Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures
Offline Read Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures
I found this article really insightful, and I think there are a lot of good ideas in it. Building communication bridges, trying to identify with people so they can hear what you're actually saying, rather than blocking you out because of misunderstanding.
It's like a deconversion story for a former New Ager. Lots of potentially useful insights.
Particularly interesting is her latest article after four years of deconversion. Read Karla McLaren's 2008 Update. Here's a snippet I think would be relevant to us here at RRS:
My challenge to anyone who is concerned about the reduction in critical thinking in America – and the seemingly overwhelming movement toward magical promises – is this: Instead of haranguing people who are trying to soothe their pain, do something to relieve it. Fight not against the myriad opiates. Fight against the things that make them necessary. It's a much harder job, but in the end, it's one that will actually make a difference. Research shows that in countries with adequate social support networks (such as much of Western Europe), religious observance is very low. It's not just the generally higher educational levels that make the difference, though proper education is certainly a factor in adequate social support. And it's not just because, as older societies with a remembered history of the church wielding absolute power, the people in those countries are hipper to the downside of religion. It's that the people in those countries don't tend to require as many opiates because their social structure tends to be more functional and supportive.There are of course arguments against this conclusion, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and float it here anyway. Social support is incredibly important; therefore, the U.S.-based studies that suggest that religious observance has a beneficial effect on health and psychological fitness leave me with a whopping big question: What would these studies show if there were a way to factor out the social support aspects of churchgoing, such as the companionship, the socialization, the emotional (and often financial) support, the fellowship with people who share beliefs, and the knowledge that one is not alone? The problem is, you can't factor those things out, because there's nothing similar to the support structure of a church in modern-day America, where people are so busy that they can barely make time to visit their own extended families! I see an absolute correlation between the lack of social support in modern-day America and the movement toward group religious or spiritual activities. Which is sometimes fine.
But if you're concerned about the concurrent movement toward magical thinking and fundamentalism (and the movement away from critical thinking and science), do something about the social structure in your area. Work at your local humane society and love up some puppies and kitties. Tutor people in school. Find a humane way to reach out to the homeless. Teach people who are not in school to read (check with your local library). Support the families of our soldiers (and end the war). Dance. Support medical research. Share your expertise. Support youth in taking math and science classes and finishing high school. Paint. Tell the truth. Be kind to service workers and everyone who is below you on the social ladder. Visit retirement homes and see what's needed. Work with autistic people, if they want you to. Sing. Do your art. Work with outsiders. Volunteer for your political party. Strive for excellence. Visit people in prisons. Think. Love. Be a mensch! Be a voice of love and reason. Hold people accountable. Be courageous. And post funny stuff on the internet! Embrace da lolcatz!
What do you guys think? It presents a lot of different ways to reach out to people. Little things. Providing social support.
Read the whole article to get the entire context, then post your thoughts. Can 'in your face' tactics backfire, by shutting out the very people who need to hear our message? I tend to think that direct confrontation is a necessary angle, but why stick to just one angle? Why not play a good cop, bad cop routine?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Well, this is sort-of in line with a long-term scheme I intend to hatch - if I manage to find myself in possession of the necessary finances - to deal with at least one specific little pest that needs to be stamped into oblivion in short order (and which I'll not yet directly name here).
I plan to establish a Church (and refer to it as such).
What do the majority of people go to a Church to do? Network. Find 'spirital enlightenment' (See: Relaxing & feeling good about oneself). Tell their sad story to a (supposedly) understanding confidant.
Aside from the psychopathic fundamentalists who really do dream about the end of days, most religious people are only scared-off by secularism / science as they (irrationally) fear it will destroy their ability to communicate and feel good about themselves, as the Church indoctrinates it's membership to believe that only within the confines of the dogma that they can find such things (The Christians have even gone so far as to label it 'Salvation').
The construction of a competing body that offers the things that most theists are actually after, without bothering with the Jesus mumbo-jumbo and, instead, encouraging open inquiry and personal empowerment, I think will - at the very least - empty the pews of the orthodoxy in surprisingly little time. Actually deconstructing some of the dogma and most of the superstition will require substantially more (both it terms of time and technique), but I hardly find it unreasonable to suggest to we put theism (as have most places in Europe) where it belongs; as part of the fringe.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I've always been a supporter of strong social support structures, as any of my (ahem) discussions with EXC will illustrate. I agree completely with this writer that religion is a substitute for adequate social support. I don't think that's all it is, of course, but it certainly does provide those services for people.
