(requested by Revolutionary.) I'm rather intrigued by the premise. So how are moderate believers more dangerous than extremists? I'm not aware of any moderate suicide bombers!

This message was deleted by the player at 17:50, Tue 08 May 2012.

The critique of moderation will focus on 3 areas.

I Moderates provide cover for extremists and becomes indistinguishable from religious infighting

II Moderate faith is self-contradictory

III Moderate faith is a deterrent to creativity, progress, and human wellbeing.

It’s hard to say which aspect of moderate faith produces the biggest disadvantages for the world.

However, it’s the quality of religious moderation that makes it seem “reasonable by virtue of being in the middle” that is the most harmful.

Why?

Because it successfully markets and package “faith based reasoning”.  The more paletable something is, the more likely it will be adopted.  However, palatability is not a “truth finding principle” (in fact, truth seems to be uniquely unpalatable and while still evolving will never become “intuitively neat and tidy”; take for example the idea of light being “both and neither” a wave/particle)
Having said that, to the degree that moderate belief functionally provides cover for extremist faith it ends up carrying with it all the problems of extremism as well.

So let’s start the critique there.

Of course, “religious moderation” is not a position on which all agree.
Does belief that Jesus was a “good man” and a “messanger of g-d” make you a moderate Christian?  Or does it go so far as to make you an atheist with respect to Christianity?  Can you person really be a “Catholic” and deny the virgin birth?  And if so, does it mean anything to be a “Catholic” at all other than as a label for my identity tribe?

The fact that religious moderates cannot agree seems to suggest that the actual extreme position is the acceptance of propositional truth via religious/faith based “methods” such as “revelation”, “authority”. or “intuition” which moderates find “more sever” than the ones to which they hold by in many cases the same methodology.

As such, religious moderation actually provides cover to religious extremists, (by allowing approximate middle ground, as well as, fertile soil for recruitment), while simultaneously lacking a basis on which to question the claims of religious extremists.

A rationalist non-believer (and there are irrational non-believers too) can openly criticize the conclusions of an extremist on their derivation.  A moderate cannot, and worse, seems to see the threat as merely misguided, rather than the process as fundamentally and universially capable of “really bad conclusions”.

Next, “really bad conclusions”, this time meaning ones that are unfounded, seem to characterize and define religious moderation.  After all, if one takes on a religious view that it is important to “love your neighbor as yourself” because it is found in the bible, and simultaneously decides there is some other reason to ignore the claims that you shouldn’t “suffer a witch to live” (which can also be found in the bible) there is either direct contradiction (Authority of the Bible Matters & Authority of the Bible does Not Matter) or merely a false explanation and intellectual dishonesty (Authority is NOT why s/he believes something).

The problem of a logic system that is based on contradiction is well know.  Essentially with it you can conclude anything—and that includes extremist views.  Moderation does nothing to stop this progress and has no logical / rational basis on which to oppose it.

It is also self-contradictory in a more troubling way. To believe, for example, that “giving away all you own” is a requirement for salvation while seeking an ecumenical “commonality” appeal, is to, provided the moderate believes ANYONE goes to “hell” (ceases to exist, or any kind of less than optimal outcome) is ethically and social bankrupt by their very act of moderation.  That is, “terrorism” that bring the infidel “under Islam into death” is actually a more merciful, and thus seemingly moderate valued position than to allow someone to die “outside a state of Islam (or grace)”.

Essentially, religious moderates are either frauds (they act as if they’re cool with you when in fact by their beliefs it’s harmful to you to do so—and harming someone isn’t being “cool  with them”) or bankrupt objectors (they have no basis to claim any faith tradition, including the extreme ones have any fundamental flaws).

Finally, in closing the opening to this discussion (debate?) all of humanity is harmed by religious moderation because of the time and attention given to squaring the circle of “just how moderate can/may things be”.  That is, religious moderation sets into our psyche the idea that the solutions to our current problems might just have solutions in a Bronze Age thinking and literature.   Or might just be found in prayer.  Or might just be found in “inspiration” rather than perspiration.

While, as a practical matter, most of the “big problems” of the world are BETTER now (contrary to many claims of the faithful) than at any other point in history…and perhaps even because of it, contemporary problems need to be free of the weight of faith based, medieval baggage… After all, it will be hard enough to overcome with our modern baggage!

