제안 bet 365 링크 _ 제안 bet 365 환전 _ 프로모션 룰렛 플래시 소스 
 July 14 , 2010 | By Erich Vieth 	 More 
 This is the third installment of a series of postings I ’ ve titled “ Mending Fences . ”? You ’ ll find the first installment here . 
 Thanks to the new atheists , atheists are now part of something that is akin to a civil rights movement . Based on historical precedent , though , civil rights movements don ’ t become successful when they encourage their members to be angry and to call the the aggressors “ stupid , ” at least not in the long run . ? Nor is it productive to frame what we want to accomplish as a “ war ” on ignorance , or any other type of war , because “ wars ” ( on drugs , terrorism ) usually polarize opposing camps indefinitely . To stop discrimination against non - believers , we should borrow the successful methods used by women , blacks , gays and other oppressed minorities . 
 In short , we need to add a strong educational component to our movement . Most of the people who make derogatory comments do so without examining the roots of their aggressive impulses . ? I agree with Hannah Arendt who , in Eichmann in Jerusalem , argued that most damage is not done by people trying to cause damage , but by normal people who fail to think things through — that is the nature of what Arendt termed “ the banality of evil . ” How do we counteract deep unexamined prejudices against atheists ? 
 If all of the atheist Americans glowed as dots on a national map , everyone flying overhead would see tens of millions of law - abiding atheists from coast to coast . ?? We are taxpayers . We fight in the military . ? We are actors , housewives , musicians , business people , parents , police officers , scientists and teachers . ?? We are inextricably socially connected to believers . We are their brothers , daughters , co - workers and neighbors . We give to charity too , including prominent atheists who give billions to help the poor ( e . g . , Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ) . We spend disproportionately less time in prison than those who believe in God . Doubtless , there will sometimes be sharp words , especially whenever fundamentalists push hard to turn our governments into their churches . ? For those moments , Dawkins , Harris and Christopher Hitchens might well continue to serve well as our version of the young Malcolm X . ? But anger and biting back can ’ t be our long - term solution . 
 In short , we need to use the strategies employed by Martin Luther King . The media loves conflict , though , and will take every opportunity to magnify any conflict that occurs regarding atheists and attempt to make cartoons out of complex situations . Even though many believers make cartoons of atheists — they don ’ t take the time to get to know who we are before judging us — we should resist the temptation to reciprocate by painting all believers with a broad brush . ? We shouldn ’ t stoop to their tactics . ? We need to be careful whenever we use the pronouns “ they ” and “ them , ” which are often the unwitting precursors of bigotry . 
 It is critically important to remember that huge numbers of believers are good - hearted people who judge atheists by the content of their character . ? Many believers have been standing up for our rights , even when they didn ’ t understand us and even while they didn ’ t agree with us . We need to show at least as much patience and tolerance as millions of religious moderates have shown to us . 
 None of what I am writing implies that we can ’ t vigorously disagree with believers . ? Everything that can be said , though , can and should be said with precision , patience and compassion . Let us show all believers that we can vigorously disagree without condescendingly calling each other stupid or immoral . ? We can acknowledge our differences without dwelling on them and without ruining valuable working relationships . ? But even more important , we must take extra care when disagreeing because we have so incredibly much in common . ? Most of us aren ’ t nearly as different as we are often encouraged to believe by reckless line - drawers on both extremes . 
 Many atheists proclaim that the proper response to religion is science , as if science already has all the answers . ? I agree that it ’ s better to have as much good science as we can , but I don ’ t agree that present - day science offers all of the answers to life ’ s most pressing questions . ? For instance , what science book should people consult to decide whom to marry or whether to turn down a job offer ? 
 Perhaps my questions bring to mind what Stephen Jay Gould had in mind when he argued that religion and science consisted of “ non - overlapping magisteria . ” ? ? I think Gould takes it too far in the other direction , however . ? Maybe it ’ s true that certain frames of meaning don ’ t overlap , but numerous religious “ facts ” do conflict head - on with indisputable scientific findings ( e . g . , the age of the Earth and the claims that dead people can return to life ) . ? It seems obvious to me that an extraordinarily large number of “ facts ” claimed by many religions overlap with and conflict with scientific demonstrable facts . ?? We must not over - extrapolate , however . 
