|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Gateway religion
|
This Religion related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Memetics[edit]
I imagine that if I tried to describe this in the language of memes then I might get jumped on, although I do find it so damn useful as a way of describing and analysing things. Since I originally brought this topic up on the forum some time ago I've thought a little more about it. My thinking is that there is a general "base" meme that says something along the lines of "there is more to reality" - now, if you actually process that phrase, it's meaningless, but roll with it anyway. So this basically means we have something beyond our knowledge. This is compatible with all sorts of agnosticism, deism, spiritual but not religious views and so on... yet is still the fundamental meme at the centre of every religious memeplex. Without doubt if you kill the "there is more to reality" meme, religion dies. The more you reinforce this meme, the more you'd be willing to accept is actually out there "beyond reality" or however it's phrased. So finally, after you're convinced of it enough, you're willing to move beyond "spiritual but not religious" and go full on into faith healing. Now, the reason I want to describe it as a "meme" is because I'm not sure it actually applies to a person so much as entire societies. Societies that accept and reinforce "there is more to reality" will more likely develop fundamentalist believers, or at least ones that will trust its power over the real world more. Consider 100 people visiting a homeopath for common ailments that just get better anyway - and all agree that this magic water works. Then 2-3 come back for their cancer to be cured the same way simply because they believe that the magic water works. You can't really say that someone has moved on from one thing to another (like the gateway drug theory that goes pot > LSD > coke > heroin or something like that) but certainly the tolerance and enforcement of "this magic water works for common ailments" memeplex has been a strong enabler for "this magic water works for cancer" memeplex because you're reinforcing "this magic water works". 
moral 01:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me...[edit]
Or does this article not make any sense? Given how widely discredited the concept of "gateway drugs" is, it seems both like a bad metaphor and a highly questionable postulate. Why would belonging to a liberal denomination make one more inclined to become a fundamentalist? Especially considering that most people in fundamentalist religious groups grew up in them, and how it seems to contradict everything I have ever read about psychology of religion
... is there something I'm missing here? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are basically two hypotheses here. I don't think the literal one where you become gradually more fundamentalist as you continue really holds up to empirical evidence. However, there's a second argument where the tolerance of "moderate" religion effectively allows fundamentalism to thrive. Because, for instance, you can complain about Muslim or Christian fundamentalists and either their treatment of women, homosexuals, or their attitudes to science, and immediately people leap up and shout BUT NOT ALL OF THEM ARE LIKE THAT!!! Which is beside the point, because we're discussing fundamentalists but it acts as an apology for them. It's an enabling thing, providing legitimacy for fundamentalist sects by letting them hide behind otherwise unobjectionable moderate ones. d hominem 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like some armchair psychology to me. Stats or it didn't happen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's basically the thesis of TGD. bomination 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's basically the thesis of TGD.
- Sounds like some armchair psychology to me. Stats or it didn't happen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I really have no idea about the article as written, but the words 'gateway religion' reminds me a little of the kitschy, fluffy versions of paganism and wicca that are targeted at kids, especially kids from tighter religions that are very coaxed by the promised freedom and rebellion. You know, the ones that I need to write a page about that are full of fuzzy messages and terrible web pages with image maps and sparkling gifs of the 90s that tell young people they're amazing and smart and powerful and have guardian spirits or spirit animals or that they can do special spells to bring them fortune and that they're super-special witches that nature and the balance of world harmony loves, etc. etc. Though those things are really only gateways into being taken advantage of by new agey stuff, or forgotten like that one time somebody was a stoner in college and looks back on the photos and thinks 'whoah, what was I thinking? I looked kind of like an idiot back then." ±
KnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the way Knight frames it, it might have some real value. But as it stands, it's rather bullshit. There is no evidence, other than what DAwkins pulls out of his derrier, to suggest that if you have religion, you become more tolerant of other religions, or other aspects of religion. I have no religion, and never had one, yet i'm quite tollerant to most religions - cause unlike dawkins, I do not believe the do harm, in and of themselves. If we are gonna "go here" we really do need to be as critical about this concept as any other.
GodotStop the damn screeds! 17:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC) - The other issue I see with describing moderate religion as a gateway to fundamentalism is that it seems just as likely, anecdotally, to work the exact opposite way, that moderate religion could act as a gateway to nonreligion. I haven't read Dawkins, so I don't know if he addresses this or not.— Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- So many slippery slopes, so little time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- almost no one "slips" into fundamentalism. Either you were born that way (as it were), or you won't likely go there. It's too extreme, and counters too many american ideas. But some studies show that if you are prone to extremism in your thinking, you are likely to go from one extreme to another. Fundies becoming atheists, atheists becoming 6,000 year new creationists. The vast majority of the people will never become extreme in any of their thinking. and dawkins just chooses to not look at that. If you ONLY read dawkins for his atheism writings, you'd never think he was a science minded (ie., evidence) person. GodotToilet paper bondage 16:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno, people slip into ideologies, even extreme ones all the time. For example, someone moves to a new place and the church there is much more fundamentalist than their old one, they may continue to attend due to the social circle they are used to, and over time end up supporting the beliefs of this new church. When some people get older, or less financially secure, or encounter any other common reason for doubt, those doubts about the movement of society and culture can lead them to watching scare media that tells them what they want to hear and thus they may end up gravitating to extreme beliefs. The opposite is also true: people can migrate away from extreme beliefs, not through any 'gateway' but simply due to their circumstances changing over time coloring their worldview. ±KnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno, people slip into ideologies, even extreme ones all the time. For example, someone moves to a new place and the church there is much more fundamentalist than their old one, they may continue to attend due to the social circle they are used to, and over time end up supporting the beliefs of this new church. When some people get older, or less financially secure, or encounter any other common reason for doubt, those doubts about the movement of society and culture can lead them to watching scare media that tells them what they want to hear and thus they may end up gravitating to extreme beliefs. The opposite is also true: people can migrate away from extreme beliefs, not through any 'gateway' but simply due to their circumstances changing over time coloring their worldview. ±
- almost no one "slips" into fundamentalism. Either you were born that way (as it were), or you won't likely go there. It's too extreme, and counters too many american ideas. But some studies show that if you are prone to extremism in your thinking, you are likely to go from one extreme to another. Fundies becoming atheists, atheists becoming 6,000 year new creationists. The vast majority of the people will never become extreme in any of their thinking. and dawkins just chooses to not look at that. If you ONLY read dawkins for his atheism writings, you'd never think he was a science minded (ie., evidence) person.
- So many slippery slopes, so little time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the way Knight frames it, it might have some real value. But as it stands, it's rather bullshit. There is no evidence, other than what DAwkins pulls out of his derrier, to suggest that if you have religion, you become more tolerant of other religions, or other aspects of religion. I have no religion, and never had one, yet i'm quite tollerant to most religions - cause unlike dawkins, I do not believe the do harm, in and of themselves. If we are gonna "go here" we really do need to be as critical about this concept as any other.
