Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Sean McLinden on authority and brainwashing Message-ID: <467@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 16:46:40 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.467 Posted: Tue Feb 5 16:46:40 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 03:46:16 EST References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> <398@pyuxd.UUCP> <237@cadre.ARPA> <241@cadre.ARPA> Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division Lines: 98 Xref: watmath net.religion:5557 net.flame:8269 >>... It does help at >>times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc. >>that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/ >>friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong, >>gradual, but very potent. [RAMANATHAN] > You might call it "brainwashing", but it isn't, and the use of that > term is an example of the inflammatory rhetoric you claimed that you > wished to avoid. [McLINDEN] It may be "inflammatory" to say so, but it *is* brainwashing nonetheless. Especially when its "purpose" seems to be to direct its "victims" towards a specific type of thinking to the exclusion of more reasoned analysis. I put the word "purpose" in quotes for a reason: from a teleological standpoint, it would seem that this is a purpose that such brainwashing serves. To call it purpose would imply some sort of designer that (conspiratorially?) manipulates things to make this happen. The brainwashing is a result of the ideological manipulation by the status quo, but that's not necessarily to say that there's some sort of conspiracy on the part of the status quo to repress. Members of the status quo (powers-that-be) are people too, as I mentioned in my own response to Ramanathan's article. And they are equally subject to the brainwashing effects. > Religion is NOT science (although the latter arose > from the former), and does not require the rigorous scientific > justifications that other intellectual disciplines do. Why? Because you say so? For your own personal perspective of the world, I agree, it does not; one chooses to believe what one likes. But for the perspective of a societal morality, and a system of indoctrination, it most certainly SHOULD require such rigorous justifications!!! > Some of what I (and I would assert you, too), believe > in, has come to us on the authority of another. This authority might > be a textbook, a journal article, a speech bu a Nobel laureate, or > a teacher. You may choose to accept or deny the authority of any > source of information but I would venture to say that a good percentage > of your beliefs are rooted in authority rather than your ability to > demonstrate them to your own satisfaction. There is a difference between an authority who simply asserts (an opinion? based on what?) and an authority who supplies reasoned analysis and evidence. In addition, "authorities" (e.g., Lewis) have been known to engage in analysis without disclosing basic assumptions which are not necessarily taken as givens. > Children, long before the acquire the discipline to reason, must accept > authority as the basis for certain beliefs and behaviors. You are told > "Don't play out in the street!". Do you accuse your parents of being > neofascist propagandists and demand that they give incontrovertable > evidence for why you shouldn't play in the street? If you are like > most of the children I grew up with, you accepted the fact that your > parents beliefs should be observed, at least for a time, because they > held higher authority than you did. As a child develops, he/she begins > to question these beliefs and may reject some as untenable. In my experience, the people who have the most rational outlook on the world are the ones who were raised, not by blind assertions and demands of an authority, but by authority that proves itself and explains its motives for its demands. Leading to better understanding. The type of "authority" you describe, involving blind obedience, is best used as training for learning to live under a fascist state. > Many religions operate in just such a fashion, by providing authority > as the basis for a belief or a way of life. When they "provide authority" through edict and expect blind obedience without question, or when they allow "analysis" of questions only within the framework of taken-for-granted assumptions that still must not be questioned, they are by their very nature dangerous. > In some of these religions, > certain people are endowed with special "powers" which allow them to > interpret messages from this authority (God). In my book, such people are known as "charlatans". To believe in such "special authority" is ludicrous. > It is not undesirable for us to learn to accept certain things on authority > from others. It is not "brainwashing" to teach beliefs in addition to > facts. The mere fact that you question what you have been taught is > evidence that parents/teachers/etc., whom you have accused of brainwashing > you, cannot, in fact, control what you believe. Some are luckier (and/or smarter) than others. Unfortunately, the less lucky and the less smart, the more gullible and easily brainwashed, are greater in number. > Life is considerably > simplified by accepting certain concepts on authority (religious and > otherwise), without us demanding unequivocal proof. Life is NOT simple! Attempts to make it so for convenience are riddled with fraud, lies, and preconceptions! Often of the most dangerous nature... -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr