Fear fundamentalism

[46zilzal]

When I was studying neuroanatomy a study came to light on a proposed mechanism to the idea of “the good old days.” It was found that as we age, the absolute number of neurons steadily decreased (a common finding in geriatric dementia) with age. Active memories, each time they were brought to consciousness, created extra “floppy disk” copies with each use, so the more often a memory was retrieved from the memory library, the more copies of this memory were then available. With the aging brain systematically robbing the library of memories, those with the most copies had a higher chance of surviving, and, after a time, made up the bulk of those available. These “good old days” memories, readily available, were the clearest since they had outnumbered the rest.

Of course looking backward is remembered fondly: all the variables and outcomes, being HISTORICAL, are known. There is no danger, no need to evaluate, no need to attempt an understanding of something new and foreign, ……no need to think at all since it is history. Change is the unknown; challenges to the dogma lead in new directions as new evidence comes forward.

In this context, this looking BACKWARDS, where it is safe and known is one of the features in the rise of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism not only within religion, but in all walks of life. Not just in the Middle East, but universally. Why think? The fundamentalists say it has all been worked out and you NEVER need to challenge any idea. Then of course they are right there to hand you the idea to pour into that gullible brain. This is particularly true in the patriarchal government’s position: we know best…don’t think or questions US! It does, unfortunately, spill over into the rest of one’s life as well: change is bad, “don’t question it, it’s in the book….. that way how could it be wrong?”

FROM Wikipedia: This movement has been characterized as passionate and unerring in its commitment to core Christian teachings, biblical inerrancy and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. The term fundamentalist has come to epitomize strong adherence to a set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity. The wider usage of the term has led to a need to characterize the original fundamentalism the wider non-religious usage of fundamentalist to describe any set of strongly held beliefs is yet again controversial.

Unfortunately, things change. They always have. They always will. The Chinese understood this with the oracle of the I Ching. Their philosophy is healthy and realistic: Don’t be too happy or sad over the events of today for they will change. Hereclitus mentions this concept when he stated “You can never step in the same river twice.” Dr. Wayne Dyer has made a career out of lecturing to the “musterbators” (things MUST be this way and no other) of the world and his insights in this area of psychological investigation are priceless.

It is a growing epidemic much wider in scope than religion. NO idea, no matter how accurate it is today, is irrefutable. NONE of them.

[ddog]

When I was studying neuroanatomy a study came to light on a proposed mechanism to the idea of “the good old days.” It was found that as we age, the absolute number of neurons steadily decreased (a common finding in geriatric dementia) with age. Active memories, each time they were brought to consciousness, created extra “floppy disk” copies with each use, so the more often a memory was retrieved from the memory library, the more copies of this memory were then available. With the aging brain systematically robbing the library of memories, those with the most copies had a higher chance of surviving, and, after a time, made up the bulk of those available. These “good old days” memories, readily available, were the clearest since they had outnumbered the rest.
Of course looking backward is remembered fondly: all the variables and outcomes, being HISTORICAL, are known. There is no danger, no need to evaluate, no need to attempt an understanding of something new and foreign, ……no need to think at all since it is history. Change is the unknown; challenges to the dogma lead in new directions as new evidence comes forward.
In this context, this looking BACKWARDS, where it is safe and known is one of the features in the rise of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism not only within religion, but in all walks of life. Not just in the Middle East, but universally. Why think? The fundamentalists say it has all been worked out and you NEVER need to challenge any idea. Then of course they are right there to hand you the idea to pour into that gullible brain. This is particularly true in the patriarchal government’s position: we know best…don’t think or questions US! It does, unfortunately, spill over into the rest of one’s life as well: change is bad, “don’t question it, it’s in the book….. that way how could it be wrong?”
FROM Wikipedia: This movement has been characterized as passionate and unerring in its commitment to core Christian teachings, biblical inerrancy and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. The term fundamentalist has come to epitomize strong adherence to a set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity. The wider usage of the term has led to a need to characterize the original fundamentalism the wider non-religious usage of fundamentalist to describe any set of strongly held beliefs is yet again controversial.
Unfortunately, things change. They always have. They always will. The Chinese understood this with the oracle of the I Ching. Their philosophy is healthy and realistic: Don’t be too happy or sad over the events of today for they will change. Hereclitus mentions this concept when he stated “You can never step in the same river twice.” Dr. Wayne Dyer has made a career out of lecturing to the “musterbators” (things MUST be this way and no other) of the world and his insights in this area of psychological investigation are priceless.

It is a growing epidemic much wider in scope than religion. NO idea, no matter how accurate it is today, is irrefutable. NONE of them.

even in an "honest"looking back there are "options".

Most have probably seen this book already but the Black Swan by Taleb is an interestig read for us button-gazers.

[46zilzal]

An entire textbook on the idea to permeate the schools with religiously based fundamentalism.http://books.google.com/books?id=FoF5jCEepGkC&pg=PA452&lpg=PA452&dq=fundamentalism+in+education&source=web&ots=uPlCsCtaCx&sig=pPHLz7AXD-XQAJlvxOF5SvuIhAE#PPA453,M1

And one's memories are SUBJECTIVE accounts of what happened historically. They are rarely full of options.

also http://books.google.com/books?id=cZZLs1_pnqwC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=fundamentalism+in+education&source=web&ots=VK-LkhFOeH&sig=3KkgjNraDX9qSA_GzcAim0aoUyo#PPA94,M1

[ddog]

An entire textbook on the idea to permeate the schools with religiously based fundamentalism.http://books.google.com/books?id=FoF5jCEepGkC&pg=PA452&lpg=PA452&dq=fundamentalism+in+education&source=web&ots=uPlCsCtaCx&sig=pPHLz7AXD-XQAJlvxOF5SvuIhAE#PPA453,M1

And one's memories are SUBJECTIVE accounts of what happened historically. They are rarely full of options.

ok, you are talking memories of events , not the events themseleves.

the book is still a good read.

[46zilzal]

Fundamentalist rhetoric is frequently apocalyptic in order to provide their crusade with a driving theological imperative. Typically: the secular world has become decadent and corrupt; their co-religionists have become tainted by it; and [insert deity of choice] is but a short time away from unleashing its loving Wrath upon the whole sorry mess. Only those who attain their stipulated degree of "purity" will be saved.

Although such rhetoric may serve to recruit wavering co-religionists to the cause, it also serves as a natural limiting factor on how successful fundamentalist thought can be outside of these circles. Put simply, the majority of people respond very poorly to such a relentlessly negative message. That they then champion 1000+ year old texts over the explanatory width and depth of modern science leaves the widespread acceptance of fundamentalist thought utterly hamstrung.
http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Fundamentalism

[DJofSD]

It is a growing epidemic much wider in scope than religion.

So what?

At some point the greatest scientists in the world have come to discover not everything can be treated as the subject of the scientific method or that life is just one big experiment to be religated to the tenants of reductionism.

I like Frank McCourts philosophy as stated in "Teacher Man":

Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep
And doesn’t know where to find them.
Leave them alone and they will come home
Wagging their tails behind them.

[46zilzal]

Closed minds lead to catastrophic apathy.

[DJofSD]

Closed minds lead to catastrophic apathy.

There is a difference between being closed minded and having rational skepticism.

Question authority -- always, especially when it is politically motivated.

[Tom]

l ike Frank McCourts philosophy as stated in "Teacher Man":

Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep
And doesn’t know where to find them.
Leave them alone and they will come home
Wagging their tails behind them.

So much truth to that. Too many people believe they need to insert themselves into situations to make them more acceptable to themselves, when in fact, they have no business interfering in the first place.

Science has been proven wrong so many times throughout history, only a closed minded fool would ever accept the norm as normal. Example - Al Gore's "there is no debate on this issue" baloney.

The world is not flat, as scientists once believed.
The sun does not revolve around the earth, as scientists once believed.
The first plutonium bomb didn't trigger a chain reaction in the earth as scientists feared.

The real scientific advancements come from those who challeng the conventional widsom. We know precious little of the body of information out there, and to refurse to question what is now prevents us from finding it.

[RaceBookJoe]

Tom, all scientists had to do was to read the Bible to know the Earth wasnt flat. Isaiah 40:22 says that God "is He that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth". There is a lot of scientific facts to be learned in Scripture.

[Tom]

Seperation of church and state. :D

[46zilzal]

Separation of church and state.

That is what it says in the Constitution but give these zealots a speck of room and they will return it to education under whatever guise they can hide it under.

[robert99]

l

Science has been proven wrong so many times throughout history, only a closed minded fool would ever accept the norm as normal. Example - Al Gore's "there is no debate on this issue" baloney.

The world is not flat, as scientists once believed.
The sun does not revolve around the earth, as scientists once believed.
The first plutonium bomb didn't trigger a chain reaction in the earth as scientists feared.

The real scientific advancements come from those who challeng the conventional widsom. We know precious little of the body of information out there, and to refurse to question what is now prevents us from finding it.

Tom,

It is scientific theories, not Science, that get proved wrong in time. You only need a theory if you don't know all the answers - and we still only know a fraction of what is out there. A particular theory tries to fit with what you do know at the time. As you learn more, then a different and hopefully better theory evolves to replace the old one. It is having a theory that focuses further research and debate so that in time the full truth eventually comes out. The best scientists do not "believe" theories - they test them to see if they are worthy or not. They actually like to disprove a theory so that a better one can replace it and progress in the topic be made.

The circumference of the Earth was first calculated by the ancient Greeks (Eratosthenes, 201 BC) - they knew then it was not flat. The scientific method did not even start until the time of the Renaissance. Science proved the motion of the Sun - it was the church and Kings that did not want to believe it. Fearing that something not yet fully understood nor tested in practice might possibly cause harm is just plain common sense.

Challenging the conventional theories does lead to progress - so does serendipity - sadly, today the scientific world is polluted by politics and corporate greed - those who do speak out get ridiculed and research grants cut or worse. Not much different on certain parts of PA.

[46zilzal]

- sadly, today the scientific world is polluted by politics and corporate greed - those who do speak out get ridiculed and research grants cut or worse. Not much different on certain parts of PA.
Touche'

[PaceAdvantage]

Closed minds lead to catastrophic apathy.You mean like when you see the name Bill O'Reilly, you immediately turn off your hearing and reading senses? That kind of closed mindedness?

[PaceAdvantage]

That is what it says in the Constitution but give these zealots a speck of room and they will return it to education under whatever guise they can hide it under.Is this an example of your "open mindedness?"

[Tom]

That is what it says in the Constitution but give these zealots a speck of room and they will return it to education under whatever guise they can hide it under.

No, it does not say that.

[Tom]

Yup.....global warming. Gore tries to tell us this a moral issue. The left is trying to silence debate. It is a political issue. How many professional theory testers depend on the grant money? How many make sure thier results do not interfer with thier continued checks coming in?

Sience, scientifc theory - whatever....tomato, tom-ah-to.

Originally Posted by robert99
- sadly, today the scientific world is polluted by politics and corporate greed - those who do speak out get ridiculed and research grants cut or worse. Not much different on certain parts of PA.

[rastajenk]

When I read "rise of fundamentalism" in 46's original post, I thought, "This is going to be about global warming." By golly, it is! :D

[46zilzal]

You mean like when you see the name Bill O'Reilly, you immediately turn off your hearing and reading senses? That kind of closed mindedness?
No when he is on, I listen to the clown. Best laughs of the day listening to him.

[46zilzal]

Is this an example of your "open mindedness?"
No separation of church and state.

[Tom]

Amendment I



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Seperation of Church and state? Point it out.
Schools ar not congress, teaching anything is not making a law. Prohibiting teachings IS specifically addressed in here - as a SHALL NOT.
And Federal govenrnments do not regulate schools. They have no business in this issue.

[46zilzal]

Thomas Jefferson authoritative enough for you?
From Wikipedia:The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

[Tom]

I do not care what he wrote in letters, the law is the constitution. TJ also wrote in another letter - "Man, those slave girls are sweet shu-ga!":rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

No one can interpret the Constitution like a reactionary.

[Tom]

No one can interpret the Constitution like a reactionary.

Please elaborate - show me in the exact wording where you say I am wrong.

[46zilzal]

Please elaborate - show me in the exact wording where you say I am wrong.
Thomas Jefferson has a TAD more relevance than either of us when it comes to interpretation of the constitution.

[rastajenk]

There is no separation where Muslims are concerned. Schools all over are tripping over themselves to accommodate the Muzzies, maybe in fear of violence that will ensue if they don't get their way.

No interpretation of church and state separation can forbid individuals from relying on their belief systems to formulate or influence policy. And that is as it should be.

[Secretariat]

Interesting reads from the Annals of Congress:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

And this is interesting when two vetoes from Madison in the 1811 Congress:

The vote to override failed again as the majority in the House of Representatives upheld President Madison's use of the Establishment Clause to veto unconstitutional congressional legislation. The above is quoted from the newspaper reporter's notes in the Annals of Congress.


"In regard to the two unconstitutional bills which were passed by Congress, twenty years after adoption of the First Amendment's religion clauses, and which were vetoed by President James Madison ("Father of the Constitution"), the majority of the members of Congress supported the position of James Madison. In 1811 most of the members of Congress were not members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and were not even members of the First Congress. Nevertheless, upon considering what the former member of the 1789 joint Senate-House conference committee which drafted the religion clauses had to say, the majority agreed with President Madison. This lesson from history illustrates that there have always been some Americans who have advocated direct government support for religion, and it also documents the fact that the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government was not first debated or created in the 1947 Supreme Court case known as Everson v. Board of Education, as today's "cut and paste" history revisionists would have us believe. It was debated in the 1811 Congress. Furthermore, a bill is not constitutional simply because Congress passes it--if that were the case, we would not need the Constitution (or the Establishment Clause which prohibits Congress from establishing "religion" by law and protects, in regard to religion, the minority from tyranny by the majority and from paying tax money to support religion). In America, religion is to be supported voluntarily; public money is for public institutions."

..................................................

When we speak of the framers of the Constitution, certainly Madison who primarily authored the Bill of Rights and spoke openly about the separation of church and state, and vetoed religious attempts to supercede or spend public monies knew what he intended in the writing of the First Amendment.

.................................................. ............

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history” - James Madison

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” - George Washington

[DJofSD]

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” - George Washington

Then why is Christmas a national holiday?

Get that holiday off the Congressional calendar and get their damned *sses back in session. Let's see how far this stupid debate about separation of church and state goes.

[Tom]

Thomas Jefferson has a TAD more relevance than either of us when it comes to interpretation of the constitution.

In other words, you can't do it. Like I said, his interpretation is trumped by the legal words.

Or, are you saying that signing declarations, like the one's Bush uses when he signs bills, agree part and parcel of our lega system and he is is good company when he does it? :lol:

[Tom]

Sec, are you unable to convey a point in your own words?
(and I think you mis-speeled it - should be the anals of congress!:D)


Even more interseting is that the point being made here was that when SCHOOLS set a ciriculum that include intelligent design, it is a) not congree doing and b) not establishing a religion. Rather it is c) the free expressin thereofe, which in pite of whatever letters anyone might have written, is specifically guaranteed int he contstitution.
Down through the years, the court has been 100% off the mark on this. They are flat out WRONG.

[46zilzal]

Separation of church and state....No religious malarkey in public schools.

[Tom]

All out of logical arguments once again, huh? What a sad sack.

[Secretariat]

Down through the years, the court has been 100% off the mark on this. They are flat out WRONG.

Interesting Tom. You know what the First Amendment means, but the guy who wrote it - Madison doesn't? The Supreme Court interprets the law according to our Constituion, but somehow the majority of judges just can't get it right, but you can. And lastly, the author of our Declaration of Independence just doesn't get it either, or our first President or the Congress of 1789. Thank God you are here to enlighten us.

[Tom]

Interesting Tom. You know what the First Amendment means, but the guy who wrote it - Madison doesn't? The Supreme Court interprets the law according to our Constituion, but somehow the majority of judges just can't get it right, but you can. And lastly, the author of our Declaration of Independence just doesn't get it either, or our first President or the Congress of 1789. Thank God you are here to enlighten us.

Then you too agree with Bush's signing statement, right, Sec?
and the SC must have gotten it right when they rule don Gore v Bush, too, right?

:lol::lol::lol:

[skate]

Tom, all scientists had to do was to read the Bible to know the Earth wasnt flat. Isaiah 40:22 says that God "is He that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth". There is a lot of scientific facts to be learned in Scripture.

could have been "the circle of the race track", but it was "DARK OUT".