantum physics "existed" prior to the "birth" of spacetime?

If a person can honestly answer yes to all of the above, we might be able to proceed. Otherwise, it's pretty futile to even attempt to discuss it.

Real scientists rarely meet the common expectation for scientific objectivity/neutrality. They are humans, and as such are ignorant and emotional and biased and committed to their personal worldviews. Psychology has even less 'objective foundation' than other sciences. I don't see this as a big deal, its life. Take a look at some of the poorly edited budget science textbooks for elementary school for some real indoctrination. He's presenting a mixture of facts and theories and personal opinions, and I didn't feel that he was dressing anything up. Even his 'choir' as you call them sought to challenge him on some issues.



He also didn't mention the public service that the jihadists have done. Further, he didn't even make a comprehensive list of contra-survival ones - only the contra-survival ones that were related to his topic. Should I be offended? Should I call him out for being biased towards a topic? He could have a should have listed a lot more contra-survival 'spiritual goals', to be more complete. Oh, wait... was that not the point of his talk?

Fifty or a hundred years isn't very long at all. That's a blink of an eye.

And I never suggested that it's happening. I'm sure that would not be easy to implement. But none-the-less, this sure seems to be what's being suggested here.

All I hear is "Religion is dangeous". Period.

Specific types of religous beliefs just aren't being focused on like I feel they should be. (like books that claim to be the "word of God") If they were focused solely on that idea I might even join the cause. But to denounce organized spiritual beliefs in general just isn't right at all, and I will most certainly oppose that.

Hey, what if reincarnation is true? I might have to come back here and live with these yo-yo atheists.

I better help to oppose them now before they get out of hand.

They're sounding as fanatical as the people who demand that we worship God.

Which is more dangerous? People who demand we worship god? Or people who demand we never mention god?

It's seems to me that these are equally extremist views.

Where's the middle path?

When I actually come across someone doing this, I will oppose it with you.



Well, he did specifically mention those circumstances in which a person claims that they have a direct line to God, while you do not, and that you should follow them because of that. That hardly 'all spiritual organizations'.

And that situation, with the 'guy with an exclusive direct line to God' is not terribly unlike having books that are 'the word of God'.

Much is being made of his casual use of the word "religion".



I have met fanatical atheists, and know that in general, your concerns are legitimate.

Where there is belief in mysticism created by man, there will be men to change it. Hinduism a branch from the tree of Buddhism, created the caste system in which people accepted their lot in life, not only accepted by oppressed every class below them. From this religion was spawned female infanticide (still existing today) even very young girls are denied food and care in deference to their brothers.
Buddhism is not a singular sect it has experienced its own schisms, the fundamentalist (traditional sect) Theravada, and the Mahayana and there is no love lost between the two sects, each claims to have the true path.

Wicca is not organized, there are no codes that are doctrinalized, in fact most prefer it that way, it allows for greater creativity while one decides what mystic beliefs they prefer. Most create their own. It’s kind of tough to indoctrinate someone when there is no logical order to the process.

Yoga – don’t know much about it, other than the yogi are somewhat like Wicca, they tend to create their own belief system and those that find some identity with a yogi may adopt some of the thought , so once again there is little there to make it an organized religions.

Never-the-less, the great issue is in the beliefs themselves. Dr. Andy (and a lot of others) attempt to explain how such beliefs are just extensions of the ambiguity that exists between the cognitive and the genetic. Using my previous illustration, we know when people are dead but the survival mechanism (call it kinship, care giver relationship or reciprocity of care) that so tightly connects us a person (the body) does not cease to exist and so the signals between our cognitive (I know this person is dead) and the innate (I must stay close and care for this person for reciprocal exchange) get confused become ambiguous. So we still talk to the body, treat it with care and respect and even hold dream that we are with that person.

This is a pathway to our vulnerable nature – this can easily be turned into the idea that “you still care because their spirit is still alive” – out there, in heaven, nirvana – whatever. Then next step is that you begin to believe in other aspects of a religion and it continues.

So the point is all beliefs in the supernatural/mysticism are subject both to become both manipulated and manipulator of group of people.

There is no benign faith in the supernatural.

You are correct that is no way to stop indoctrination, we can however use education to help young students begin to understand their vulnerabilities.

Unfortunately this only works in countries that would use it, those with greater freedoms - not too many, I expect at least not yet.

