I'm not a part of any movement, but I see my own behaviors in a lot of your complaints of the Secular Humanist movement, so I'll try to explain why I do the things you see in others.
Grizz writes:
Unfortunately, I see the secular humanist movement slowly evolving into the very thing I despise - a dogmatic, orthodox institution who’s primary task is to maintain the status quo and suppress any form of dissent - whether real or apparent.
After years of evolving through argument, my positions are now pretty sturdy. I haven't had anyone knock a hole in one in a very long time. Now I wouldn't be in this position unless I thoroughly tested every idea I came upon. It's what I do. So, when I come upon someone who has a differing opinion, I look for flaws in its support structure. I usually find them. The same isn't true when they look at mine.
So, while the result is that dissent is quashed, the goal was merely to test the idea. And while the result is that the status quo is maintained, that's not because of any wish to do so -- it's merely the result of holding positions whose flaws, if any, must be on the level that would take a pretty spectacular intellect some pretty intense examination to see, as if it were any less, I would've long ago come across someone who could tear them down.
Grizz writes:
It also is obvious that many of these same scholars have become increasingly condescending and crass in their approach to the opposition.
When a person's superiority has been established, that's all that should be needed.
If Stephen Hawking read my posts relating to physics and simply responded with, "Moron;" would I dismiss that and demand disproof? Uhhhh... no. I'd take his word that there are mistakes and take it upon myself to correct the problem. One word is all it would take.
Of course, this doesn't work quite as well on Fundies. A Fundie has a hard time recognizing their inferiority as they never feel the impact of having a belief structure collapse, because they never give out the real reasons they believe and so keep them from ever being attacked. And a Fundie never really feels the sting of having an attack blocked, as the attacks they use against opposing viewpoints don't really underlie their disbeliefs. And if a miracle happens and the Fundie does realize their status, their intellectual laziness means that, "You're an idiot," doesn't stimulate them to do the research required to fix the problem -- which further supports the idea that they are inferior. And once you've firmly established who has the pearls and who is the swine...
Grizz writes:
In awe of the elite one hesitates to form any opinion that goes against the grain as one fears this would be perceived as a sign of weakness by the status quo.
Ok, I'll go against the opinion of the elite. (myself)
Let's see... an alternative to atheism. I got it! Theism!
Hmmm... the support is... arbitrary. That's weak. Yeeeah... I think I'll drop that now in favor of something a tad more robust. Such as atheism.
Ahhh... much better.
Grizz writes:
I also have noticed that in the public forums there has been an increasingly dogmatic and rigid demand for adherence to semantics.
Speaking the same language does tend to facilitate communication.
Grizz writes:
We are further warned that the deranged genetic mutants have run amok and at this very moment have their finger on the button waiting to vaporize mankind. What is never mentioned, however, is that it is our ability to reason and inquire into the workings of nature that have made it possible to bring about such a nightmare of epic proportions.
It's probably not mentioned because that's a pretty confused mess. It looks like you might have some improper transferrence in there.
Grizz writes:
As Carl Sagan pointed out - our long term survival may ultimately depend not on reason but on our ability to reign in the ”reptilian instincts’ that lie deep in our psyche.
Which would hinge on us reasoning that we need to suppress said instincts, so it
would depend on reason.
I just outplayed Sagan.
Grizz writes:
Neither reason nor religion can squash the impulse to lash out that arises suddenly in response to a perceived threat.
I'd call that reason. It's just that evolution did the math instead of us.
Grizz writes:
Our scourge is that we have always found increasingly sophisticated methods to destory our fellow man yet we have never been able to find a means to bring us all together.
Competition is a pretty good motivator. Without a suitable replacement, losing it would likely be disasterous.
Grizz writes:
By demonizing the opposition one makes any civil dialogue or understanding impossible.
You can't have a civil discussion with someone who has a strong emotional investment in the beliefs being questioned. When you get close to the core, their fight-or-flight reflex kicks in. They start flailing wildly -- their eyes glaze over and they start reading your posts stupidly. Desperate for tangents, suddenly everything's a joke. So, you've now got the equivalent of a three-year old who refuses to eat his veggies. Try to make him eat them and he just spits them back out. You can't get anywhere with such a person.
Their entry into a protective denial-mode is what interferes with reasoned discussion and understanding -- not the claim that such occurrs.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