 It also ignores Nobel Prize winner Niko Tinbergen ’ s caveat that “ why ” questions break into four separate “ why ” questions that address the behavior ’ s A ) history ( how did it evolve ) , B ) ontogeny ( how it developed over the animal ’ s life ) , C ) function ( how it enhances the animal ’ s success at survival and reproduction ) and D ) proximate cause ( which addresses the animal ’ s biological mechanism engaged in that behavior ) . ? Why do religious people insist on the literal truth of miraculous stories ? ? Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris give short shrift to most of these scientific “ why ” questions when they forge ahead with their conclusions that all religions are social viruses , summarily ruling out that religion might be an evolutionary adaptation . Despite their oftentimes electrifying intellectual rigor , Dawkins and Harris have downplayed important scientific questions on the issue of the cause and function of religion . ? Instead , they have engaged in name - calling ( e . g . , calling religion as a “ virus ” ) . ? By comparison , Daniel Dennett ’ s Breaking the Spell implores us to spend the time to do the necessary science before jumping to scientific conclusions . 
 Numerous other researchers have been working hard to carefully apply science to religion without prematurely calling for the elimination of all religion . ? For example , see Pascal Boyer ’ s Religion Explained ( 2002 ) . ? Here ’ s more on Boyer ’ s work . And see here . Isn ’ t it possible that religious groupishness might be an adaptation ? ? Religious rituals appear to be such n commonplace and resilient set of behaviors in our species that it might tempt us to call religious loyalty “ innate . ” ? ? It would be baldly unscientific to claim that any behavior is “ innate , ” however , unless that claim has been unpacked neurologically , and that has not yet been done with religion . Regardless , we clearly need to do more science before writing off religion as an aberration or summarily rejecting that evolution has honed many of us to be religious ( not that anyone is claiming that humans evolved to join any particular religion ) . 
 David Sloan Wilson has repeatedly warned that we shouldn ’ t simply write off religion as a dangerous malfunction . ? [ See Evolution for Everyone : How Darwin ’ s Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives ( 2007 ) and Darwin ’ s Cathedral : Evolution , Religion , and the Nature of Society ( 2003 ) . ]? He urges that religion might yet be proven to be an adaptation and that we need to do the research to figure this out . ? In Darwin ’ s Cathedral , Wilson wrote that our species “ is the primate equivalent of a beehive or a single organism . ” This claim should resonate with anyone who has seen the intense social cohesiveness of many church congregations . Whatever the origin of the various stories regarding gods and miracles , perhaps humans have evolved the ability to exapt religious beliefs into impressive methods of social coordination and control . ? [ Note : An exaptation is a trait that evolved to serve one particular function , but was co - opted by the organism to serve another purpose . ] David Sloan Wilson suggests that religions appear to facilitate group selection , allowing large groups of people to function as super - organisms . ? He repeatedly warns that the research is only getting started , and that we must not jump the gun by writing off religion as maladaptive . ?? Wilson argues that even if there are no supernatural beings , we still need to answer three important questions : 
 1 . ? Can we explain the phenomenon of religion in naturalistic terms ? 2 . ? What are the impacts of religion , good or bad , on human welfare ? ? and 3 . ? How can we use our understanding of religion to advance the goals of a stable and peaceful society ? See this discussion at Edge . org 
 Gregory Paul ’ s meticulous research findings that religion is not “ some strange mental enchantment that requires dedicated effort to exorcise from the human mind . ” ? ? “ The Big Religion Questions Finally Solved , ” Free Inquiry , Dec 2008 / Jan 2009 , pp . 24 - 36 . ? Paul ’ s research suggests that religion tends to melt away whenever the majority of citizens “ enjoy democratic governance and a secure , comfortable , middle - class lifestyle in the context of a corporate - consumer popular culture that is shaped by the influence of modern science . ” We also need better science before accusing religious moderates of encouraging religious fanatics . ? We can do much better than blaming , taunting and lecturing all believers , especially where we lack credible scientific data establishing that religious moderates are actually to blame for the damage wreaked by extremists . 
 Based on my own experiences ( including my visits to fundamentalist churches and many hours monitoring fundamentalist talk radio ) , religious extremists seethe at religious moderates , commonly declaring that religious moderates will share the hottest parts of hell with atheists and gays . ? Instead of lashing out all religions , we should carefully draw upon science for the most proper and effective political responses . ? We must never use the cachet of science where our conclusions are not actually based on science . ? We must not assume that an assertion is scientific just because it was spoken by a scientist , even by a world - class scientist . All atheists can benefit from daily doses of patience and humility when working to explain religiosity . ?? Even though it doesn ’ t yet offer all of the ultimate answers , I will continue to put my chips on the scientific method over any sort of supernatural “ explanation . ” 
 On the other hand , I ’ m not yet convinced that we even know how to even ask all the right scientific questions . ? Nietzsche pointed out the need to be humble , even when while we are driving forward as rigorous scientists : 
 While we ’ re waiting for the science to catch up with our social needs , how should we deal with people who make seemingly crazy claims ( e . g . , that there is supposedly life after death ) when there isn ’ t a shred of evidence in support ? ?? My personal approach is to sketch out and rely on my personal scientifically - informed but not scientifically - determined rule of thumb — my heuristic — regarding religion . ? Does that sound sufficiently convoluted ? ? My heuristic is born of my need to constantly make decisions in a predominantly religious world , every day , even though I find myself ( and all other honest people find themselves ) in a state of notable ignorance . ?? My heuristic invites me to ( tentatively ) “ translate ” the strange claims and conduct of believers into terms that I can better understand — it allows me to secularize religion on a personal level . ? My heuristic allows me to operate on the assumption that believers aren ’ t crazy , not entirely crazy , which lowers the temperature of the debate and gives me an incentive to engage with believers . ? The rest of this section sets out my personal heuristic . 