Well, I've spent quite a few posts in response to (what I see as) a misrepresentation of the lecturer... but coming over to this side of the conversation, I must say that I disagree with you Red. If a person's faith has encouraged them to be virtuous, and helps them to face death with their mind and heart at peace - well I would see that as benign. I believe you would acknowledge this, and say that its the potential for manipulation which is the problem.... but I actually agree with Sky, Abra, and others that not all faiths and circumstances of faith and individual's faiths are equally subject to manipulation.

If we were to guard against all such psychological phenomena which could potentially lead to such manipulation, we would have to take a hard look at so many parts of the human experience... patriotism, maternal love/protectiveness for children... the desire for acceptance in a group...

Ok, if you’re defining religion as a “group phenomenon”, that’s fine. I just don’t happen to think that is a very useful way to look at it.

I believe in the existence of atoms based solely on what I have been told by others. So by your logic, I could just as well say that science constitutes a “group”. And I don’t consider that a very useful way to look at science for the very same reasons.

Not only that, but my personal religious beliefs are not solely based on what I have heard from others. They are in fact, largely based on what I have evaluated myself based on my own personal experiences. And I think excluding that personal factor from any consideration about religion is equivalent to simply ignoring relevant evidence. The fact is that religion is not entirely a group phenomena. It can be, and often is, very personal and individual with no dependence on any group at all.

So really, this is just a difference in definition. You appear to be talking about what I would label “religions groups”, whereas I am talking about “religious beliefs” irrespective of whether or not they align with anyone else’s beliefs, which to me is a very distinctly different thing.

There is a world of difference here between our respective opinions about a couple things:

1) I consider the “nature” of all life to be essentially spiritual. Thus, “understanding one’s nature” is necessarily a fundamentally religious undertaking.
1) I would rephrase “the innate capacities of survival” as “the innate goal to survive” and the “capacities” are the cognitive processes. Thus, it is the manipulation of the cognitive processes that results in the aberrant (or contra-survival) goals.

Now I only mention that as informational, no it as argumentative, because I don’t consider it to be a difference that has much to do with the arguments.

And here again, we have different opinions as to what constitutes “problem”. As far as I’m concerned, the ultimate problem is “suicide bombings”. That is the problem I’m addressing. And it is my feeling that the best solution for that problem is to eradicate the aberrant though processes that lead to the conclusion that it is a pro-survival action. Not only does that solve the immediate problem of suicide bombings, but it prevents the problem from ever occurring again by eradicating the critical part of the mechanism that allows the phenomenon to come into being. That is, a totally rational mind would not be able to be “hijacked”. That is the purpose of the proposed solution (education) is it not?

And the eradication of aberrant though processes also obviates any need to eradicate religion (unless, of course, one considers any belief in any religious doctrine to be the result of aberrant though processes – which I disagree with). So I see it as a win-win solution that addresses and solves all the problems because it “fixes” the true cause.

And I don’t have any disagreement with that as a goal. If it eradicates the aberrant thought processes, then I’m all for it. My only objection to it was on practical grounds. But I must admit that I have no practical ideas on how to eradicate the aberrant thought processes of a suicide bomber, so I guess I shouldn’t have even objected to it at all.

Well I certainly wouldn’t suggest the eradication of all religion, since:
1) Religion is not the only source if indoctrination that can lead to violence, as you have already pointed out (i.e. nationalism, gang loyalties, etc.)
2) Religion has some highly pro-survival aspects that I would not want eradicated (effectively “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.)

You are attributing fundamentally innate characteristics to cognitive preferential. We do not think about genetically motivated attributes, we don’t have to. That’s why nature selected these characteristics, because they worked without thought. That is why these ‘capacities’ make us vulnerable and why they can be exploited.

Example: get someone to agree verbally to do something they really don’t want to, they may or they may not. Get the same person to write down what they agree to and the chances they will do it are consistently more likely. Get that person to say it, write it and publically state it and not only will most of them do it, but they will most likely state later they were glad they did or that they enjoyed it.

Next time you ask that person, increase the demand and remind them how much they enjoyed the last time – they are even more likely than before to follow through.

That is an example of how we can not only get a person to do something they might not really agree with, but how we can them change their mind about it and increase the demand more successfully the next time.

We can teach people why that happens and how to avoid it – because the key is cognition and understanding of why we do what we do.



“naturally selected properties” (evolved – survival of the fittest) that is the link Dr. Andy is offering support for.

They are internally driven mechanisms, we have identified them with terms related to their characteristics, such as: kin psychology, coalition psychology, naïve sociology, transference, fundamental attribution error, self-serving bias, false consensus and uniqueness, mere presense, groupthink, and many more. There are new ones like the HADD that I described in a post to Abra.

