The Straussians and Religion

[Stunster]

The neoconservatives are followers of Leo Strauss. Strauss taught that atheism is true, that there is no objective right or wrong, and that this is the secret message of the great philosophical tradition that began with the trial of Socrates---but that the elite should nonetheless deceive the people into believing in religion.

It's rather ironic, then, that the secular Left should rail against the neocons for their supposed religiosity, when they are really disciples of a sort of elitist gnostic atheism. Their religiosity is fake, in other words, and their intellectual master actually despised the notions of revealed religion and objective morality, and recommended using deception to subordinate traditional religious beliefs and values to a merely instrumental role in the pursuit of purely secular goals.

Ironic indeed, then, that the intellectual inspiration for the Bush Administration should be an atheistic political philosopher who recommends the use of deceit in politics to further an amoral will to power.

The articles at these links explain it all quite well:

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233

And here's a relevant quotation from a third article on this subject:

From Nietzsche to Leo Strauss, only the names have been changed, as
they say. To begin with, what Nietzsche called the "superman," or the
"next man," Strauss calls the "philosopher."

The philosopher/superman is that rare man who can face the truth: that
there is no God; that the universe cares nothing for men or mankind;
and that all of human history is nothing more than an insignificant
speck in the cosmos, which no sooner began, than it will vanish
forever without a trace. There is no morality, no good and evil, and
of course any notion of an afterlife is an old wives' tale.

In a eulogy for a colleague, Strauss said, "I think he died as a
philosopher. Without fear, but also without hope."

But the great majority of men and women, on the other hand, is so far
from ever being able to face the truth, that it it virtually belongs
to another species. Nietzsche called it the "herd," and also the
"slaves." They require the bogeymen of a threatening God and of
punishment in the afterlife, and the fiction of moral right and wrong.
Without these illusions, they would go mad and run riot, and the
social order, any social order, would collapse. And since human nature
never changes, according to Strauss, this will always be so.

It is the supermen/philosophers who provide the herd with the
religious, moral, and other beliefs they require, but which the
supermen themselves know to be lies. Nietzsche said that his supermen
were "atheistic priests," and Strauss pretends that their lies are
"noble lies." But they do not do this out of benevolence, of course;
charity and benevolence are mocked by Nietzsche and Strauss as
unworthy of gods and godlike men. Rather, the "philosophers" use these
falsehoods to shape society in the interest of these "philosophers"
themselves.

Now, the philosophers require various sorts of people to serve them,
including the "gentlemen," that word which had struck me earlier, when
Bloom had used it in speaking of Socrates' trial. Rather than the
"esoteric," or secret teachings, the future "gentlemen" are
indoctrinated in the "exoteric," or public teachings. They are taught
to believe in religion, morality, patriotism, and public service, and
some go into government. Think of former Education Secretary William
Bennett and his Book of Virtues. Of course, along with these
traditional virtues, they also believe in the "philosophers" who have
taught them all these good things.

Those "gentlemen" who become statesmen, will continue to take the
advice of the philosophers. This rule of the philosophers through
their front-men in government, is what Strauss calls the "secret
kingdom" of the philosophers, a "secret kingdom" which is the life's
objective of many of Strauss's esoteric students.
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2003/leo_strauss/3015secret_kingdom_ap_.html

[Az]

1. Are you suggesting

That atheists do not have ethics or morality?

[Stunster]

3. I'm suggesting

that the atheists currently running the US government don't, and that when their lack of ethics gets noticed, it's religion which unfairly takes the rap.

And that it's a bad rap, because those guys are not genuinely religious--just as their mentor recommended.

[Az]

5. Well

I have spent time associating with conservative religious fundamentalists and they do not seem to share your perspective. They claim to entirely endorse the conservative agenda. Now it may be that they are being hoodwinked by some nefarious individuals. But I am hardly prepared to give all people of religious faith a pass simply because if these observations.

Furthermore I suspect the reference to Straus clouds an issue. Individuals that do not have an internal sense of right or wrong are not atheists. They are sociopaths. And that is a neurological condition.

Perhaps the confusion comes from missing the point of the relativistic argument. It suggests that there is no definitive good or evil inherant to the universe. Rather good and evil are relative terms built upon our own internal preferences and modified by social interaction. Thus there is no good or evil but there are preferable modes of behaviour to create a more harmonious society and life for all.

[Stunster]

6. Yeah,

and I am hardly prepared to give all atheists a pass simply because of your observations. Especially the atheists currently directing US policy.

