Breaking the Vicious Cycle

Of course dishonesty is a problem… however, it’s impossible to tell who is lying/wrong in many cases.Freedom to challenge positions become critical in such situation. Especially in cases where everyone involved sincerely think they are right.
The alternative is worse… policing people’s opinions and forcing conformance to the ideas of a chosen elite.
The current situation with all its negatives is actually good.

Often it easy to tell who is dishonest.

This a false dicotomy again. All you are saying is we shouldn’t break the cycle with elitist policing. Fine. Let’s find a better way, instead of throwing our hands and walking away. Seriously, show a basic level of imagination. This constant stream of false choices would comical if it wasn’t consequential.

It’s not a false choice…

And often it’s not…

So you think the only choices we have are to continue in a vicious cycle or institute elitist policing? Those are the only two options you can imagine? The only two?

See above, there was a fundamental misunderstanding.

I don’t think the cycle is so “vicious”.
There will always be people who have an opinion that is different from the mainstream consensus.(and their position sometimes becomes mainstream after a few years).

When discussing complex subjects, it’s possible for both parties to be equally sincere and absolutely convinced the other is wrong… and perhaps even willfully dense. This leads to accusations/bitterness etc.
If these subjects have important social/cultural/theological consequences, people will be biased and emotionally attached to some position or the other. On top of that, since most of the people involved are not experts in the field, it’s possible to misunderstand/be mislead.
These are inevitable consequences of any significant subject.

The “cycle” will usually resolve itself as the issue becomes insignificant politically/socially/theologicall.y. Till then it will remain a powder keg.
I don’t see this as vicious as long as people are free to come to their own conclusions.
In many cases, it is good as he/she can hear both sides of a controversy before coming to a conclusion (or even deciding to shelve the subject).

How can these cycles be stopped. Historically, there has been only one way that has worked… Forceful suppression./conformance.

Perhaps you can share your third option.

However, the expression “vicious cycle” is a common English term for this sort of cycle, even when it isn’t particularly vicious. Calling it a “vicious cycle” is just saying that it feeds on itself, that there is a feedback loop.

3 Likes

This is a hilariously contradictory metaphor. Powder kegs are not self limiting.

2 Likes

Ya I keep missing that… :)…
I meant, it’s not such a bad thing… As compared to the practical alternatives.

Besides, people can and do decide not to engage… or only engage with select groups etc…
The constant debate happens between people who have a taste for it.

5 Likes

There is real harm being done. In the atheism community I moderate it is common to hear stories from people who are essentially “refugees from religion”, having been shunned by their friends and families for daring to think a little differently. If I were cynical I would just say, “That’s great, more atheists!”, but it’s not that simple. The decision to give up religious beliefs is often a deeply personal one, and being force into this by abuse is a bad way to come to atheism (IMO). And the abuse - there is no justification for it - and I wouldn’t wish that kind of treatment on anyone.

I’m not in a position to see the harm on the other side, but I am aware that many YECs complain about being called names, and feeling like they cannot express their views (even those who do not fit #2 in the cycle).

4 Likes

Unfortunately, it’s not only YEC’s, some militant atheists will jump on anyone who’s religious, be they people who will preach about God and Bible on every. Single. Comment. Or reasonable people (like me).

I’ve recently watched a interview with Jimmy Carter (my favorite American president after Josiah Bartlett) and the man made one comment about praying and the whole comment section went: oh, what a nice man, too bad about his Christianity etc.

It is a vicious cycle indeed.

3 Likes

Understood. I could do without the anti-theists myself. My observation is, that the sort of religious belief and activity that atheists most dislike, is best characterized by Ken Ham, AiG, and similar people and groups. Round and round it goes … :frowning:

2 Likes

I think this is very true, and would be the same for coming to religious beliefs, i.e. forcing religious belief at gunpoint or something.

One of the biggest things that concerns me, and I wonder if the agnostics and atheists among the group would agree, is people (in my case, college students) giving up religious belief altogether because of science. This is what is irritating to many “moderates” about the New Atheists. Science becomes the battle ground of religious belief (or lack thereof) instead of theological, philosophical, or even sociological arguments or even subjective human experience. Science ought to be “neutral” in that sense. Good science doesn’t depend on the religious beliefs of the scientists. Any religious belief that rises or falls based on specific scientific results seems both fragile and not very religious.

5 Likes

I dislike that guy too. Although, I am more socially liberal than you would expect a Christian to be so maybe that’s why he annoys me.

Mind you, I’m not saying that conservatives annoy me, everyone has their own opinion, it’s super conservatives (and, indeed, some super liberals too) like this guy that annoy me.

2 Likes

IMO, that is not a reason to give up beliefs, but is exactly why many young people do. If you are taught that a literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary for belief, then later learn all those scientific facts really do make sense, it destroys the basis for belief.

When I discuss this with OEC and EC people, I encourage them to teach their children values, rather than the Bible as fact. That is, the real value in the Bible is in the meaning, and the facts of science don’t change that meaning.

I probably just started a fight. :wink:

I came to call myself agnostic from the other side of things. I long considered myself a Presbyterian (tho maybe not a very good one). Then around ~2005 I started thinking about WHY I believe things, and came to realize that the things I learned in church that I value most, do not depend on the Bible being literally true, or even partly true. I think the Bible contains a lot of wisdom, and that doesn’t change even if the Bible is total fiction. (I’m not saying it is!)

Yeah, I’ve really started a fight now, but bear with me…

I came to realize I have a core of belief that I value even if it is irrational. I do not think God can be demonstrated thru evidence, but I have a feeling that I should allow for the possibility. It’s important to me to do this, and I cannot explain it beyond that. If anyone wants to say I’m doing a lousy job of believing in God, I accept the criticism.

OK, I see an angry mob coming … I’d better go find a place to hide! :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Ah, I wouldn’t worry about that, we’re long past hunting heretics and blasphemers and burning them at stake by now.

Well, most of us.

4 Likes

The forum software is defective. It only allows me to give one like for that post.

I very much agree.

I don’t know of anyone who gave up beliefs because of science. I do know people why gave up beliefs because they came to realize that they had been lied to by representatives of their churches.

Christianity should embrace science. That’s how it can avoid such problems.

3 Likes

Religion could help itself by giving up a little control over self-policing to secular authorities. The Catholic Church, I MEAN YOU, but not just you. :-/

2 Likes

@Ashwin_s

I believe the @Dan_Eastwood sentence refers to the alternating excesses of Atheists vs. Creationists… each side seeking absolute certainty and a pure ideology.

2 Likes