* In response to the specific claim there are not moderate suicide bombers, this again depends what we mean by moderate, if we're talking faith moderates, many suicide bombers STARTED there.  Further if we mean ideological moderates, maybe less so.  And finally, it's very likely that some of the war on Iraq was fueled by faith moderates using or playing to faith extremist voting blocks

Sort of sounds like you're saying "look at the bad things extremists do!  Moderates help make that possible, so they're even worse."  Doesn't really seem conclusive to me.  You've really only listed the ways moderates enable extremists here, and then listed the bad things that extremists do.  The exception, I suppose, being the idea that moderates stop us from abandoning religious thinking altogether, and that will hinder our problem solving in the modern world, but I don't see how that's a unique trait to moderates.

Put another way, do you really feel the world would be a better place if the religious moderates suddenly became religious extremists?  It sounds more to me like what you're actually opposed to is religious belief in general, rather than the moderateness of some of those who have it.  To me it sounds like a more accurate title of your position would be "the danger of belief (moderate, extreme, or otherwise)."

That is fair, and I can try to address the challenge.

I should have focused on the "mushy middle" and "mob" behavior more.

Part of the unique challenge of moderates is that it reduces the direct costs to belief (while keeping many of the assumed benefits) which means it's "more attractive"

One positive of a suicide bomber is it's a self-correcting problem.

But a religious moderate voter who thinks it's a "sin" to "play god" and donates to an anti-stem cell candidate, hurts us again and again.

Than you for the critique.

I would also echo Tycho's comments. Your focus really seems to be 'what is wrong with faith-based reasoning' (which is a fair critique, but is independent of moderates/extremists).

Specifically addressing the issues you bring up:
-- You seem to be addressing moderates of an extremist religion. I don't think you could argue that moderate Buddhists normalize extremist Buddhist attacks (because there are none).

-- I think you also ignore the tempering effect moderates do have on extremists. Extremists of any bent almost always have limited contact with the 'real world'. Moderates are that bridge. Yes, they can help insulate the extremists, but more frequently they provide an example of reasonable living, and pull the extremists out. Or failing that, they report the extremists when they become a threat. There are examples of Muslims calling for government assistance when an extremist neighbor seems to be getting dangerous, or of Christian preachers telling their flock (extremists and moderates alike) that regardless as to the sinfulness of abortion, violence is NOT justified. I don't know how you'd compare the effect of the 'good moderates' vs. the 'bad moderates', though.

I'm not sure I agree with your statements that a believer who believes the current understanding of the faith, but not the faith as scholars speculate it was in 2000 BC are somehow deceiving themselves. I think that's like saying a college student who doesn't ask permission to go to the bathroom is breaking the rules, because those are the rules that were set in Kindgarten. If you believe in a living God and a living world, it's sensible to believe that God changes His guidance to fit that world. (And of course, we're assuming that the scholars, or just your Sunday school teacher, are correctly portraying the beliefs of an ancient and foreign culture's beliefs and practices in the first place.)

This is an argument Christopher Hitchens has made.  I forget the exact details of his argument, but it was something like 'moderate believers provide a respectable cover for extremists right up to the point that they get violent.'  I'm not sure I buy it.  Mao was an extremist version of Bertrand Russell, but I don't think Bertrand Russell is responsible for the Cultural Revolution.  But maybe he is, I don't know.

As for extremist Buddhists, there certainly have been cases.  The kamikaze pilots were examples of suicide bombers who used the rhetoric and beliefs of their Buddhist philosophy to justify their actions.  Maybe there have been no extremist Jains?  Here is a discussion about extremist Jains:

http://mahavir-sanglikar.blogs...ist-jains-do_12.html

Comparatively harmless to a suicide bomber, I suppose.

I don't know enough about anyone's particular beliefs to comment on whether or not adhering to the 'original' version of a religion is appropriate or not.  It has always struck me as odd though that God, despite being timeless and omniscient, didn't think to put approving comments of slavery or sacrifice or any of the other grotesqueries in the Bible in some sort of context.

I've read a number of books which suggest that, without slavery, early civilization would not have been possible. However, early Hebrew laws did have many protections in place on behalf of slaves.

In reply to katisara (msg #8):

The only issue there is "Slavery" is still very much alive and well.

I do agree that there is very good evidence without historic slavery there would be little here as we understand it today. Though I stand firmly on the side of Reparations, So ...I accept the premise and I guess it only means we owe the descendents of slaves more.

In reply to Revolutionary (msg # 9):

Again we see it is the Moderates who are calling for the abridgement of free speech on an utterly unwatchable movie because as on put it recently:  "Islam has the right to be free of insult".

I hadn't heard anything about that.

I feel that the moderates are a problem for a different reason: Extremism is NOT a bad thing: in all cases. Moderation however is at the root of all the problems with religion.

With an Extremist you know where they stand and have a clear choice: Are they on the same side you are, or are they part of the enemy.

Keep in mind that Gandhi was just as much an extremist as Bin Laden; just in the opposite direction.

With the moderate however you have no idea where they stand, largely because in five minutes they could be on the opposite side of an issue from where they were when the conversation started.

"The Lord knows the danger that lurks in the vacillation of the weak fool."

Moderates are dangerous because they are too weak or stupid to chose a side and say: "Here I stand, I will not be moved."; because with those who can make such a statement if you can once show them that they are truly and incontestably in the wrong they will move heaven and earth to repair the damage they have done by being wrong.

A moderate will shrug and go on with their day, leaving the mess they have made for someone else to clean up.

This is compounded by the fact that an increasing focus is placed on moderation, rather than trying to lift up people to the pinnacle of Positive Extremism.

There are fewer Saints today not because the age of miracles is past but because there are fewer people capable of the strength of character where they can draw down the power of heaven to perform miracles, fewer people who really are saints.

In conclusion I have this to say about moderates: "Even the Devil himself cannot abide someone who can blow hot and cold with the same breath."


(Sorry if this post is somewhat disjointed, my wife is blasting classic rock in the next room such that the base makes it feel like there is an earthquake. I trust you are all intelligent enough to suss out my meaning.)

This thread could use some concrete examples. I'm unclear on what sorts of moderate behavior or belief you are against.

For example, is someone a "dangerous moderate" if they change their beliefs based on firm scientific evidence? This includes those (such as RC) who reject YEC and accept evolution.

Is someone a "dangerous moderate" if they believe in the principles of secularism ("the state has no right to force specific religious belief or non-belief on anyone")?

Is someone a dangerous moderate if they apply different standards of truth to different parts of the bible?

I would qualify the last one as being such, but I don't know about the OP.

I really like your post, Alexei. It invites thought.

I'd agree though that when it comes down to concrete examples, we may see things differently.

When ordering pizza, the moderates are best, because they're easiest to please. Two opposing extremists will never agree. And indeed, it's generally the extremists, not the moderates, who sustain wars.

But it seems like it's the extremists who have the best chance of finding spiritual truth. Most moderates fall into whatever is easiest. I don't know a lot of moderates willing to go on spiritual fasts or pilgrimages to find truth.

The flip side to my statement that not all extremism is bad is that it is not all good either.

To quote or paraphrase a demon who kept rather lax security on his personal correspondence and records: "These two sects were eternal enemies in life, now forced to co-mingle in eternity and still hating each other, it comes through as a fire in the wine, dark fire! A toast gentle devils! Remember always that some of your best tempting can be done on the very steps of the altar!"
~ Screwtape.

This is very true, BUT, and here is the key: It is the moderate, not the Positive Extremist, where such tempting will find fertile ground to take root and grow.

Moderates are easily swayed, and often can be swayed to the cause of darkness, because to quote the wisest of all Muppets: "No, not stronger: Quicker, easier, more seductive." Speaking of course of the lure of dark power.

Moderates as has been pointed out will often chose the easiest way, like water flowing down hill, and arrogance, bigotry, prejudice, and hatred are so very easy.

Further even in the bible itself it warns against moderates: Revelation 3:16 "So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."

It has always been known, "A mind without purpose will wander in dark places." and this is the very core of 'moderation': if they had strong purpose they would cease to be moderates and take up strong position on one side or the other, and in this day and age would be called extremists for it.

Therefore I say give me a dozen extremists over a single moderate. The extremists I can work with, the moderate, he is like soda, tasty perhaps, but you can neither build upon him nor nourish yourself by him.

Yes, precisely because they make it seem "okay" to believe some things on insufficient evidence. And they make it specifically worse... ...because they make a "good case" that "faith" is okay... look at me, after all...

In fact, they're even more dangerous because they're "more" persuasive...and...ultimately made some decisions based on faith, which then gives them no consistent position from which to oppose the religiously extreme.

There are very few actual extreme Xians today.

There are ones that seem "more" extreme than others in terms of things like "abortion" or "anti-gay" sentiment...etc.

But ultimately, none of them are radical xians. They think ideas like "Jesus" is your friend, a buddy a personal g-d, these are all ultra-modern, fundamentally heretical ideas.

Anyone who is a xian is a person of moderate faith relative to the faith though they may well be "hard line"

I have to disagree with this.  Really, the idea strikes me as rather absurd.  The extremists are killing people, but because some unspecified moderate says "let's not insults those guys" they're the problem?!  You really prefer the guys who murder people to the ones who try to avoid insulting the murderers?  You say "well, murdering is bad and all, but at least we know where they stand," and think that as long as there isn't any confusion about the murderer's views it somehow less bad?




I consider a willingness to have your mind changed one of the greatest traits a person can have.  You seem to view it as a negative, because it makes it harder for you to classify and categorize someone.  People are complicated.  Making them simple doesn't make them better, it just makes them simple.  Yes, it'd be easier for you if there were only two "sides," and you could put everyone into one side or the other in just a few seconds of talking to them, but that would be a pretty lame world to live in.  Easy, but lame.


I disagree.  Show an extremist proof they're wrong, and they tend to be even more extreme.  There's an interesting story where a person had worked their way into an UFO cult to see what would happen when the leader's predictions about the mothership landing turned out to be false.  The leader was telling his followers that the aliens would land on a certain day to save the cult members from the world ending, and the person who had worked their way into the cult wanted to document how people dealt with having their beliefs shown to be false.  What was interesting was that before the cult the members generally didn't talk to outsiders about it, they just kept to themselves, and didn't try to win converts.  On the day the ship was supposed to arrive, the leader say "oh!  It looks like we were so devoted, we saved the world, so the aliens didn't need to come save us!  Go us!"  After that, some of the cult members started going out, preaching the word of their leader, trying to win converts.  Extremists don't accept proof that they're wrong, they just twist everything into an elaborate story to keep their beliefs intact.


The world could do well with more people shrugging and going on with their day, instead of deciding they need to kill someone.  It'd be great if more people who killed abortion doctors would just shrug and say "I disagree, but I should probably let the political process work," if more terrorists thought "American really pisses me off, but killing people over it isn't the best way to do it," if more PETA members thought "yeah, I really wish people would stop eating meat, but probably throwing paint on them isn't really going to change their mind," the world would be a better place.


You can't "work with" extremists. You're either with them, or against them, and that's all there is.  They're either on your side, or you fight them.  There's no swaying them, no coming to a reasonable compromise, there's just a fight.  You can hope your side is stronger, and therefore wins the fight, but that has nothing to do with the strength of your position.  If two people are trying to get the moderate to join their side, however, the one with the more convincing argument is likely to come out ahead.  The one who's side sounds more likely to be correct, rather than the one with the most guns, gets the extra help for the moment, which sounds much better to me.

In my view, a bit of doubt is a good thing.  I saw a quote from Charles Bukowski the other day that said something like "the problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubt, and the stupid people are full of confidence," which I think hits the nail on the head.  People who think they've got it all figured out tend to be the problem.  People who think everything is simple and easy, tend not to be seeing the full problem, and tend to come up with oversimple solutions (e.g., "let's just nuke'em!", "we'll just kill them first!", "let's just ban it!", "why should we care what they think?", etc?) that don't work well in the long run.

Sure, there are times when moderates don't stand up to extremists, and it's easy to say "if only they'd join my side, those extremists on the other side would be driven out, and the world would be a better place!"  But the thing you need to realize, is that if all those "spineless" moderates were replaced with extremists, there's no guaranteeing that they'd all pick your side.  It could just as well be your side that's wiped out.  So instead of viewing the moderates as "allowing" the bad guys to exist, consider that they're just as likely to be the only thing keeping your side from being wiped out.

It is okay to believe some things on insufficient evidence. That's part of tolerance, and secularism, and part of the reason this group exists.

Right, I actually prefer them because they're much "easier" opponents. One cannot deal with moderate xians without seeming to be tyrannical.  And it is moderate believers who give cover and in many ways KNOW they must give cover.

I am NOT saying that "murder" is less "bad" when the person is clear about it and I know they're a murderer.  I'm saying, they get much less sympathy when I dispatch with them.




And for moderates it doesn't matter that they respond to proof...because they only do it sometimes. Or worse, they do it "in the service" of their personal faith/delusion.

So we have the Big Bang Theory being accepted by the same church that incarcerated Galileo and holding it out as a marvel of the power and glory of their father g-d.



The world is only "significantly" better if those doing the shrugging are also secular.