Nor am I prepared to give a pass to those who smack religion because of what they erroneously believe about who's really running the US, and what sort of ideology inspires them. Well, I can forgive being ignorant about Straussianism.

But let's face it, if Strauss had actually been a devout believer, you lot would be wasting no time using the policies of his neocon disciples as a stick with which to beat religion. But when it turns out the shoe is on the other foot, you get your knickers in a twist and start moaning about how it's unfair to say anything negative about atheism on that account. Well, by the same logic, it would be unfair to say negative things about religion if he and his followers had been genuinely religious. So what's it going to be?

Seems to me some folk are trying to have their atheist cake and eat an anti-religious one too.

[Az]

8. Um you have been paying attention right

I am not hearing atheist rhetoric pouring forth from Bush and klan's mouths. In fact quite the inverse. Daily bible studies. Religious rhetoric embedded in everything. Individuals reporting very religious thinking coming from the oval office. Are you saying Allen Greenspan is using mind control or something? He is the only atheist I know of anywhere near the center of power.

[Stunster]

9. That's what Strauss

(the atheist guy, remember?) recommended they do.

Lie. Use deception. Pretend.

Get it now?

[Az]

10. I believe you give Bush too much credit

You are also running into the ongoing conspiracy problem. The more individuals embroiled in a conspiracy over an ever increasing period of time results in a failure of the conspiracy as leaks occurr. In short such conspiracies do not work for an extended period of time.

I do not believe by any means that Bush and his cronies represent anything near a typical believer. But I don't buy him being an atheist. A sociopath or a psychopathic personality definately. But his religious associations and rhetoric I do not accept as being faked. You can be religious and a sociopath at the same time. History is quite full of devout people doing greedy and malicious acts. Provide some evidence other than speculation and I will consider it.

[AZCat]

11. Is there any evidence that Bush is a Straussian?

I have not seen anything that has indicated Bush is aware of Strauss. He rubs shoulders with many of the neocons that are devotees of Strauss, but I have always felt that his intellectual incuriousity would prevent him from actually learning about Strauss.

[Az]

12. Exactly my point

To accept that the inner circle is Strausian would be to assume that Billy Graham, Robertson, Reed, and a host of other nefarious evangelists were Strausian as well.

[Zebulon]

31. Re: To accept that

To accept that the inner circle is Strausian would be to assume that Billy Graham, Robertson, Reed, and a host of other nefarious evangelists were Strausian as well.

You might find this thread interesting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=104396

[Az]

33. This entire argument really smacks of No True Scotsman fallacy

History is replete with examples of people of belief behaving in very nefarious ways. This simply seems to be an argument to shift all malfeasance to the shoulders of the atheists. Its a bit insulting.

[Zebulon]

34. Re: This simply seems to be an argument to shift all malfeasance

I don't see that. We're talking about individuals, ultimately, not groups. There are good and bad atheists, good and bad Christians, good and bad Muslims, good and bad Jews, good and bad Hindus, etc. The responsibility for wrongdoing is not on "atheists" as a group, any more than upon "Jews" as a group. It is on the individuals involved.

[Az]

35. So raise this above wild speculation

Show evidence that the individuals directing these things are atheists. All I am hearing here is no real Christian would support these things. Sorry to say real Christians have supported many things that you and I would disavow in a heart beat. Atheists don't get to play default amoral citizen. We are without a belief in gods not without morals.

[Zebulon]

36. Re: Show evidence that the individuals directing these things are atheist

I'm not claiming that they *are* atheists. Frankly, it sounds more like some sort of gnostic cult to me.

And, being Jewish, I'm certainly not making any "no real Christian" argument.

[Az]

37. That is how this thread started

That is where the bulk of reaction to this arg is coming from.

[Stunster]

38. Why is it insulting?

History is replete with examples of atheists behaving in very nefarious ways....Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Nicolae Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, and so on.

Suppose it was the case that the people pulling the strings behind the Christian Right movement were really Christians. Would pointing that out be insulting to Christians? I don't see how.

So it shouldn't be insulting to atheists if it were to turn out that the folks pulling the strings were not Christians, but Godless capitalists.

[Az]

39. Because the brush you use does not distinguish

between specific atheists and all atheists. If the statement had been some atheists have been bad people it would not be insulting. Suppose I made the claim that religion is responsible for all war. Do you think some may be insulted by the broad claim?

[Stunster]

42. I'd say the same thing when atheists bash Christianity

because of the misdeeds of some self-styled Christians.

And please don't pretend that all atheists are always careful to make the distinction you're recommending in the analogous case, because quite simply, and as a matter of indisputable fact, they don't all, nor always, do so.

[Az]

43. Why would I say that

I am very aware of many atheists that lump all believers into the same shortsighted category. That is their problem, not mine. I am not unique either. There are many atheists that get that there are as many type of believers as there are believers. Each person is a unique example of belief unto themself. To treat them any other way is a disservice to everyone.

The fact of the matter is that atheists in general do not converse with believers on the subject of belief on a regular basis. We tend to be ostrasized. We aren't invited to play any reindeer games. As such we form our own little cliques and just as believers tend to gather in their own groups we both form opinions of the other based on no solid evidence.

I have taken it upon myself as a sort of duty to seek out and converse with many believers in order to better understand the many ways people can come to believe. But that's me. You are going to have to treat me as a unique individual rather than a generic atheist. Just as you expect me to treat you.

[Stunster]

15. I'm not giving Bush any credit

He's a useful idiot for the Straussians, that's all.

And if you think Bush is really running the country, then it is you who are giving him too much credit.

The people who run America don't give a fig about religion. The move to the right in the US has been led by the disciples of Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, both of whom were fiercely anti-religious and fiercely in favor of right-wing capitalism. Sorry, but dems da fax.

Since Reagan gained office, church attendance has continued dropping in America, materialism and egoism have been rampant, and the mainstream Protestant, Jewish and Catholic religious establishments have been marginalized politically by materialistic capitalism, and their place taken by fundamentalists---exactly what the Straussians would want to happen, and what they have sedulously tried to ensure would happen. So crackpots like Falwell, Robertson and so on, who would have been looked upon as fringe fruitcakes a generation ago by mainstream denominations--and still are--have been well funded by the capitalist ideologues. Right wing ideological control of the media has intensified and sold the message that 'being Christian' = being conservative.

The key point is that this is is a huge change from even just 25 years ago, and it is all so well documented to the point of overload, that it's hard for me to even get back into a mindset where I should need to point it out to anyone who's been awake these past two decades.

As America has grown more affluent, it has grown more secular and materialistic--and more right wing. But realizing that religion is still influential, the right has understood that it needed to create a base among religious people too if it was going to build a winning electoral coalition. But they knew that mainstream religious establishments were too antipathetic to rightwing, unfettered capitalism, and so the apostles of rightwing unfettered capitalism have built an electoral coalition which simply did not exist 30 years precisely by marginalizing mainstream religion and promoting what was religiously marginal 30 years ago as if it were mainstream, which is easy to do when you control the media. This is the same mass media, incidentally, which does not waste a second in promoting such well known religious fare as nonstop sleaze, sexual egoism, mindnumbing cheesiness, and the crassest materialism at every opportunity, so the counterfeit nature of the link to religion is apparent to anyone with a brain who's been paying attention. The Straussians of course don't just stop at suborning religion, they also use patriotism and nationalism for the same ends, just as Strauss recommended....

But traditional mainstream Christians, whose churches are emptying, have not shifted to the right but indeed have continued to critique the right. See the Catholic Bishops' frequent statements that universal health care is a right, or Episcopal Bishop Griswold's statement on Bush's Budget, for the latest example--not that you'll find any of this touted as examples of Christianity on Fox, of course, that very obviously 'religious' TV station:
http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?years=2005&months=2&article=309&pos=#309

I guess if this is not all completely obvious to you, then I have to wonder about how intelligent, or fair, you're being about religion in America.

[Az]

17. I reject the notion that materialism is on the rise

I would say it is more a case of Corporatism. Corporations are making citizens over in their own image. This is much more in keeping with what you are describing. Corporations have no reason or drive to consider social or moral implications. They truly are survival of the fittest. This is completely alien to our nature.

Take a look at what is being fed to people on TV. Reality shows create a false sense of human society. They teach people to turn on each other and get what is best for them.

Corporations do not want citizens looking to each other for support and reliance. They need us to be dependent on them. It need not even be a deliberate orchestrated goal on their part. Simply put the Corporation that manages to make their customer more dependent on them survives while its competition either copies or dies.

The thing of it is that Corporations dislike critical thinking. Thus real atheists and humanists are an curse to them. Unlikely to be swayed by popular images or advertisements they tend to think things through for themself. They tend not to respond to appeals from authority or personal testimonials. Thus the Corporations are unlikely to favor such critical thinkers.

Many believers on the other hand are already involved in structures which provide them with answers and structure. The more conservative groups tend to move in lock step. Critical thought concerning their doctrine is to be avoided. Accept what you are told. This is virtually the perfect consumer. All the Corporation has to figure out is how to get in on the stream of control.

