Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't usually get into debates on this forum but I don't see how crashfrog is exerting peer pressure. He might criticize theists for being thiests (though I don't think this is true of him). But even if it were true that he does this, that is not exerting peer pressure. Thiests are not his peers in this regard as he does not belong to their faith. To exert peer pressure he would have to criticize me (or another athiest) for not sharing his views of life, the universe, and everything. What you describe is one group vilifying another (a frequent enough event). But it is different from the topic of the thread where there is conflict within a group.Also, with regard to group identity, how could there be group identity of atheism? It is a simple lack of belief in the supernatural and does not describe a set of beliefs or some scripted dogma. Like another poster in this thread mentioned, I have also known very few other athiests. I can only think of two...kind of hard to have a peer group when only about 2 of the people I have known are athiests like me..almost everyone I know or am friends with are theists of some flavor.

quote:

---

It is true, the atheistic part of their dogma might be only one element--nonetheless they would all be atheists.

---

But the group identity would then be political rather than that they are athiests. Like a political group where all the members happen to be short. And the peer pressure would be political rather than regarding lack of belief in the supernatural.Also, what is an athiest dogma?...considering there is no organized (or disorganized for that matter) religion of atheism, would be interested to know about the dogma I have never heard of.

quote:

---

This would be a coincidental similarity. But thinking that religion is the opium of the people is not a coincidental feature of a group of atheistic communists.

---

So now all athiests are communists? Wow, how shocking to discover that I am suddenly a communist AND follow a dogma. So if two atheists are in a room it is a communist conspiracy but if two short people are in a room it is chance...good to know.It seems your peers have pressured you to believe a pure caricature of non-believers. Also, interesting given the topic of the thread that those who do not share your beliefs are portrayed negatively i.e. peer pressure to stifle the acceptance of the obvious, in this case that atheists do not follow a proscribed set of religious rules and that counter to your beliefs, not all are communists.

quote:

---

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.

---

Hi Ben, I know you are not singling out crashfrog. My experience is he does not like sloppy thinking or failure to support arguments. And this is not restricted to religious types...look at his conflicts with holmes and others. In any case, whether harsh or not, I am not sure that he prevents others from exploring. If someone makes an unsupported statement and is called upon to support it and refused, they may be met with a harsh response or at the very least, a refusal by others to take their word for it. This does not mean they are dissuaded necessarily from having their beliefs. I have yet to see anyone get slammed for asking a question in a science topic for example. But you can bet that someone will get slammed for saying "evolutionists think dogs give birth to cats which falsifies the ToE". But I am still unclear which peer group he would belong to in this case. Brian for example is not a biologist or arguing science. Yet he holds many of the same standards when arguing theological issues. Maybe the peer group is scholars but that is a rather undefined term.

quote:

---

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.

---

I am still not sure. I don't see people who don't believe in Santa Claus forming societies or congregating based on a lack of belief in Santa. Not believing in something is not really a basis for a shared interest. I don't see groups forming based on common disinterest. I think, like myself, I belong to groups but they are not based on anything religious in nature. Peer pressure does occur (particularly scientific societies). If athiests were to form a group based on athiesm, you are probably right that there would be peer pressure...especially if someone suddenly became a believer. But I don't know of an example of a group whose central shared interest is atheism. does not mean they don't exist..but I am not a member and am unaware of it...regardless of other's attempts to caricature my position as atheistic dogmatic communist.I do understand you position and am not trying to claim that atheists are incapable of exerting peer pressure. My point is that this is a hypothetical case, even if a highly likely outcome given that counter to popular belief, atheists are human beings to. Whereas, the thread topic is asking for examples of known cases..at least as I understand it. This is easier because one can then use real world examples and experiences. Does that make any sense?

quote:

---

I was giving you an example of an atheistic group. But we need not go so far as communists. There are atheistic groups that have agendas--such as pushing for taxation of churches. This agenda is directly related to their fundamental beliefs.

