Saturday, June 9, 2007

Primitive Minds

(Updated below) (Update II)

It never ceases to amaze me to what levels of utter irrationality the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are willing to descend into.

They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.

And this "end" is the following: to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs or their ideologies.

Truth be told: these are the only things that truly matter to them.

Why else would they try to censor science, attempt to control it, seek to falsify it or rewrite it, quietly hide it, brazenly deny funding for it, attempt to change its mission/purpose, actually lie about it, use spin games to deny it, go to great lenghts to confuse people about it, attempt to dismiss it as a matter of differing beliefs or philosophies, or go as far as to demonize it?

Why else would they use the politics of fear, ignorance and lies?

Why else would anyone one of them (along with so many others of his ilk) have the gall to repudiate on television the very same President whom he supported relentlessly until a month or so ago - with the "ex-supporter" base even applauding such repudiation?

Why else would they still seek to implement a "missile defense shield" while tests keep proving that it is junk?

Why else would they be comfortable enough to advocate more renditions and more torture ... with the audience actually cheering and applauding?

Why else are they capable of scolding others about democracy while they have been proven as authoritarians by their own words and actions?

Why else do they disassemble so easily, obfuscate swiftly, or use disinformation and propaganda?

Why else do they use euphemisms to hide/conceal their true intentions ("surge" in lieu of escalation, "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture, etc.)

Why else do they promulgate confrontation and war, using overt and duplicitous means, as the solutions for everything?

(And I could go on and on and on ...)

I have come to the conclusion that the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are very much alike the people from the allegory of the cave, and somehow made flesh and blood.

They are indeed living in a cave, their backs to the entrance while facing the sunlit cave wall, seeing only shadows of reality. And it is from watching these two-dimensional shadows that they construct myths and stories to comfort themselves - because they not only fear the shadows that they see, but they also fear even more what these shadows represent.

Thus, they find themselves frightened to the deepest levels of their fragile souls by the glorious truth of the multi-dimensional reality in which we live, whenever they get out of their cave. Their intellectual sloth-driven, ignorant and fearful minds simply can not, or flatly refuse, to comprehend it.

That is why their beliefs and ideologies are not only parochial, but adamantly intractable.

Consequently, at the end of each day, the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters return to the safety and comfort of their cave, vowing to say and do everything in order to transform our multi-dimensional reality into the simpler, two-dimensional one made of shadows that they are accustomed to.

Hence, my conclusion is that the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are the same ignorant, fearful and surperstitious primitives that our ancestors were, thousands upon thousands of years ago - except that they now use newspapers, magazines, television, radio, politics, and the internet, to spread their intellectual sloth-driven non-understanding of the world and, consequently, working hard at bringing us down to their level of ignorance.

Well, the non-primitive that I am has not only always lived outside of the cave, but has actually ever enjoyed and marvelled at this multi-dimensional reality in which we exist - even with its warts and all.

How about you?


Update: 06/12/2007 - Here's what happens when primitive minds succeed at confusing scientific matters - the society at large gets hooked, lined and sinkered. One more time: I rest my case ... alas. Digby has another take on this, but I disagree with his assessment that "the numbers arent great, but ...": I think the numbers overall are plainly abyssmal. Meanwhile, when someone (like an (incompetent) MSM journalist or pollster, or anybody else, for that matter) asks you whether you "believe in evolution or not", could you please answer this way: "I accept/reject evolution". I ask this of you good folks because, well, science is science - not belief. You either accept its facts or you reject them (sigh).


Update II: 06/18/2007 - I stumbled upon an article and read the comments ... only to find that one staunch defender of right-wing evangelism distorted one of my entries to help make his point. He actually makes my point in this very entry. If you wish to chuckle, read the entire article and comments here.


(Cross-posted as a DKos Diary, at Diatribune, as a PB Diary, and at Suzie-Q)

10 comments:

  1. Wow, just as I found myself reading this post... you reference; Of Faith, Fundamentalism and Intellectual Sloth.

    What a well written, well reference post. "the fundamentalists turn around and point angrily their self-righteous fingers at anyone and anything that does not fit, or agree, with their views. All is fair game with them: race, religion, lifestyle, art, literature, et al. They are afraid of what they perceive as different, they are afraid of the unknown and the uncertain. Any challenge against their intellectual sloth causes a reactionary attitude of fear and loathing. Thus, they hate"

    Ouch!

    ReplyDelete
  2. A bit rough, I agree - then again, there comes a time when one has to call things as they are ... however unpleasant it may be.

    I respect all faiths - but I am staunchly opposed to fundamentalism (whether christian, islamic, etc.). Fundamentalism *is* based on fear and ignorance.

    And all too often, the so-called fundamentalist leaders are pure hypocrites (anyone remember the Swaggarts, Bakers, Haggards, etc.)

    Faith and reason *can* co-exist ... however, fundamentalism can not suffer reason.

    Glad you dropped by! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The moralists of the right have done damage to any form of religion by using their moral spouting tongues to claim wars for God, abuses in the name of God and taking away rights because they claim God told them to.

    Thats not the God I know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, Do I really want to jump in here, oh what the hell, I need a good spanking anyway. LOL

    I am far from a deeply religious person although ACC from birthright, but Mentarch as usually got me thinking hmmm Science and Religion, What Scientists of note have been Religion so I googled away and found this and was surprised by the names on this list.