Of course there are many liberal and critical thinking examples of believers. But they like the atheists and humanists are being marginalized by the Corporate supported fundamentalists. Corporations seek control. And nothing provides control like dogmatic belief.

[Stunster]

19. Irony is so, umm, ironic

I reject the notion that materialism is on the rise. I would say it is more a case of Corporatism. Corporations are making citizens over in their own image. This is much more in keeping with what you are describing. Corporations have no reason or drive to consider social or moral implications. They truly are survival of the fittest. This is completely alien to our nature."

And it's religion, not materialism, that promotes the notion of the 'survival of the fittest'? Does the phrase 'social Darwinism' mean anything to you?

I'd say it's really the other way around, and that you have it completely backwards.

People, influenced by the mass media and the culture of consumer capitalism, move to the right politically. This goes against the teaching of the mainstream Protestant churches (Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc), plus Judaism, plus Catholicism, which have all been hugely to the left of the American electorate for decades. But the folks want their materialism and consumerism, so they either abandon religion altogether (and the numbers show declining religious belief and practice in America), or they look for a religion that sits more comfortably with their new found capitalist values. Along come the fundie preachers, financed by procapitalist cynical rich ideologues, and tell them that God wants them to be rich, that God hates the poor, that God doesn't want the races to be integrated, that God hates gays and foreigners, etc. And so these selfish, crassly materialistic, undereducated American versions of what in Thatcher's England used to be called 'Essex Man' flock to the nonsense and have it confirmed by the media that "Being a Christian = being a rightwing Republican". Meantime, the pews of the traditional churches which have been preaching social justice are emptying. And if you look at the highest rates of teen pregnancy, divorce, and consumption of cheapo sex 'n' sleaze, it's all in the Red states. Thinking the way you're doing would be like thinking of The Sun newspaper in Thatcher's time as a Christian family newspaper. It's such an obvious con that only halfwits would take such a notion seriously.

It's not that true Christianity leads people to become rightwing materialists. Rather, rightwing materialism leads people to reject true Christianity, and either abandon religion altogether, or latch onto a counterfeit version of it promoted by the gnostic atheistic rightwing materialist and capitalist elite, the supreme leadership of which is now in total control of the White House, the Republican Party, corporate America, and the mass media.

As I said, I guess if this is not all completely obvious to you, then I have to wonder about how intelligent, or fair, you're being about religion in America. And it's not just America. The established mainstream Churches in Europe hold positions on a host of issues that are considerably to the left of the average European voter. Berlusconi and Murdoch with their sleaze-saturated media empires are exemplars of Christianity? Gimme a fckn break! That's like saying that Stalin, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung are democratic socialists!

[Az]

20. Ease up

Where did I say religion was at fault? I am in no way suggesting religion is behind this. And as to Social Darwinism it is a sophmoric approach to understanding society. No serious scientist applies social darwinism to our social condition. It is a barren lifeless approach to social structures.

While Churchs have historically been left of center their structure makes them easy prey for manipulative forces. They are a pool of organised and willing participants. Unfortunately the grasping Corporations got together with the Republicans and found a way to bring them in with single issue causes and eventually twisted their view of the world.

[Stunster]

21. Ease up?

How about atheists easing up on bashing religion by touting a blindingly obvious counterfeit version of religion as evidence of religion's supposed badness?

I mean, aren't you the guy who's always going on about 'straw men'?

I feel like a Marxist trying to explain that, er, no, Stalinism isn't Marxism and that old Karl would actually have strongly disapproved of Uncle Joe, etc.

[Az]

24. It's not religion's fault.

It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.
It's not religion's fault.

Are you getting this yet? No one is proclaiming religion as the end all and be all of evil. Plenty of evil to go around. I personally am blaming Corporations and their nonhuman based notion of progress. Argue to what is being said to you. Not what you imagine is being said.

The fundamentalist sects are getting played by Corporations and conservative interests. They are being mislead. They are not at cause.

There are still plenty of liberal religious denominations that are not being hoodwinked by these right wing drones of corporate interests.

Read the words being said to you. Its not the religion stupid. Its the corporate entity. Religion is just a tool being used by Corporations.

It's not religion. It's corporations.

It's corporations

It's corporations.

How many times do I have to say this?

[Zebulon]

32. Re: And if you look at

And if you look at the highest rates of teen pregnancy, divorce, and consumption of cheapo sex 'n' sleaze, it's all in the Red states.