All are functions crucial to our survival, but because they surface automatically, (without cognitive motivation) they make us vulnerable to suggestion.


The rest of you post is based on assumptions you have made with the wrong information. Please rephrase your questions with the new information I have provided.

Abra (James) - REALLY, between your quantum physics religion and my social/psychology religion, we are really becoming a pair of fundmentalists....

That's an extremist view right there don't you think?

After reading your post all I see is a paranoia of spirituality.

Besides, what does "supernatural" even mean?

Science truly has no clue what the hell is going on.

So as far as science is concerned the very existence of this universe is "supernatural".

You act like, just because we've made a few observations about how the unviverse may have unfolded that we actually know something about nature?

This is where I'm not convinced at all. You speak about atheism (or non-spirituality) with such confidence that it comes across that you are totally convinced that it's a fact, without a doubt.

Well, you may very well feel that way. But I don't.

I've studied science my entire life and if I've learned anything at all it's that we don't truly know anything at all.

Sure, we know some superficial stuff about how the unvierse may have started as a quantum fluctuation and unfolded from there, and how our solar system was formed, and how we evolved on this planet (even though we can't even how that evolution actaully got "started").

But if you think that means that we actually "know something" then this is where we part ways. Because, in truth, what we know doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the real mysteries of life and existence that we don't know.

I'm not prepared to conclude atheism.

I don't "conclude" spirituality either.

But I'm open to both, and I confess that I lean toward the spiritual picture for many reasons (many of which are actually based upon our current understanding of science).

I also confess that I do indeed see a spiritual picture as being far more inviting and even "romantic" if you like.

If indeed it is true that no such thing as spirit exists I can honesly say that I sincerely hope that it can never be proven. I think if atheism (or non-spirituality) was proven to be the truth of our existence, you'd see crime and violence go through the roof because people would quickly adopt an attitude that nothing matters anymore.

Look at how many criminals and abusive spouses there are already even though most people believe in some sort of spirit (whether it be a judgmental godhead or even karma). Take away those ideals and what are we left with? Anything goes! If you can get away with it more power to you! Who's going to judge you? No karma to worry about either.

Just do whatever you can get away with. Why not? The whole thing is just a stupid accident anyway. We have people today who actually believe that a god migh exist and they do horrible things. If they had been brought up from childhood being taught that there is no god how much more violent might they be?

You say that there is no benign faith in the supernatural.

I say that teaching children to "believe" in atheism (and non-spirituality) would be even more destructive.

This is incorrect Sky. The motivation of a suicide attacker is certainly NOT furthering their own survival goals. Specifically, it involves a divine reward after death which comes from a deeply held religious belief.



What "has already been legitimately contested"?



No it's not. Just because through YOUR perception one may seem to be desperate does not make it so. In fact, if you research the idea, those individuals who are "selected" are anything but desperate in their own minds. They, therefore, do not feel desperate. One of the criteria in participant selection includes those who are calm, cool, and collected.

While there have been political agendas involved, that alone is not a universal constant. It is not the case that all known examples have an attached political agenda.



Again, your opinion here does not correlate with the known facts. While it is true that there are marked decreases in suicide attacks involving those with more capable weapons, those said weapons do not completely replace and/or eliminate the suicide attacks.



Ummm... I am quite unsure what your referring to. Dr. Andy never concluded that religion was the sole factor in suicide bomber psychology. Therefore, because that conclusion does not even exist, it could not have possibly been shown to be false.



I have no idea what you are saying here in regards to the actual lecture. None-the-less, the two statements above still do not make much sense to me.

Because A.) is true, it is a fact that some religious people are peaceful. However, the fact that some are doea not negate the fact that others are not.

Therefore B.) is false.



I agree with your sentiment Abracadabra.



I am quite certain that that is not the only reason that his view of religion is whatever it is. I do not remember him using the term denounce.

What he seems to be doing, in my opinion, is showing logical reason(s) to look into the idea that he is presenting, which Di has layed out rather well thus far... there is more.



Cheers to you Di!!!

I don't understand that idea. By looking at specific religions you would have to identify all the particular doctrine which applies to that sect. And what function would that serve?

Would you seed to change their doctrine?

Pehaps the next new country to emerge should include a specific legislations for religions. All doctrine must be submitted for review to coincide with the general morals of the nations. And will be codified become a legally followed set of rules.

When a rule is broken the person or persons involved will have to stand trial in a court that specialized in that particular doctrine.



(you all know I DON'T TAKE THE DANCING BANANA LIGHTLY)....