No, less activism doesn't make the world a better place.  Quote to the contrary.  There was no civil rights victor for people of colour BECAUSE of moderates like MLK.  It was because of the existence of the Nation, Minister Shabazz (Malcolm X) etc. ...that the "powers that be" didn't want to deal with so they "compromised" with MLK.



Exactly!  All the more reason to prefer them.  If they're right, you want them to be extreme and not to compromise (aka PETA) if they're wrong, you don't want them getting "sympathy" as one of the "world's great religions"

Many extremists are smart enough to appear less so to avoid getting unwanted attention. In some circles that's called 'the grey man'.

I'm also not sure that the argument 'extremists are better because it's okay for me to crush them' is really compelling.




I don't know, I'd think that accepting evidence sometimes is better than excepting it nevertimes.

I'd also say that someone who is open to new information will come to a more accurate, more mature, more useful understanding, which is an advantage for moderates. The only exception is the case where the extremist is given all true knowledge from the get-go, but no way to prove it.

But I also know several extremists who have accepted new information and have modified their views. A willingness to use extreme methods in defense of one's beliefs does not preclude learning and modifying those beliefs.

Revolutionary,

I think if the two of us had coffee together (or your beverage of choice) that we would have some great conversations.  You have some of the strangest and most interesting beliefs on things!

In reply to Doulos (msg # 23):

I agree.  And nearly any beverage would do.. :) ..and if we made the location a salad bar we could chat all day long.

I suppose this depends what we mean by compelling.  If by that we mean that it's "comforting" or "attractive" I agree it is not.  It doesn't comfort me that it's easier to see fewer options with the most extreme. But that the more extreme require more extreme responses does seem to have rather "popular" support (at the risk of seeming to offer ad populum as evidence).



Well, depends for whom.

For the one providing evidence, I say not necessarily.  For the "broader world" when/where there are distributed benefits for more "true" thinking, probably it is. But I could see the costs to the one person exceeding the benefits to all.  Which would create some really unfortunate externalities against "persuaders"

Is there a way to "find posts by" a person?

Not that I know of, unfortunately.  I've wanted such a feature many times myself.

In reply to Tycho (msg # 27):

Another example unrelated to religion:

So there are new fuel standards coming for autos, right?

Great...progress...bipartisan cooperation... a step, be it a baby one, in the right direction...

...Then I read the fine print.  Crap doesn't come into effect until 2025.

In 5 years we went from almost nothing to the Manhattan Project.  because of fanatical focus.

In 10 years we went from almost nothing to putting a man on the moon! ibid.

Am I being unreasonable by refusing to get excited over future progress that will never happen, 15 years from now?!

15 years for a fictional percent increase in fossil fuel (laf along with me) "efficiency". When did we get so damned SMALL?!

I guess this is one result of voting for small leaders for the last 50 years.

The government fuel efficiency requirements are a joke, anyway. They specify the average fuel efficiency over all models released that year. Manufacturers can fudge those estimates by saying 'we made more of this car, and less of that car', so in the end the law doesn't really force anything on them.

Regardless, efficient cars are getting more efficient, because consumers want them to. Without laws restricting the freedom of those who want inefficient cars, that's the best we can hope for.

In reply to hakootoko (msg # 29):

Yes, and of course all "law" is tyranny to these teabaggers. And while not a fan of much or most "criminal law" myself...  ...I at least want the freedom fools to pay for their costs which get externalized.

I agree that the fuel efficiency laws are pretty disappointing, but the reason they're disappointing is because a lot of people don't want any restrictions at all.  I fail to see how making those people into radicals would be any better.  We wouldn't just have crap restrictions, we'd have no restrictions ever, because they'd never agree to any compromise.  You seem to be comparing moderates to "people who agree passionately with every position I hold" and find the latter group preferable.  But if you make every moderate into an extremist, they're not going to become fanatical devotees to all the causes you support.  They're just as likely (or perhaps even more likely) to become fanatical supporters of the causes you oppose.  You speak dismissively of the "teabaggers."  The tea party is what happens when former moderates become extremists.  It's not the moderates who are preventing stronger fuel efficiency standards, its the people at the extreme.

I have been thinking about changing this position in response to the "Moderate" Muslim response to the breach of the US Embassy in Libya suggests there may be some advantage of moderation.

I'm going to try to figure out how to articulate this well; however, I don't think this is a "good example" of moderation.  But a good example of the power of secularism.

Any thoughts about the Muslim people who are turning in the "extremist" militias,  as well as, their messaging?