Well, sure. Doesn't matter what they do, after all. Jesus has already forgiven them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. But there's also nihilism, which is a philosophical position

that says that nothing has any meaning and that there are no standards of good or evil.

Not that such a position wouldn't be attractive to a sociopath, but in nineteenth century Russia, for example, there were young activists who adopted nihilism as their personal philosophy, probably as sort of an adolescent phase.

[Az]

18. I suspect Nihilism is a transitory stage

I have known many individuals that lost their belief. Once they percieve "the big lie" they lose faith in everything. They discard all their old beliefs and values. Meaning goes out the door. If they don't take drastic and foolish steps eventually they find their own meaning rather than expecting the universe to hand them a prepackaged meaning.

An old joke I used to use. A breathing nihilist is like a luddite on the internet.

[BurtWorm]

22. That's a very naive view of this govt.

The neo-cons are running the Bushist State and War Depts., and Straussian amorality may be to blame for the immorality of Bushist foreign policy. But the fundamentalist Christian paleo cons are running the domestic policy. Should we blame Strauss or atheism for the immorality of Bushist domestic policy?

[aneerkoinos]

23. Good point

US domestic and foreign policy could be looked at somewhat separately. However, both are run by interests of corporate fascism, of which Straussians are fervent supporters, but perhaps with different (bit more realistic) emphasis. On social issues Straussians seem to be relatively liberal, but since only thing they really care for is Power and their preciouss imperialism, they really don't give a damn about domestic policies.

[Stunster]

25. Do you really think

that the GOP's corporate paymasters give a flying fuck about prayer in schools, commandments in courtrooms, or putting prolife judges on the Supreme Court?

It's all a smokescreen for amoral, materialist, Godless capitalism. In other words, all this religious right crapology is designed and pushed forward by GOP strategists to deflect attention away from the true nature of their Godless capitalist agenda.

You know I'm right!

[Az]

26. Its not even capitalism

It is specifically Corporatism. We created entities when we created corporations. As long as we held the reigns tightly Corporations could be made to serve us. But the rights deregulation frenzy has set these monsters free. And they are turning on us and remaking much of our civilization over in their own image.

Regulated capitalism works. There may be a better system discovered or invented one day. We have already seen that part of regulating capitalism involves invoking some socialist policies. This is all fine. But once the regulations are stripped and Corporations are allowed to run wild we no longer control it. It begins to control us.

[BurtWorm]

27. "Godless capitalists!"

That's the first I've ever heard that one! :toast:

[Az]

28. Godless capitalists, Godless commies

Sheesh, seems as if we are responsible for all political spectrums.

[aneerkoinos]

29. 2*Godless

I don't know why and how Western Enlightment was turned into dogma of metaphysical materialism, but that's what happend, with logical endpoint of self-image (if intellectual honesty means anything) as zombie robots. That's what "mind emerging from brain matter" really means, no going round that, compliments to Churchlands at least for their consistency. And for better or worse, that's the official Western philosophical paradigm, regardless of the fact that few people actually intuitively share that (self-)view.

Buddhism and other Indian philosophies/religions are also Godless from the perspective of monotheistic worship of Personal God. But unlike western rationalism, they consider mind more fundamental than matter, IMO holding logically more consistent views.

My own view is that materialist belief does not correspond well with reality and thus makes us and our societies fragmented, without sense of whole, "Holy", sick to the core. And yes, with their underlying materialistic presuppositions Capitalism and Communism are differentiated only along one dimension, but both products of the same tradition of Enlightment. Native/aboriginal/tribal "natural/spiritual" forms of communism are quite different from intellectual Marxism...

[Az]

30. Shortsighted

You seem to be presuming that materialism is static. That it cannot learn as it progresses. Yes the mind is the result of the brain. BUt this does not mean that complex structures that defy predictive qualities cannot arise from them.

There is this notion that materialism necissarily leads to social darwinism. But this is not true. A materialist can examine the nature of brains and the social nature of our species and see that more complex interactions are possible than just survival of the individual fittest.

There seems to be an assumption born of ignorance (a curable thing) that ideas from opposing camps are blind or sophmoric. Instead of castigating each others views perhaps it would be better to let the other represent their view rather than prescribing what they believe against there protestations.

[Stunster]

40. "Yes the mind is the result of the brain"

If X is the result of Y, then X not = Y.

Applying this to the mind-brain relation, it would follow that if what you say is true, then the mind does not = the brain.

And it would be hard to know what other material entity the mind would be equal to, if not the brain. But that would in turn imply that the mind is not a material entity at all. But then, wouldn't that mean that materialism is, in some important sense, false?