I notice that in all those fancy charts we like to trot out showing the high correlation of secular societies to societal function that almost all of the most functional countries are those with at least partially socialized social support.
On the other hand, I believe in a multi-pronged attack. For what it's worth, I do try to make time to cook dinner at the homeless shelter and support worthy educational causes. It's a big deal to me, and I am a firm believer in talking with your feet. However, I don't think we can underestimate the power of millions of atheists pointing at theists and laughing. Ridicule is powerful. As I've said before, I'm not after the diehard theists. They're too far gone for the most part. I'm after the fence-sitters who pretend at religion or have never really thought about it. I want the popular derision of religion to reach the point where you really have to be diehard to be a theist. Yes, I know it will make the diehards that much more stubborn, but I suspect it will make the outliers much less likely to condone their behavior.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Very wise and true words, I can agree with everything what Mrs. McLaren wrote. (of course considering that there is a lot what she didn't write about) My anahata chakra (heart) fills with joy when I see such a person, article, and skeptic forum giving an attention to it.
The message is very powerful and I heard it from many other sources, than from this one. Our society is sick. We have the amazing science which produces a powerful technologies. But these technologies are misused against us, to exploit and kill us. What is the glorious science good for then, when it's dehumanized? Why don't we have a science of giving people a sense of life? Why don't we design our society scientifically, when the non-scientific approach failed? Why is a new artificial sweetener molecule more important than a quality of human life? What is the quality of life in scientific terms? We can't measure it, we laugh at those who tries, but we suffer without it.
My many posts and contributions to discussions may seem very despising and ungrateful towards the science and the effort of researchers. Well, the greater the development is, the more reasons I have to criticize. The science is developed by an extreme speed, but in a wrong direction. We now know the atoms, exotic particles and first microseconds of the universe. But we don't know how to live, how to prevent a crime, ecologic pollution, diseases, and poverty. We remained uncivilized barbarians, who can't be trusted. As a humanity, we have a collective intelligence of an all-consuming bacteria colony. The scientific elitism didn't improve our collective intelligence enough, it rather provided a technologic means to idiotize or disable a majority of global population. This is what happens when the barbarians gets a dangerous toys.
Fortunately, this is coming to an end. The worse things happens to the system, the better for us, things must always get worse, before they can get better. The whole world is calling for a change, for something different. An alternative. This is the greatest topic of our lifetimes, (well, mine certainly) which transcends religions, New Age, and embodies all our crises, fears and hopes. We have come to a critical point in our evolution, where we must either change, or perish, this is why people are so obsessed with alternatives. And reasonably so.
Consider it as a small introduction to the situation of us all. Many other people, including the creators of Zeitgeist 2 said it much better. As for the New Age, is anybody really interested in studying it for the humanitary purposes, and to get known with the bizarre and fascinating alternative culture?
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Your long-term scheme is very much like my long-term scheme. Mine involves developing an appropriate philosophy to support such a shift away from traditional churches. In fact, instead of just starting one 'church' to compete, I'm hoping to start all kinds of different 'churches'. Really, in my perspective, it's about developing anti-memes against whatever dangerous memes are out there. Like the other post I made about Karla McLaren's Bridging the Chasm, this involves understanding what it is that still attracts people to their respective religions, and providing safe replacements for those features. Kind of like Methadone for the Masses.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I've often thought of starting a "Church of Free Thought." But it's nothing more than a pipe dream really. I don't have the funds for that kind of thing. I thought of just starting real small at the local coffee shop but it still needs advertising, and that takes money. Maybe I'll start a cult instead.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
But please, tell me more. How would the "Church of Free Thought" work? Do you want to preach astronomic mysticism? A 'koan' is a puzzle, which is supposed to boggle the mind, in order to achieve meditation and bliss. Will your koans be based on astronomic mind-bogglig distances, ages, sizes of objects and their energies, compared to our little blue planet?
Astronomic mysticism (the teaching of St. Sagan) is good, but it may be combined with biologic mysticism. Maybe something about the network of neurological signals and cellular wisdoms, that radiates hundreds of millions per second...
(a part of famous quote )
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Just because it will compete with churches doesn't mean it has to mimic churches in every way. It just has to provide the same or similar benefits to its members. Thus, you don't have to involve any mysticism or pointless ritual or anything like that.