---

Now that is funny...fundamental beliefs?...so not believing in the supernatural is a fundamental belief that is related to a desire for taxing churches? I'm an atheist and don't advocate such a tax...so which fundamental belief am I missing in the supposed atheist dogma you were going to explain to me?

quote:

---

That's funny.

---

No, it's sad..but hardly uncommon.

quote:

---

How many university scientists are federally funded?

​

You got your numbers.

---

Here is a somewhat out of date breakdown for biomedical researchFunding for biomedical research doubles in la | EurekAlert!from the site Note, this is dollar amounts. The number of Ph.D. holding scientists funded by NIH (and NSF which did not show up) is likely higher than those sponsored by companies since public money goes to training and supporting labs whereas industry has other indirect costs such as advertising and distribution in addition to R&D.Nowhere in this is the military the biggest contributor.For someone who claims to love science, you have not demonstrated that you understand what science is in the first place.

quote:

---

Are you joking? What you posted is only a small protion of the overall picture. And as if you could actually ask the military where the money goes, and they would give you a 100% accurate answer. They research things we don't even dream about. We might have nightmares about them though.

---

For biomedical research, that is not the case...the military is not a key player. In physics and chemistry, the breakdown will be similar though for physics, there will be more military applications and hence more funding from the military. The issue of what one "cannot dream about" smacks of paranoia or conspiracy theory to me. It also has nothing to do with science. Whether the Manhattan project had been used to produce peace time uses as opposed to weapons the physics would not have changed.

quote:

---

The fact that so many people are up in arms about this, should send up a signal to you, that something is wrong here.

---

Because you are wrong. Believing things without evidence or in spite of the evidence is faith. That has no place in science.My comment about your not understanding science was not meant to be insulting. Just to perhaps encourage you to look into how methodological naturalism actually works. Everything you have stated suggests you appreciate the end results and products developed from scientific research but that you don't really appreciate/understand the methods used.

quote:

---

Actually it is more the other way around. I really do appreciate the method. What I do not like is the purpose for applying the method. If it was only good things that we were trying to acheive, it would be great.

---

Scientific facts are not good or bad. I can use my car to drive to work on to purposefully run people over. Neither choice makes a car good or evil. A religious doctrine that enshrines killing, exclusion of others, or slavery is by its own doctrine advocating a specific position. That DNA can form a double helix does not suggest how I should act in society.

quote:

---

So science is only as good as the people doing it, just like religion.
I am sure there is peer pressure in science as well, just like religion. Just like in the OP, peer pressure in church might stop a person from being able to stand up and say, hey I don't believe. In science, once and a while a scientist can have an "abstract" idea about something, and everyone will ridicule him, and possibly disourage him, when in fact he knows exactly what is going on.

---

Scientists are VERY thick skinned. People will not believe what you say unless you support it with evidence. If someone can refute the evidence for your position, then you are toast. If you can support part of a hypothesis with evidence but not all of it, it will be approached skeptically but most scientists will accept the facts presented but perhaps not the conclusions. Anybody who cannot take being questioned and not simply believed should not be a scientist. Science requires people who constantly question each other and don't just believe each other.Religion is the opposite. You either accept the doctrine 100% regardless of its inconsistencies or consequences or you are out...and have to find another dogma to follow unquestioningly. Religion is the antithesis of inquiry and skepticism.

I have yet to meet a scientist who has made it in science without being thicked skinned. They might train as scientists but will not go very far. You face criticism every day whether it be an experiment you did, an idea you have, a publication you write, the peer-review process, presentation of data in a department or meeting, grant reviews, tenure reviews, progress reports, post-tenure reviews etc. etc. There is no field where you are so constantly put under criticism of your ideas as the sciences. If you are someone who is sensitive to criticsm (often very harsh and blunt) you won't last a lab rotation much less through a career. There are some very nice scientists and some total jackasses and the people do vary. But I have yet to meet a timid scientist who just accepts what others say and is unwilling to defend what they say.....except for Michael Behe when he rants about ID..but then, in that regard he is not talking about science anyway.