[Az]

41. Its calculus not algebra

The mind is the brain over time. Its the process that makes the difference. A brain just sitting there doing nothing is not a mind.

[Stunster]

44. I find your notion a bit obscure

But then the whole mind-body problem is obscure, on many levels.

Having said that, I do think the existence of minds is fairly good evidence that materialism is false. But it's a big topic.

[Az]

45. Agreed

However I think there is adequate increase in potential by looking at the brain as a process rather than a static lump of flesh. It is the active nature of it that gives rise to the mind. Freeze it or stop it and the mind stops with it. Of course this is opinion and quite open to debate.

[Stunster]

46. On another thread

somebody mentioned the case of a woman whose body was frozen, who reported a NDE.

[Az]

47. Yeah, I responded to it

Many anomalies that were being jumped on by the NDE crowd inappropriately. In particular the notion that the freezing was instant. It takes a while for the process to have full effect. They were well underway on the procedure before the freezing was fully in effect. In fact the conversation she reported hearing took place in the early stages and very probably was the result of her dwindling consciousness managing to grasp a last bit of conversation before she went dark.

Conjecture to be sure. But well within the boudaries of reasonable.

[aneerkoinos]

51. Mr Inhonest

Youre not presenting reasonable viewpoint but that of willfull ignorance or denial. For every purpose of medical science, she was brain dead, check the links I put there.

Yes, I claim that you choose to believe in your materialist dogma against any reasonable scientific evindence. And that is no honest.

[Az]

52. I posted my replies there

Yes she was entirely offline for a period of time. I saw nothing in the records to indicate that it was the entire procedure. Full shut down is not instant.

[aneerkoinos]

54. Its a river in Egypt

Science is not about debunking and denial, its about having an open mind about all available evidence.

You don't present any point, only denial about the available documentation. I think you're a believer in a dogma, not an honest person.

[Az]

56. Sorry you just spent any credibility you had

You are a rude and insulting person who cannot argue their point without ridiculing the other person. Here you continue to insult me and call me names. You have no graps of civilized dialog and I see no reason to discuss anything of merrit with you until I recieve an appology. I have done nothing to you personally and have only offered honest opinions. You sully this conversation and make it rather impossible to discuss things rationally. Good day.

[aneerkoinos]

59. Naturally

That is the only response you can give, personalize the argument and drop out. Good on you!

Sure I´m rude and insulting. I´m me. That has nothing to do with science and empirical evidence, for wich the materialists of your ilk couldn't care less. Stupid "skeptics" just deserve a pay back for they willfull denial and dishonesty.

[Stunster]

58. aneerkoinos, a favor please

I missed those links.

Would you mind posting them again, or directing me to your post containing them?

Thanks in advance.

[aneerkoinos]

61. Sorry

I tried to look for the thread but couldn't find it (they are there somewhere). But as consolation prize, here's general look at meta-analysis on paranormal:

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp.html

Ít´s all proven beyond reasonable doubt, media politics different issue, as I´m sure everyone living in Bushland can realize. Now can we please move on to finding out what these anomalies mean, instead of just trying to debunk their existance...

[Az]

63. Reasonable doubt

From the follow up articles to this paper published in The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 62, December, 1998 (pp. 297-308)


EXPERIMENT ONE OF THE
SAIC REMOTE VIEWTNG PROGRAM:
A CRITICAL RE-EVALUATION


BY RICHARD WISEMAN AND JULIE MILTON


ABSTRACT: The American Institutes for Research (AIR) recently produced a report on the effectiveness of US government-funded research in
demonstrating the existence of a remote viewing effect that could be used for intelligence-gathering purposes. The most recent studies in this program were carried out by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and these studies were the focus of the assessment.
The evaluators concluded that the ten SAIC studies reviewed contained no obvious flaws. One of the evaluators used eight methodological criteria to assess the studies, and chose one of the experiments Experiment One to demonstrate the use of the criteria: the experiment appeared to satisfy all eight. The publication of this report prompted the first author (R. W.) to become interested in attempting to replicate the SAIC research into remote viewing. Before doing so, R. W. examined the protocol used in Experiment One as a potential template for the replication. This examination uncovered a number of possible pathways of information leakage apparently present in the study. In addition, problems were encountered by the SAIC team in reconstructing a number of unrecorded procedural details concerning Experiment One. The implications of this assessment for Experiment One and the AIR report are discussed.


In a further followup more problems are discovered.

