You'd think then the same should hold true even more so in Canada, because we have official multiculturalism as opposed to the US's unofficial melting pot.
Multiculturalism's doctrine mandates you keep you own culture intact. Multiculturalism in Canada is a sizable business and has a sizable budget etc all in the dogmatic presumption of each culture being separate but equal of the other.
Chumly,
No I don't think that follows. Where multi-culturalism is official this requires less psychological effort on the part of individuals to establish their "identity". Its like being given a set of clothes with the option of wearing them as opposed to having been actively involved in their design.
Your argument seems to be prefaced on the idea that the more the government does on your behalf, the less driven you'll be to support individualized autonomy.
Yes exactly. From primate studies it would appear that a tendency towards "tribalism" is innate. Where none pre-exists it will be created. The psychological sleight of hand by religious tribalists is that they claim to advocate its opposite "the brotherhood of man"!
By your viewpoint you might argue that multiculturalism in Canada has the opposite of the intended effect in that by trying to institutionalize cultural differences people actually become more homogenized.
Taking your viewpoint to its logical conclusion in the USA, that would suggest the government strongly endorsing, promoting and institutionalizing all religions would create more tolerance towards atheism (and for that matter more acceptance and tolerance in general as the effects of tribalism were transferred from the literal street level to the figurative governmental level).
fresco wrote:Regarding the unusual degree of "religiosity" in America which might render "atheism controversial" I have a simplistic theory. Since the USA has been historically "a melting pot" immigrants used religion as opposed to language or historical artifacts to satisfy a basic need for "group identity". The fact that there was no single state religion combined with the "pioneering spirit" rendered each of the plethora of alternative religions fiercley self assertive to the extent that those who do not participate in such an ideological free market are considered somehow to be "un-american".
So there it is in a nutshell
Sounds as good as any other explanation I've heard.
Essentially, there are two mindsets at work. The religious perceive atheism as totally alien to their perception of the world, and are genuinely horrified by it (The nearer the fundamentalist level, the stronger the moral outrage). It's a divide that may never be bridged.
Which is not claiming that all believers are offended by atheism. I couldn't speak for them all, just as I cannot speak for all atheists.
edgarblythe wrote:Essentially, there are two mindsets at work. The religious perceive atheism as totally alien to their perception of the world, and are genuinely horrified by it (The nearer the fundamentalist level, the stronger the moral outrage). It's a divide that may never be bridged.
....
Is that your actual experience of the attitudes of religious people that you have come across, Edgar?
Chumly,
There is some merit to your "logical conclusions". Once the state gets involved the issue of "equality" of all contenders becomes sacrosanct. It is but a simple psychological step to move from "equality of all beliefs" to "arbitrary value of all beliefs".
Edgar, it's my impression that theists see atheists as evil (or morally misguided) and atheists see theists as stupid (or intellectually misguided).
dlowan wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Essentially, there are two mindsets at work. The religious perceive atheism as totally alien to their perception of the world, and are genuinely horrified by it (The nearer the fundamentalist level, the stronger the moral outrage). It's a divide that may never be bridged.
....
Is that your actual experience of the attitudes of religious people that you have come across, Edgar?
Even the deeply religious friends I have are mostly like that.
JLNobody wrote:Edgar, it's my impression that theists see atheists as evil (or morally misguided) and atheists see theists as stupid (or intellectually misguided).
In many instances that is so. I personally don't think a religious person is necessarily dumb, except certain fundamentalist types.
Fresco's "nutshell" applies unambiguously to Ireland.
And Edgar, I agree. I know very stupid atheists and very smart theists, but none of the smart in either category are fundamentalists. My brother, the fundamentalist preacher, has intelligence (i.e., he has "brain power, the capacity for intelligent thought), but he is emotionally/culturally hampered. And theists like Kirkegaard and Tillich were profoundly intelligent to say the least.
Which suggests far too much emphasis is put on quantifiable/qualifiable intelligence, to the severe determent of pragmatism*!
* A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
fresco wrote:Yes exactly. From primate studies it would appear that a tendency towards "tribalism" is innate. Where none pre-exists it will be created. The psychological sleight of hand by religious tribalists is that they claim to advocate its opposite "the brotherhood of man"!
I did not comment earlier. This statement lines up with my own take on it.
Since I began this thread, I have swung to the opinion that atheist gatherings can have a positive effect.
@edgarblythe,
like Shakespeare in the park?
@Rockhead,
I didn't read much about that recent gathering. But, as a general principle.
@demonhunter,
One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small -