 Most religious moderates look uncomfortable and embarrassed when I ask them about the things they say they believe in church . ? Over the years , many Christians have admitted to me that they know very little about the Bible and they don ’ t often think about religion outside of their churches . ? My own experience comports with the results of polls . Many dozens of religious moderates have admitted to me that they don ’ t know whether the stories they hear in church are historically true . ? Yet many of them continue to attend church services . . . well . . . religiously . ? They uniformly insist that the puzzling claims of their churches are important to them , even when they can ’ t say with any certainty that they are literally true . These sorts of phenomena cause me to agree with Daniel Dennett that most believers believe in belief , not in the teachings themselves . ? Believers feel that it ’ s important to say they believe in their religious teachings , whether or not they actually believe them . But why ? Again , what follows is my scientifically informed personal heuristic . I suspect that religious teachings ( and the other aural and visual aspects of religious rituals ) collectively serve as a locus , a “ flag ” around which believers gather , self - identify and socially collaborate . ? Flags themselves don ’ t need to mean anything in particular , yet they can be critically important to groups in that they seed the self - organization of the group . ? In my understanding , the crucifix functions as a flag . ? The crucifix can thus be important , even if Jesus didn ’ t come back from the dead . 
 [ Note : ? As I was originally writing this section , a vocal group of political conservatives was claiming that Barack Obama was not born in the United States , despite the facts that the State of Hawaii has produced Obama ’ s official birth certificate and Obama ’ s birth was announced in a Hawaiian paper when he was born . According to a July , 2009 poll , only 42 % of Republicans believe that Obama is a natural born American . ? In short , these “ birthers ” are claiming that despite the existence of Obama ’ s official birth certificate , he has no American birth certificate . ? This flag ( “ lack of ” a birth certificate ) is anchoring the political coordination of the birthers , who are rallying around the “ lack ” of a birth certificate to anchor their collective beliefs that Barack Obama is allegedly a terrible President . ? I believe that this birther movement illustrates how religions might come into existence . ? The salient symbol ( whether a crucifix or the “ lack ” of a birth certificate ) does not need to make any literal sense , but these sorts of sacred beliefs are nonetheless symbolically important to the group . ] 
 In fact , it would appear that the more absurd the claim , the more powerful the signal of loyalty . ? When church members loudly sing claims that are literally absurd , they are nonetheless sending powerful signals of commitment to everyone else in the church . ? This dynamic fits the logic of 온라인 슬롯머신 Zahavi ’ s “ handicap principle , ” in that making facially absurd claims ( e . g . , pregnant virgins or dead people coming alive ) appears to inflict damage on the claimant ’ s reputation as an accurate and honest person . ??? See The Handicap Principle : A Missing Piece of Darwin ’ s Puzzle , by Amotz Zahavi , et al , ( 1997 ) . 
 But what if believers are ( subconsciously ) choosing to take this hit on Sundays in order to simultaneously deliver a potent display of loyalty ? ?? Atheists might think : “ Sacrifice literal truth for a display of loyalty ? ? That ’ s a deal I ’ d never make . ”? Wouldn ’ t we , though ? ? Consider , for example , the ubiquity of white lies . When I make my personal translation , my heuristic , somewhat along the lines I have sketched above , an “ absurd ” church service can be seen as something I think I can begin to understand . ? Perhaps Christianity is not really about the claims represented by the crucifix , claims that don ’ t make literal sense , even to believers . ? Among believers , unsubstantiated religious claims serve as social super - glue . ? As evidence , consider at the pained faces of believers when they are urged to discuss their faith outside of the friendly confines of a church , where there is no loyalty payback for uttering such factual absurdities . 
 There certainly appears to be a strong connection between the supernatural claims and the in - group dynamic . ? The fact that a group is well - knit , however , doesn ’ t inform us about the kinds of things they will attempt as a group . Once they are highly socially coordinated under a crucifix ( for example ) , good - hearted people can do large scale good - hearted things and aggressive and spiteful groups of people often do large - scale terrible things . 
