Interbane

There cannot be such a thing as knowledge of God, so the term theist means nothing without it also being agnostic.

I guess I was thinking about labeling others, and if there could be no theist with knowledge of god, then all theist would have to be assumed to be agnostic, but, looking at it as a theist acknowledging themselves that they cannot 'know' but only 'believe', then this label does have meaning. And the same could be said for someone calling themselves an agnostic atheist as an acknowledgement that they 'believe' there is no god, but do not actually have 'knowlege' that there is no god.

DWill

My reaction to his assertion that an atheist merely starts at zero, has no orientation one way or the other, is that in the sliver of the real world that I know about, this doesn't seem to be so. Isn't an atheist usually someone who considers his or her atheism to indicate belief--belief in science, rationality, and materialism? They aren't just neutral about God, in my limited experience, but feel that non-belief would a better way for everyone to think (just as the religious feel this way about their beliefs). It's very hard, probably impossible, to be neutral about anything one believes rather passionately. I haven't read any of this book, but it seems clear that Barker is one such passionate proponent of atheism.

I think that an atheist can be at zero, or neutral, about belief in god, but not neutral to the effects of the belief in god has on his world. Barker's life was so controlled by his beliefs, that his zealousness to save others from what he perceives as false beliefs comes from the deep resentment he feels for his indoctrination. I have met many people who, when asked, refer to themselves as atheist and seem quite neutral about it, but they are not writing books, trying to change the views of others nor do they feel threatened or controlled by the religious views of other. If these atheist lived in a society where their rights were being challenged then I am sure they would not be so neutral.

DWill: "They aren't just neutral about God, in my limited experience, but feel that non-belief would a better way for everyone to think (just as the religious feel this way about their beliefs)."

I don't think non-belief is a better way to think. We all must have something to believe. What troubles me is a belief in monotheism, which when viewed from the atheist perspective is so obviously false; it's disturbing that people are still mezmerized by it's memetically contagious features.

I understand that's more or less what you were saying, I just like using the word 'memetically'. The problem also is, it's not simply that atheists think non-belief is the proper stance with respect to religion. It's that most people aren't aware that non-belief is the appropriate, default stance, until religion is shown valid or there is reason to believe. Part of the passion on atheists behalf is that most people are mislead on the groundwork of the debate, and it's frustrating. Like a mass of zombies!

I'm not sure if I've ever spoken about my beliefs. It's always about other people's beliefs, mainly religions, superstitions, and pseudoscience. Atheism does not indicate anything of my beliefs other than that they most certainly aren't theistic.

Interbane:What troubles me is a belief in monotheism, which when viewed from the atheist perspective is so obviously false; it's disturbing that people are still mezmerized by it's memetically contagious features
I just find language such as "contagion," "mesmerized," and "zombies" somewhat overblown, I'm sorry. But I also would be interested in hearing about why monotheism is the exclusive problem. Animism or polytheism okay, then?

As for memes, admittedly I don't know my Dawkins well enough. But do you find something suspicious in the notion of these memes being "out there" in any real sense? (not that I think Dawkins believes this, but his admirers seem to). I mean that of course there is no known physical reality to them, yet we hear them spoken of as if they were somehow really in circulation independent of peoples' minds. Memes seem to pair well with the idea of contagion, as well, as you reflect. My suggestion is that there is a slight touch of hysteria in such views of religion or monotheism, reminding me of the old "Reefer Madness" propaganda film. I have to ask directly: are you truly serious about this language, or are you using rhetorical overkill for effect?

DWill: "I just find language such as "contagion," "mesmerized," and "zombies" somewhat overblown, I'm sorry."

Yes, the language is a bit overblown. Sometimes you have to stress a point to make a point.

DWill: "But I also would be interested in hearing about why monotheism is the exclusive problem."

The others aren't a problem in this respect. It's merely convenient that the three major monotheisms are the ones with the most memetically contagious features. So referencing them by their single god characteristic is linguistically economical.

DWill: "But do you find something suspicious in the notion of these memes being "out there" in any real sense?"

They are no more out there than a computer virus is outside a computer. When you do math, say 2+2=4, the idea isn't only inside your head. It is not limited to you. Popper has some interesting ideas on objective knowledge, beyond math. There are ideas which have a "stickiness" characteristic, where people are more prone to accept, legitimize, and spread them.

DWill: "I have to ask directly: are you truly serious about this language, or are you using rhetorical overkill for effect?"

There is overkill, of course. My point for such overkill is that these contagious concepts actually are more contagious than people would like to believe. If structured differently, they would not spread throughout humanity nearly as well. So the overkill is only overkill to an extent, with the truth as I see it lying somewhere between. Like I said, I use the terms to stress the point. If I used more tender rhetoric, the idea(which still is not accurately captured by words) would pass in one ear and out the other of those who are resistant to it.

