> Tim,
>
> How many fundamentalists have you known and conversed with? How many have
> you "converted" from their belief system? As someone who has known and
> loved *many* fundamentalist Christians, I've learned that deconverting a
> fundamentalist is impossible by any means. I would agree with you
> completely if Johnny had not shown the totality of his fundamentalism.
>
Fundamentalism i.e. inability to reexamine one's beliefs is not merely religious,
it is found in many aareas, a few comman examples:
1. Macs vs. PCs
2. Jocks trying to keep a C average so that they can stay on sport teams and
get scholarships vs.
'nerds' like me who try to get straight A's and get merit scholarships at
good schools
3. Which gender has an easier time of it
4. Sports/specific TV show fans
and MANY others
> Your analogy of a philosophical circle jerk was an excellent one, because
> our seed certainly had no chance of growing in the barren womb of Johnny's
> closed mind.
>
> At 11:17 PM 6/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Okay, now that our Mormon friend is gone (or at least withdrawn into the
> >shadows for a moment) its time to look at how the list fared in this last
> >little exchange and where it was we went wrong. First the stats:
> >
> >CoVers won over to Mormonism: 0
> >Mormons won over to atheism: 0
> >
> >"Not bad" you might say. But given the intellectual might amassed here, a
> >tie is as bad as a loss and just as embarassing considering the opposition.
> >Did we even convince our Mormon friend to, if not change his beliefs, at
> >least re-examine them in a memetic light? (Thus planting a seed that might
> >grow into awareness somewhere down the line.) No, not in the very least.
> >He left us as ignorant as he arrived. And why? Yes, /why?/
> >
> >For all the intellegence together gathered here, y'alls social skills are
> >sadly lacking.
> >
> >Would you host an open house, invite in strangers, and then attack them as
> >they came throught the front door? I doubt it. But we feel compelled to do
> >the same here. And with a vengence.
> >
> >The reason the Mormons can knock on doors and get converts--and we frankly
> >can't--is because they understand the act of "conversion"--and we DON'T. A
> >simple knowledge every religion has and that we seem to be wholy ignorant
> >of. (And despite the crucial role it plays in the spreading of memes
> >generally). They understand that people are more likely to adopt ideas that
> >come from someone like them (homophily) and that adoption has as much, if
> >not more, to do with a subjective evaluation of those who host the memes, as
> >with the content of the memes themselves. [1]
> >
> >So what did our friend find when he came through our doorway? Smiles?
> >Friendly, likable people who he wanted to spend time with? People who would
> >make him think, "Gee, what have they got and how can I get some?!?" I think
> >not. What he found was a nest of argumentative, highly self-rightous,
> >borish ninnys who were more intent in proving him wrong than finding our
> >where he was coming from or how he got there. The perfect receipe to insure
> >that *NO* memes would be transmitted to him, whatsoever. If "theism is
> >mental inbreeding", then our display was nothing short of a "philisophical
> >circle jerk".
> >
> >The religious folk will contiue to gain numbers, and the strength that comes
> >with it, because they understand things that the atheists don't: that it is
> >easier to change the mind of a friend than that of an enemy; that facts are
> >not as important as impressions when making an adoption decision [2]; and
> >that niceness does, in fact, count after all. True, our Mormon friend may
> >have come here looking for a fight. But the fact that he found one here is
> >something we must all take responsiblity for.
> >
> >Did we want to teach him and show him the truth? Or simply enjoy the heady
> >rush that comes from being so very, very "right" while another is so
> >hopelessly "wrong"? If the latter, we have excelled beyond the wildest of
> >expectations. If the former, however,...
> >
> >...well, a tie counts as a loss in this league, team.
> >
> >-Prof. Tim
> >
> >[1] E. M. Rogers (83)
> >[2] ibid.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
-- Nathan Russell frussell@frontiernet.net
"I am confident that the Republicans will pick a nominee that will beat Bill Clinton" -Dan Quayle on the 2000 presidential election