 Therefore , viewing religion through my personal heuristic , I don ’ t feel I ’ m being “ lied ” to by religious moderates , even though they are straight - faced telling me absurd things . ? During such times , believers seem to be giving expression to a deeply ineffable emotional / social need , co - opting language in the process . After all , words can do many things in addition to conveying literal truth . ? There are many other computational uses of language . See Andy Clark ’ s “ Magic Words : How Language Augments Human Computation . ” We can also use words to navigate complex social state spaces . ? Robin Dunbar makes a convincing argument that even speech that has worthless content – gossip – is critically important for enabling us to navigate complex social spaces . ? I would extrapolate : even oxymoronic statements ( “ A virgin had a baby ” ) can be useful for navigating social spaces . ? Such statements serve as radar pings , allowing us ( by watching facial expressions and responsive conduct , as well as listing to responsive words ) to determine who is friend or foe . ? The words that convey religious “ truths ” can be important even when they are not literally true . ? They serve as flags around which believers gather and coordinate . ?? A flag does not intrinsically “ mean ” anything , but it serves as a locus for coordinating individual people into social groupings that can accomplish far more than individuals working on their own . In my tentative understanding , religious articles of faith have a similar purpose . Such claims , even when nonsensical and even oxymoronic , serve as loci and shibboleths , enabling individuals to work together by giving them tools for testing and navigating loyalty to each other . 
 It is my assumption that when believers tell me absurd things ( such as the claim I ’ ve heard many times that I will live forever in hell after I ’ m dead ) , they are sputtering a platitude at me that , especially in the confines of a religious gatherings , help them to navigate a complex social space . ? Saying these things allows them to see that I ’ m not buying that “ truth , ” and they are broadcasting to other members of their religion that they are loyal to the group by publicly harpooning an infidel . 
 I find the above ideas to be both tantalizing and calming . ? To me , it seems implausible that believers are actually fools or that they are playing atheists as fools with their fantastic stories . ? The explanation for religiosity simply has to be much richer than the version promulgated by the anti - religion atheists . The full scientific explanation might end up needing a causal cocktail , not something singular such as “ fear . ” 
 It is my operating assumption that most believers are not crazy like chronic schizophrenics are crazy , except , perhaps , for even one hour per week on Sunday . The disconnect between atheists and believers might be due to perceptual differences , in addition to emotional drives . This might take a lot of effort for atheists , but imagine believing , really believing , that God is your father , but that he acts like an abusive parent , threatening you with hell if you stop going to church . ? Maybe that ’ s how it seems to believers internally and that ’ s certainly the bizarre story they often seem to be telling atheists ( when they warn us of hell ) . 
 My dance is that I don ' t give them any encouragement , but in order to have any chance for a meaningful relationship , I don ' t necessarily give them the full dose of what I really think about their beliefs . Not all at once , and if they really aren ' t amenable , then I consider whether there can still be a working relationship . Believers abound here in America . They are my neighbors , co - workers , government representatives , merchants . They are everywhere . I am not on a mission to convert , though I find myself on a mission to challenge beliefs that conflict with evidence , because these beliefs are distracting , annoying and sometimes destructive . Then again , such beliefs are quite often relatively harmless , and I always have better things to do than to attempt to disabuse everyone around me of beliefs that conflict with evidence when they are harmless . I know an atheist that firmly beliefs in homeopathy . I deal with that by usually not discussing homeopathy . We have many other things in common and we have an ongoing friendship . Another friend of mine was utterly convinced that a former boyfriend still loved her when it was horrifically painfully clear to everyone else around her that he hated her . She was utterly normal in most ways , had a responsible job , was a good parent , etc . Is it my job to straighten her out regarding the ex - boyfriend ? I ' ve tried and failed several times , and it appears to be a toxic thought to her . I ' ve never called her stupid or berated her . I simply know that she has this thing that thrives on deeply embedded emotions and that it is immune to factual arguments . It ' s a lot like a ( private ) religion . We ' ve moved on from that topic – we seem to have reached a truce of sorts . But we still have a friendship . I can move on from " private religions " much easier than public religions , because they don ' t tend to make me the target of enmity and they don ' t serve as the seed for depriving me of civil rights . Also , they are easier to avoid – if it gets too crazy , I spend less time with the person . It ' s all unsatisfactory , though . How is it that a high - functioning , rational , empathetic person can have this crazy thing going on ? How is it that she is unwilling / unable to take a self - critical look at that thing in order to see whether it integrates well with everything else she believes ? How stable is my friendship with someone who has this usually well - isolated craziness going on ? These sorts of questions inspired this post on dissociative states : / bc 5 / 2006 / 05 / 20 / how - w … .