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

    I understand the need of the people to believe in religion, hell, without it, were just a large ant colony, there has to be a belief in something or why the hell get out of bed. On less your willing to accept that your purpose for being is to work seventy years, get laid 2.5 times a week( dont bullshit me, if your married more then five years 2.5 is the average LOL) and then die well waiting in frustration for the Maples Leafs to win the Stanley Cup. hmmm, there has to be something and I am not saying there is, but I think a lot people would lose their reason for living. Has religion been abused, hell what hasn't and I challenge anyone to list any concept that once us animals with opposable thumbs have put our hands on we haven't twisted to suit either the needs of the powerful or the needs of the many as seen by the powerful that are advocating for the needs of the many.

    PS. Mentarch your absolutely correct if you want to hold yourself as holier then though then by God, pun intended, you better live up to it. Would you not agree that holds true though in any profession, if you advocated to your students that plagiarism is wrong then you better not be a found guilty of it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kingston - you work from the false premise that we all need something to believe in in order to live.

    I am an atheist. I am a scientist.

    The "purpose" I've given myself is to live life, enjoy it as best and as responsibly as I can, and strive to gain new knowledge - all the while respecting our basic human values.

    I easily go to bed and get up, smiling, thank you very much ;-)

    First and foremost - I suspect that my life is much freer from hypocrisy than those who tend to be religious fundamentalists.

    Not counting how closed up they keep their minds and refuse to accept reality.

    So, I do not see myself above anyone, but I do see where folks stand on the "closed mind/intellectual sloth afflicted" scale - just basic observations and demonstrated facts (usually by those being observed themselves).

    I do not need faith in a God or any paranormal force (or entity) to live a full, law-abiding and (usually) happy life.

    And no, I do not fear death. ;-)

    As for "scientists of note" who also had faith - what does this has anything to do with what I've written?

    I wrote about religious fundamentalists.

    Obviously, those scientists were no such thing ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually I wandered off track when I was checking out the links, so my comment is kind of a mix of the two different posts as you no doubt noticed by where my comment appeared, but to address your question, what percentage of the population on the grand old lady earth to you feel have reached your stage of enlightenment, I submit the vast majority of people have a need for a sense of belonging, a sense of a higher purpose rather then just sliding groceries over a scanner at NO Frills, etc. You yourself have how many years of higher education where you were conditioned to think outside the box and you absorbed that lesson and rightful so because you would be one crappy scientist if you did not continually inquire into the "facts", which is one of the reason I think I enjoy this blog. This is not to be considered an insult to you, but what I have noticed it the view from either the far left or far right seems to want to demean the middle as being sheep, un-able to think out side the box, what you do not take into consideration, is those people have found a belief system that makes them content. They do not want to believe that the live, die, decompose and in two generations after they are just fading photos and a name of a tombstone even thought I too believe that is our fate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. " what percentage of the population on the grand old lady earth to you feel have reached your stage of enlightenment, I submit the vast majority of people have a need for a sense of belonging, a sense of a higher purpose rather then just sliding groceries over a scanner at NO Frills, etc."

    Heh - But that is the point, isn't it? As I've always said - I have no problem whatsoever with folks who have faith. My problem lies with the fundamentalists who stubbornly refuse to accept facts, in contrats to the majority of those who have faith - provided they are educated accordingly.

    So, again - it is the minority of fundamentalists who keep fudging, disassembling and outrightly lying about facts in order to protect their parochial religious beliefs and views, in addition to try to swindle those of faith who remain more open (and who are the majority) but are not aware of the facts. That is the basic tactic used by fundamentalists, as I wrote in my older post "Of faith, fundamentalism and intellectual sloth". ;-)

    "but what I have noticed it the view from either the far left or far right seems to want to demean the middle as being sheep, un-able to think out side the box, what you do not take into consideration, is those people have found a belief system that makes them content. They do not want to believe that the live, die, decompose and in two generations after they are just fading photos and a name of a tombstone even thought I too believe that is our fate."

    I have no disagreement with that, especially since - once again - I've never put down faith in God or whatever. But I do put down the adulteration of facts - as is always done by the minority of *fundamentalists* ... which are an entirely different breed of folks who have faith, as compared to the majority. ;-)

    In other words: "You have faith? More power to you! But don't impose your religious values and faith on others *and* don't ignore the facts of reality or seek to stifle/hide/silence/mask them."

    (Which is exactly what fundamentalists do - regardless of religion)

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. OK, I am pretty sure were saying the same thing, in two different ways, LMAO.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yup! (LOL)

    But its good all the more that you comment back and forth and ask further questions like that.This is not only what the whole principle of exchange of ideas is all about, but also because it makes even more clearer where my opinions stand *exactly* for all to see, while removing the wrong perceptions or interpretations of what I wrote - so, keep'em coming! ;-)

    ReplyDelete

Please feel free to comment on APOV. However, remember to keep in check your tone and respect for all here. Let rational, reasoning, enthousiastic and passionate conversations and discussions rule first and foremost in our participatory democracy, so as to facilitate the free exchange of reality-based facts and ideas. In between, do not forget to have fun and enjoy yourselves ... in other words: keep on rockin'! - Mentarch