Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

I think this the difference is not atheism vs theism; it's not even having beliefs (atheism and theism) vs. holding beliefs tentatively (agnosticism / some mix therin). It's simply being tolerant of others and not thinking you're "RIGHT" , that you have TRUTH.Peer pressure has nothing to do with the supernatural; it has everything to do with access to truth. That's why you see peer pressure in all walks of life, not just via religion. You see it in all ranges of age. You see it due to economics, race, geographic identity, ... basically from any identifying source that can be used to make a group.I don't see that atheists are in any way a special case. In our american culture, atheists don't seem to have a strong group identity. When they do, they'll exert peer pressure too. Don't mean to take a personal shot at anyone, but I think crashfrog is a good example of someone who would (knowingly or not) exert peer pressure on others in a group. He is very strong in his beliefs, and often expresses disdain for those who obstruct their own view of the simplicity of atheism, who don't have his view because of their own faults.From what I've read, the deaf community is a great example. There's a strong sense of inside / outside, and those who are in the deaf community and try to span both the inside and outside communities feel strong peer pressure. I'm sure it wasn't always like this. Without a strong group identity, it couldn't have been like this.So, I agree with robinrohan. When people don't have religion, they don't suddenly become scientific. It's a more general dynamic of social groups.

First of all, I want to be really careful. I'm not trying to judge crash, and I'm really saying these things tentatively. But I did want to try and use a concrete example that we all might share. This is all hypothetical. What I am saying is not that crash exerts peer pressure on religious-types. I am saying I view his attitude towards those who he feels have shown him an inability to "deal with the facts" is very harsh and very strong. I think these are exactly the kinds of attitudes that lead to peer pressure.So, if atheists actually increased and got a group identity, I believe such harsh, strong attitudes might keep some people from exploring ideas which they were curious about, which they didn't feel were addressed completely, but which were put down in such a harsh, strong manner.It has nothing to do with intent; it simply has to do with group dynamics and how individuals react to others thoughts and expressions. First of all, just to be correct, I believe atheism is the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the lack of belief. Unless I've got this mixed up.But it doesn't really matter; group identity doesn't have to be based on any such belief. Even a label can provide a means for people to congregate, to discuss their ideas. Especially with the internet, it's really easy to get people "together" these days.It doesn't take a dogma or set of beliefs to make a group identity, to exert peer pressure, or to have an inside/outside view. I tried to demonstrate that with numerous examples in my previous post. Atheism may not have a group identity now, but I see no logical reason why atheists couldn't have a group identity in the future. I agree. I don't claim that atheists have a group identity now--just that in my view, it's only current circumstance that makes that fact so. I don't see why atheists wouldn't congregate, hold inside/outside views, exert peer pressure, and have the same types of group dynamics that every group I've ever encountered in this world does.And because of that, I really question some of the statements made in the opening post.Hope that clarifies my thoughts a bit.Ben

Bah, boring! Where's the theoretical scientist in you? Take the existing cases, and make a theory that addresses cases we haven't measured! Just joking, just joking. Of course what you're saying makes a lot of sense. It should at least be pointed out that we can't measure atheistic groups. Generalizing over religion has the caveat that we aren't measuring non-religious groups.I should take some time to do some historical reading about atheistic cultures. Maybe there's nothing. Somehow I feel that, with the advent of scientific knowledge and the validation it gets by our ability to manipulate our world, that atheism is much more viable than in the past. But you're right, it's guesswork. For science, that's fine. But religion need not be logical. And crash goes a little further, saying religious types choose religion because they're too weak to handle the truth, in denial, things like this. I'm not saying crash is right or wrong. All I am saying is that his harshness about taking alternative views that are outside the domain of logic are, in my eyes, the types of views that lead people to feel peer pressure.I guess it's views and comments that say "not only do I disagree, but I'm confident that anybody who holds this view is wrong, embarrassingly wrong." That to me reeks of what leads to peer pressure. And those are the kinds of attitudes I see from crash when he deals with religious types who can't debate logically. Anybody who is undecided. Lurkers. If crash had younger siblings. I'm making this hypothetical because I don't see that crash has a large impressionable audience. Would it be more believable if these things were being discussed in high school among friends? Lots of impressionable people there...Anyway. I think we at least understand each other... I guess I'm just being more hypothetical.Ben

This may be true in some fields of science, but at least in cognitive science, the degree to which this is true is questionable. I think nwr would also attest to the degree in which old, philosophical ideas on the nature of mind dominate people's ways of thinking. Breaking away from these things is hard, and convincing them takes more than just evidence--it takes extreme literary skills and a slew of literary devices to even get people to question the premises upon which their ideas rest.At least, that's the way it feels to me.Ben

Riverrat,I agree to some extent with what you seem to be getting at. You CAN make a "theory of science" that abstracts scientific theories from the worlds in which they're introduced (and that's what Mammuthus seems to be doing). But I don't think it's the best way to make the abstraction.But that's just what GOFAI has done--to define context-free entities and to create situations in which they apply, and it's a dichotomy that just doesn't work. Now we work with "situated cognition" and "embodied cognition", where entities aren't context free. Abstracting knowledge from the context in which it exists makes modelling the situation more difficult and less accurate.Or, to speak in less ugly terms... the abstraction that Mammuthus proposes is just one way to break things up, but I don't see that it's necessary nor that it's a useful distinction. All scientific theory exists within a broad cultural context. There is responsibility on ALL shoulders to be aware of and evaluate the effects of scientific discovery within those contexts. Denying that responsibility and placing it on the shoulders of others is making the same mistake of those who place it only on the shoulders of scientists (like you may be doing?).We all have a responsibility for ourselves and the others in our societies. Scientists have a responsibility to those to whom they present findings, to anticipate the viewpoints based on knowledge of a culture, and to address them knowingly at the time where they present the findings. They also have a responsibility to themselves to be good scientists, truthful, and uphold the principles that they hold.Those who have scientific results presented to them have a responsibility to deal with the information in an appropriate manner, and also have a responsibility to be "true" to themselves.None of us live in insulated worlds, as much as we'd all like to. To the degree in which we buy into the thought that we co-exist and are co-dependent within the context of culture and society, we have responsibilities to each other. It's up to each of us to respond appropriately to those responsibilities.Ben

(faking like I originally used a useful subtitle...) Good point, and a bad omission on my part. Operating within the context that cognitive science / psychology is science, this does contradict Mammuthus' characterization of how science operates... but maybe we just want to push this into the "Is psychology science?" thread as an argument against that viewpoint.Ben