The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 63, March 1999 (pp. 3-14)


"EXPERIMENT ONE OF THE SAIC REMOTE
VIEWING PROGRAM: A CRITICAL RE-EVALUATION": REPLY TO MAY


BY RICHARD WISEMAN AND JULIE MILT0N


ABSTRACT: In our original paper (Wiseman & Milton, 1998), we described a number of potential information leakage pathways in Experiment One of the SAIC remote viewing program. In this paper, we counter May’s assertion that the proposed leakage paths could not have accounted for the observed difference between performance in the static target and dynamic target conditions and refute May’s claim that there is empirical evidence from the literature that indicates that our proposed information pathways cannot be effective. We also described in our earlier paper the repeated and marked difficulties encountered by May and the SAIC research team in producing a consistent account of a number of aspects of the experiment’s procedure, which resulted in a sequence of five different accounts of these procedures. These difficulties not only make an assessment of Experiment One extremely difficult, but also call into question whether the assessors commissioned to write a US
government-sponsored report on the other studies in the SAIC program would have been given accurate information about their unrecorded details. In his response, May insists that the final account of Experiment One is the correct reconstruction, but offers no evidence or argument to support this claim and does not address the problems that the situation raises for the government report.

[aneerkoinos]

67. Wiseman

Wiseman is pretty controversial character and there is lot of ground to suspect that there is an experimenter effect called "Wiseman effect" involved in his studies, which has very little to do with scientific pursuit and all to do with Wiseman's a priori presumptions and his media credibility as a debunker par excellence.

On Ganzfeld controversy:
http://phoenix.herts.ac.uk/pwru/parapsy.html
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/ganzfeld.htm
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/O'Neill.htm

Sheldrake and Wiseman:
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/wiseman.html

Skeptical Investigations On Wiseman:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm#RichardWiseman

Wiseman the Conjurer hasn't got much integrity left, and has been forced to resign from Society for Psychical Research.

[aneerkoinos]

49. Calculus

You got that right. But it's not binary calculus, but quantum calculus... mind I mean...

[Az]

50. Perhaps

This notion of quantum entanglement is more accepted by those of certain belief systems than it is within the scientific community. Its a possibility but the evidence still seems to point to a macro process rather than a micro process. Time will tell though. So we continue to investigate.

[aneerkoinos]

53. Go jerk off

You are allowed to believe in any asinine bullcrap materialism you want to, and jerk all over the scientific community you presume to be existant.

The evidence has been clear enough for millenia, but never has any evidence turned the heads of true believers...

[Az]

55. Gosh yes that convinced me

It amazes me. I offer my objection in a manner that allows the issue to remain open and you return a vile post of hatred and spewtum. And you expect me to consider anything you have to say after an immature outburst like that. I think you know what you can do as you have already so aptly descibed it. Good day.

[aneerkoinos]

57. Sorry

I'm just sick and tired of the pseudo-scientists continuously denying the evidence, that meta-analyzis shows consistent anomaly. Sure, I am immature and aggressive, so that surely accounts for everything, Good Day to You Sir...

The existance of anomaly is no more an open questionn, and the proof shows that the mind emerging from brain is pure crap theory, let's try to be honest, how about that...

[Az]

60. The case is interesting

But from our position we cannot analyze the info satisfactorly. I read the paper. It is not clear when she lost total consciousness. It is not clear that they did not start the procedure before she lost total consciousness.

Using the scientific method does not mean that as soon as you come across something interesting you toss out all the books. You analyze it and research it and check it and check it and etc. I am merely pointing out there is room in this case for alternate explanations. I am not insisting these are the explanations. Neither of us has enough information to make that conclusion.

There is a movie called The Messenger. Its about Joan of Arc. Throughout the movie she believes she is acting as the chosen of God because of an event that she can only explain as God choosing her. But at the end of the movie her conscience (played very well by Dusten Hoffman) points out all the possible explanations that might have accounted for her experience. Its a very good lesson in how to examine a situation and not fall for certain conclusions.

Science is just like that. We have to cross off every single possibility. We have to consider and refute every alternate. It takes time. It takes lots of repeated experiments to exclude operator errors. A single case does not make the argument. Countless repetitions make the argument. Without end. Science must always remain open ended as new evidence may turn up and completely overturn everything to date.

That is why I offer alternate explanations based on the very limited information we have concerning this case. Unfortunately repeating such experiments is rare. But there are other ways of testing these theories and they are being pursued.

As I said before. Time will tell. Patience is required in science.