Re agnosticism and knowledge, there is a strong sense in which faith is agnostic about the nature of God. For example, in Islam, according to the Qur'an, "No vision can grasp God, but God's grasp is over all vision. God is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things" (Qur'an 6:103) There is a logical sense here in which that which makes comprehension possible is itself beyond comprehension. The claim to know the nature of God was traditionally seen as an impious heresy. Jesus Christ was accused of this by the Jewish priests, whose pious worship took an approach of believing in a wholly ineffable source. The ironic problem with this piety is that it became encrusted into dogma which was then incapable of transformation, and claimed status as absolute knowledge, for example with creationism, when science pushed the boundaries to limit the scope of activity previously attributed to God. Niebuhr provides an illuminating analysis of how the modern fetishism of control has absolutised false belief in a dangerous way. RT

That strong sense of agnosticism is distinctly different. You're speaking of knowing the nature of god, where his existence is never questioned, only our ability to comprehend him.

Interbane: Yes, the language is a bit overblown. Sometimes you have to stress a point to make a point
I think precisely the opposite is true, if by "stress" you mean using such strongly emotive language. That doesn't really stress your point, but will make the point seem to a reader to be other than what you might intend. For someone as attached to philosophy as you are, I would think that priority one would be to reduce emotional distortion as much as possible.
It's merely convenient that the three major monotheisms are the ones with the most memetically contagious features. So referencing them by their single god characteristic is linguistically economical
Ever think why these monotheisms spread beyond the level of tribes and single cultures? You again seem to grant these notions some objective status divorced from the creating and mediating power of human minds. Aren't you coming perilously close to supernaturalism? This notion of "memetic contagion" lacks all recognition of the fact that religious ideas, like all ideas centered in the emotions, are continually reworked and modified within individuals and social groups. This analogy of viral contagion is crude, merely a scientific metaphor, and ignores psychology. The point you are missing is that, whether we like it or not, monotheisms were readily accepted, readily welcomed, by a large percentage of human beings. To say that indoctrination accounts for this spread of religion is a baldly inadequate explanation. Yes, these ideas are "sticky." But WHY are they sticky?

And is it only the power or success of monotheism that makes it more objectionable than, say, polytheistic Hinduism (pretty "successful" in its own right)?[/i]

DWill: "I think precisely the opposite is true, if by "stress" you mean using such strongly emotive language."

No, by "stress", I mean using languange that is of higher value in the range of the concept I'm describing. If someone says a mountain is short, I'd say the mountain is indescribably tall to counter their misunderstanding. Our agreement lies in the middle, which is a good approximation to the truth. If the greater conceptual value of the term is emotionally loaded as well, perhaps that is precisely why the truth isn't seen more clearly by the believers. I'm not sure if calling religion memetically contagious is even stretching the truth. It rings very true in my brain.

DWill: "You again seem to grant these notions some objective status divorced from the creating and mediating power of human minds."

Then what I seem to do is different from my understanding of the subject. In turn I believe you're misunderstanding me.

DWill: "This notion of "memetic contagion" lacks all recognition of the fact that religious ideas, like all ideas centered in the emotions, are continually reworked and modified within individuals and social groups."

I think in some of the ideas I present, you fail to read between the lines. It takes effort on the reader's part to understand. I recognize the dynamic nature of religious ideas. The majority of a belief system may change over time, but as long as a few key ingredients remain the same, the system will retain is't memetical features.

DWill: "This analogy of viral contagion is crude, merely a scientific metaphor, and ignores psychology."

It is an analogy after all. Closer to home is the description of memetically contagious, different than without the adjective. Even this falls short of being a philosophical intuition pump, though with the adjective it then does not ignore psychology. It's a shorthand descriptive phrase, and we can delve into the details if you'd like. I think discussing a book on memetics would be appropriate and enjoyable. Pick one if you'd like, I'll order it from Amazon.

DWill: "But WHY are they sticky?"

YES! This question is key. It deserves it's own thread, but I'm too lazy to create one right now.

DWill:
But WHY are they sticky?"

Interbane: YES! This question is key. It deserves it's (sic) own thread, but I'm too lazy to create one right now.

I had thought that I answered the question very generally, at least. The ideas are sticky because they obviously are products of human minds in the first place, and they correspond with leanings that come naturally with human cognition. We'd have to attribute the stickiness to people and not the ideas, really (or should I say "blame" the stickiness on people?)

And speaking of lazy, this might be part of my problem in understanding you...but should this entail so much work?

DWill: "The ideas are sticky because they obviously are products of human minds in the first place, and they correspond with leanings that come naturally with human cognition."

Those aren't characteristics that contribute to stickiness. Ease of assimilation perhaps, but not stickiness. The stickiness is actually found within the ideas themselves. The major one is heaven and hell coupled with lack of belief resulting in being sent to hell. Morality being given to us by God is another. We have a soul that was given to us by God. Prayer... some people have listed thousands of consort memes. Each is it's own topic of debate, but then the subject of memetically contagious religions is also huge.