What a local group can do is provide a place for safe self-expression, sharing of ideas and personal stories, non-judgmental support, display or performance of art, music, poetry, stories, whatever. Informal discussions between members. Group activities such as parties, activism, charity, and whatnot. There's all sorts of things you can do without 'praying to the Universe' or some crap like that.
Just look at Youtube. There's tons of atheists expressing their ideas. Why not have a weekly local meeting of like-minded people to express your ideas in person, rather than via video? Go for a brunch, or a beer, afterwards and chat. Get together and do some local activism, like raising money for a good cause in the name of non-religion, or whatever.
Human stuff, not mystical stuff.
If you want 'spiritual', you could have classes in meditation. Short-story readings. Poetry, music. Art.
You could have lectures about esoteric philosophical stuff like the nature of free will or whatever, and have questions/answers afterwards.
By the way, there are already a few 'churches' out there: Church of Reality, Yoism, and a few others I can't remember. Naturalism.Org is one I just discovered recently; it's more philosophy than 'church' though.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
First of all, has Luminon seen this? [edit - oops, I missed his post] Second,
To use the idea of "good cop bad cop" here might be a bit cynical, and maybe it's not how you meant it. Scientology does a lot of outreach work, and we know why they do it. Same with other religious charitable organizations. They're not doing it to help people, they're doing it to get members. I think it's possible to lead by example and not identify with a group. But people are grouped together whether they like it or not, so that may not be relevant.
On the other hand, being abrupt (as you say) is just one angle. Sometimes it works for people, and wakes them up, and sometimes (as the author rightly points out) it affirms the aggressive nature of the "enemy".
I don't think the author has yet reached the point where she can communicate between the two cultures, as she puts it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Frustrating, maybe, but not impossible. One massive obstacle is the amount of hard work required for a new ager to understand the scientific point of view. That's not condescending on purpose - there just happens to be an exponentially larger amount of information on the scientific side.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I don't think a lot of people realize just how incredibly different the two universes are. Have you guys noticed how at least 70% of my posts to theists are explaining things they ought to know about logic, epistemology, ontology, or the scientific method? Atheists and theists really do live in two completely different universes, and one of the biggest problems with having an ongoing dialog between them is that discussion only works when each side understands the other.
This one piece of data convinces me that religion and atheism are ultimately incompatible. Consider: For atheists and theists to have a discussion in which both sides understand the other, theists need to understand logic, science, and epistemology. However, anyone who understands all three is logically forced into the position of either being an atheist or being irrational.
In other words, until and unless a theist becomes an atheist, true communication is impossible.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
( I'm just kidding)
Yes, this is an obstacle. I suggest to raise an interest in New Agers, so they begin to learn by themselves. There is something what every good New Ager wants, and this is a recognition of NA stuff by the science. They believe in various things, they're even convinced that it works for them, and they can't understand why the science doesn't accept them, after all, it works. So they can start to learn more about the science, to find where's the problem. The problem is usually in the area of experts, and this is where they would need some educated person to explain them the basis and answer the questions. NA people are not interested in a boring science, they want the science neighbouring with their area of interest.
Btw, though there is surely exponentially more of scientific knowledge, it doesn't mean that there's nothing for the scientific side to learn. Vast majority of NA movement prefers a vague books of generally uplifting nature, but there are sources of very dense information rate per page, which requires an extra attention and knowledge to understand, and even more to practice. The side of freethought often ignores even the "little" of intellectually challenging sources there is, and thus does a mistake. Maybe it's not a lucky comparison, but if people can study Bible to detail and ancient texts too, so they can debate Christians, why they doesn't do it with New Age?
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Isn't this what the Unitarian Universalist church is already doing?
To some extent, but not exactly. I've only been to one UU meeting, but it was pretty boring, and the whole thing seemed to be an attempt to keep the 'tradition' but wash out all the dogma.
But it's not 'tradition' I'm after, it's social change. The UU people seemed 'nice', but they were not really interested in confronting religion or tackling the problems related to faith and superstition.
I haven't heard of an UU churches involved in the 'new atheism', for instance.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I honestly don't have much respect for the UUs. Every UU I've ever met seemed to be an atheist who didn't want to make any waves by (heaven forbid) asserting that theism is silly.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism