Matthew 13:3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
**Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.'**
16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
I really dislike elitist snobs and the dialogue of Dawkins and Gervais reeks of it. Dawkins at least had the good grace to acknowledge that he leads a privileged life and that generally privilege is more pleasant than deprivation. Having paid that lip service, he then goes on to denigrate the views of those less privileged, without ever considering the sociological and psychological reasons they might hold those views..
As for the bus trip to convince people of evolution, it quickly became clear that the real debate is not over the science of the issue, but over people's experience in life and their mode of adaptation. Some people are rigid and want structure and fundamentalism provides that for them. They're never going to agree to the science behind evolution because it would threaten their carefully built personal structure. It's not a matter of science, but of psychology. Those people who are less rigid and more trusting of the world, are going to be more open to scientific persuasion just as they are more open to all kinds of other experiences and viewpoints.
Probably one could develop a whole triage theory for the teaching of evolution. Likewise, spiritual people could develop one for teaching depth psychology to science and engineering types, which is really religion at its best.
spiritual people could develop one for teaching depth psychology to science and engineering types
Could anyone think of a more vain endeavor, I can't.
Because "science and engineering types" are already the most spiritual demographic on the planet - caring as much as any other about life relationships and what it all means.
I like your conclusions Jan. We are born with different characters. Some of us are obidient, others want freedom. Obidient once will find a church or an army or a gang and won't mind being used by others. They won't even see that their thoughts are not really their.
Since this part of the population can't be persuaded, the state must provide the right environment for children, which is well structured schools. The atheists should organize themselves better (a difficult task for mostly unruly individuals). Outdoor activities, for example are very helpful. I need to put more thoughts to this ideas, but Jan put me on the right track.
For teaching the likes of Richard Dawkins or Dean Kamen "deep psychology" I wonder who Jan's example candidate would be? perhaps Dalai Lama or Taylor Swift? perhaps Deepak Chopra or Sylvia Browne or Gary Zukov?
.....
I like your conclusions Jan... but Jan put me on the right track.
Please, quit brown nosing so much.
We are born with different characters. Some of us are obidient, others want freedom.
No duh.
Obidient once will find a church or an army or a gang and won't mind being used by others. They won't even see that their thoughts are not really their.
This is the very problem. This is what the "elitist snobs" (like Dawkins) are trying to set to rights... by various strategies ... while people like Jan in the paranormalist belief, etc. have their foot on the brake.
Since this part of the population can't be persuaded, the state must provide the right environment for children, which is well structured schools.
Also what the "new atheists" aka "elitist snobs" are fighting for. Hello.
The atheists should organize themselves better (a difficult task for mostly unruly individuals). Outdoor activities, for example are very helpful.
It's already being done. Despite Jan and her ilk's foot on the brake.
I need to put more thoughts to this ideas.
Good idea.
Your post didn't make any sense to me. You compliment Jan in the beginning and the end - yet the guts of what you said is right out of the "elite, snobbish," new atheist camp. Non sequitur.
Careful. You're acquiring a reputation of being an ass kisser. Why do want to be so popular on this site anyhow?
The modern atheist movement (for lack of a better word) is doing pretty good - given what it's been up against and given that it IS lacking organization. So kudos to it.
In 100 years time, I predict it (or what follows from it) will have its own disciplines, its own institutions and organizations, its own language (means of expression) dealing with spirituality, life satisfaction, good and evil, morality, meaning and purpose, etc.. -All in response to these "trials of life" as part of nature set against us, set against all living things.
It's too bad these heavy obstructionists - those with their foot on the brake - won't be around to see that they were more a part of the problem then the solution.
I really dislike elitist snobs and the dialogue of Dawkins and Gervais reeks of it. Dawkins at least had the good grace to acknowledge that he leads a privileged life and that generally privilege is more pleasant than deprivation. Having paid that lip service, he then goes on to denigrate the views of those less privileged, without ever considering the sociological and psychological reasons they might hold those views..
This is an easy trap to get stuck in. It is really easy to take a person and fail to seperate the personality from what that person is saying, which is what is the important thing is. The old ad hominem, ya know, and all that. It matters little about privilige. What is said is what matters. Some people are brilliant, but as#@&%es. Dawkins has always come across to me like that. I agree with him on everything of his that I have read, to at least some degree, but he seems to take pleasure out of puncturing the cherished balloons of others. That Gervais interview was kinder, though. Maybe he is mellowing out.
I'll be the first one to admit that it is difficult sometimes, though. Dawkins is what I would call a "Militant Atheist."
The Militiant Atheist is roundly disliked, becuase he spends his life poking holes in your life's view. Nobody enjoys that, and when it comes to religion, they almost do your work for you.
Then you have the polite atheist. A very pleasant person who you can have over for Christmas with the family, can be counted on to politely bow in prayer at the monstrous dinner..you know...just so you don't rock the boat. That is the polite atheist.
Being the polite atheist is easy. Nobody bothers me, and I don't tear into a vicious argument with the rest of the family over the holidays. It is kind of like "don't ask, don't tell."
This leads to something further, but I am in a hurry today.
Some people are rigid and want structure and fundamentalism provides that for them. They're never going to agree to the science behind evolution because it would threaten their carefully built personal structure. It's not a matter of science, but of psychology. Those people who are less rigid and more trusting of the world, are going to be more open to scientific persuasion just as they are more open to all kinds of other experiences and viewpoints.
Jan totally nails it and in certain cultural / environmental regimes such systems based on authoritarianism and religious faith (whats the difference?) may be the best way to proceed.... or at least hopefully not regress.
But in a Technologically advanced society who's success is due to liberal democratic principles and reason? Materially there is a lot of difference between North Carolina and Afghanistan but culturally, despite the dress and body fat content, there is less of a difference. In any given society there is about thirty percent of the population that is psychologically driven by authoritarian impulses, some of which make them much more agresive, intransigent and beligerant and thus more dominant than the rest of the population.
In some environments maybe this isn't so bad a thing, or at least there is no better viable alternative. In our environment, one of little threat and much oportunity, it is pure poison and completely regressive. Religious faith isn't really the problem here either, unless of course it is joined at the hip with authoritarianism.
Dawkins is what I would call a "Militant Atheist."
Truly an ignorant if not disgusting comment.
Advanced by religious fundamentalists and their defenders as propaganda. Then picked up by and advanced still more by weekend social media and philosophizing wannabe pundit types.
Wake up. The term compares to militant Islamicists and others willing to cut the heads off of infidels and bomb theaters and abortion clinics to advance their bronze age theistic stupidities.
A passionate atheist. Sure. A militant atheist. No.
Other: Assertive, serious no-nonsense. Yes. A far cry from "militant" and what the term denotes esp in today's world.
Pay attn to the language you use. Talk about getting sucked into an easy trap, this is it. It's called propaganda or rhetoric.
Dawkins is no more a "militant" atheist than you are a "militant" poster or a "militant" boater.
Are you in this appeasement camp, as well? Any experience with Dawkins or Harris or their efforts?
Are they "elitist snobs?" Are they "militant" atheists? In your view?
Answer these questions. Are you a man or mouse? squeak up.
.....
Maybe if you weren't an amateur, but actually worked in the very field where science and religion intersect, you'd have more passion for the issues and you'd be able to see through the amateurish bullshit that inflicts this thread.
I'm pretty sure you're not an ass kisser - so why act like one on this site. This isn't no popularity contest.
P.S. Really, I want to understand you better. You seem to me a Deepak Chopra or Gary Zukav fan. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Werner, tell me, can you or Jan say even one good thing about Dawkins and his endeavor.
Thought experiment, if I had research assistants and if I had them research all of Jan's posts going back several years now, I wonder if they could find even one - EVEN ONE - complimentary remark she's made concerning Dawkins?
Now who is Dawkins? Only, by many measures, the lead evolutionary biologist of the 20th century.
Just love watching the creationists kicking and screaming against reality
Let us know!