[aneerkoinos]

62. Pease

Sorry for any heated language. It's not personal, but against the dishonesty of the conservative materialist Paradigm, I'm sure you understand that. :)

As for scientific method, let us keep in mind that cannot mean exclusively methodological materialism. Methodological materialism is and must be (if scientific) subject to more general scientific and philosophical (and metaphysical + empirical) scrutiny. And if we are honest about science, it is impossible to deny the patriarchal structures and presuppositions about penetratory patriarchal nature of yesterdays theoretical physics, ie. subject - object division. Presuppositions which Quantum has now (for about 100 years) fully put to question.

[Az]

64. Science is constant revolution

And yes there is an initial faith based leap to overcome the solipsistic issue. But even that is open minded in that if we find evidence that our senses are being decieved we can apply the new found evidence to the issue and try to make sense of it.

Within a revolutionary process such as science there will always be old guard vs vanguard. Often times the new way of thinking manages to topple the old ways. But far far more often the old guard stands strong against new ideas that fail to make their case.

Quantum mechanics has struck a tremendous blow to old notions of physics and cosmology. But to date there are only hints of possible links to the nature of the mind being entangled in quantum theory. Interesting though they may be the prepoderance of evidence still points to macro explanations for the mind rather than micro. But perhaps a new revolution is around the corner. We will have to keep on plodding along to find out.

[aneerkoinos]

65. Vanguard

Yes, the dialectic between conservative "old guard" vs. progressive vanguard is essential part of scientific study. And my personal position is with the vanguard, and sometimes ahead of vanguard which often, because of multitude of reasons, functions outside the academic establishment.

However, the conservatism has taken some unhealthy papal characteristics, most visibly the organized parascientific "skeptic" movement of CSISOP etc, which has little to do with science and lot to do with defending the orthodox dogma even by questionable means.

[Az]

66. Time after time

Claims of paranormal ability simply fail to do what they claim to do. I would love for such abilities to exist. But I personally see no valid evidence. I will remain open should something come along. But I will not accept the first document that seems to suggest it. That is just the first step. After evidence is found it has to be examined. A lot. There are so many ways we can make mistakes in collecting data. Repetitive testing is critical.

[aneerkoinos]

68. Really

>>>Claims of paranormal ability simply fail to do what they claim to do. <<<

That is simply untrue, the studies show that there is persistent statistical anomaly related to study of ESP.

What is different issue is that there are also plenty of charlatans or misguided people. Natasha Demkina does not seem to be one of those. Here's Josephson on the latest controversy:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

What is also very noteworthy is that the subject in question seems to have lot to do with subcosnciouss mental phenomena and less with consciouss willfull action.

[aneerkoinos]

48. Bullcrap

I did not bring up social darwinism, you did, so keep it to yourself. But if ye accept being a zombie robot, have a gaz!!! ;)

FYI, I'm not prescribing anything into materialist metaphysics, au contraire I have highest respect for the Churchlands who you should check out.

And no no no no, mind is not emergent of brain. We've got all the empirical evidence against that asinine assumption.

Unless one chooses to be a believer in materialism, and gives a fuck for science...

[Warpy]

4. Not if you read the article.

Strauss was the fool who said his atheism was without ethics or morality.

Most atheists are extremely ethical people who realize what a society without ethical constraints against murder, theft, and other actions which harm people would be like, and act accordingly.

Strauss and his disciples see themselves as so far above the whole of society and so insulated from any of the effects that a total lack of ethics would have upon them that they feel they have absolutely no need to develop a set of ethics and practice them. After all, they're so exalted that none of the wretched masses they rob, starve, or murder will ever be able to get to them to retaliate.

I have no doubt that this bunch consider themselves highly religious, anointed by god, and thus permitted to demonstrate the total lack of morals and ethics that Strauss promoted for his own atheism.

And that is where the irony lies.

[AZCat]

2. Is the secular left...

Railing against the "supposed religiosity of the neocons", or against their use of religion to control the citizenry?

I see nothing ironic in the latter.

[bobbieinok]

7. 2 separate groups.....1 large: religious right...1 small, elite: neocon

Straussians

religious right are the troops...they know little or nothing about the neocons and their agenda

[aneerkoinos]

13. Strauss'

philosophy is fascism, pure and simple.

And BTW, Nietsche's is not.

[T_i_B]

14. Anyone here ever watch a BBC documentary...

...entitled The Power of Nightmares? It deals with this subject of "nessessary illusions" very well. And it's very popular with DU Brits as you will find in the UK forum.

Ultimatly, all political ideology tries to pervert religion for its own ends, which IMHO is why we Christians need to be on our guard against political idealogues of all stripes.

I must admit to being fed up with the left, but whenever I see the right I get similarly annoyed with them too.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.