Well, enough extremist muslims and we'll stop putting out stuff which insults Islam. Plus, I totally know where they stand.

In reply to katisara (msg # 33):

What do you mean?  Can you identify the pronouns and what you think people "mean" or "feel" that you "understand" and does understanding equal solidarity.

I know where the extremist muslims who are burning down buildings stand on movies that insult Islam.

So you think we should not product insulting materials because of the behavior of extremists?

I think fake victims want to be victims and going to find something to take offense at... Look at Sarah Palin's as an example...she can never be outraged enough, huh?

With sufficient numbers of sufficiently extremist muslims, anyone who might produce that material will either be intimidated, in hiding, or dead.

In reply to katisara (msg # 37):

I see you're making an natural argument not a "preference" one.

Yes. I for one am all for egging on extremists. But I don't want my house burned down. And if I'm dead, what I enjoy doing is clearly irrelevant.

Hmm i hope no one minds if i highjack this kind of as i tihnk that the argument has pointed in the wrong direction. There is a severe danger to allowing what is refered to here as Moderate Religious Faith. However it is not in the Physical everyday bombings and Enabling of Extremist behaviour that has been mentioned before but a different kind of threat all together.

I would like to refer to this as blind Faith, Something that is shared by (and i'm not trying to be harsh but i can't think of a better way to put it) the less informed. The Danger of moderate Faith is that it can interefere with progress, Education and Modern Morality.

Now please don't missunderstand me by thinking i'm Lumping anyone that follows a faith into this banner. To me there are a minimum of Five tiers of how seriously one takes their faith. Currently the thread has discussed only two, meaning everyone that has faith and isn't an extremist must have moderate faith. we know this cannot be true. The heavily simplified catagories i put forward are Intrinsic faith, Taught Faith, Moderate faith, Dedicated faith, Extremist Faith.

Intrinsic faith is simply a person has the basic belief structure of an organised religion but alters it to suit themselves. Taught Faith is the Person who classifies themselves as that religion but is otherwise very similar to Intrinsic Faith. Moderate Faith is your Typical person that follows a religion the sort that will go to church every Sunday and try to follow that doctrine. Dedicated faith are the people that follow the religion and make it a major part of their lifes to obey it. And i don't believe Extremists need an explination.

Now in any religious community the majority are likley to be of Moderate Faith or Dedicated faith. If the majority of the country fits into one of these catagories policies and laws will come into lace not based on logic but based upon religious doctrine. This would not be the case if they were not. The Danger surrounding those of moderate faith is that a lot of the time they are a high majority or voting demoraphic, or in some csaes simply in charge.

We can see evidence of how this comes into practice in the news nearly everyday. One example off the top of my head is the proganda films and books against Dungeons Rock music. Huge community protests went on and bands were forced into trials to prove they werent trying to corrupt the youth of yesterday. There is no reasoniung for this to happen other than religious backlash by the majority of those of moderate faith. The danger is that these things spread into more important issues such as Education (although it can easily be argued that the prohibitation of teaching Evolution in some american Schools is Evidence of this) or crime policy, even what scientif reaserch is and isn;t allowed (e.g Stem Cells). While Morality needs to play a part in this religious morality shouldnt but while the masses gain their morality from their faith it will allways intervene.

I don't know. I think the issue I have with it is the word faith. Like it's a religious term.

Everyone has faith. You have faith that your car will start, or stop when you press on the breaks. You have faith you will make it to work alive.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 41):

That is true although the word does conjure up religious connotations. I personally would say i have faith if i was refering to religion.

the examples you use i would use the word Hope, which means the exact same thing without any religious connotations.

But that is simply arguing Semantics.

This isn't a problem with faith, or with moderation.  It's a problem with democracy--sometimes the people in the majority support things you don't.  This can happen whether they're people of moderate faith, extreme faith, or not faith at all.  This didn't happen because they were moderates rather than extremists, it happened because they were in the majority.  I feel like you're treating one thing that happens to be true like it's the cause of something you don't like, when rather it's just an unrelated fact, and the cause is something entirely different.


Again, this doesn't have anything to do with moderate vs. extreme views, it has to do with people being in the majority that you (and I, for what its worth) disagree with.  What you describe could just as well happen if everyone was an atheist, or a buddhist, or a muslim, or if no faith had any significant clout at all.  Religions are just one of the many ways people can make bad decisions as a group (or as individuals).

Really, I think the only real 'solution' to the problem you point out is for you to be an absolute ruler, and always get your way.  Of course, then other people will be not getting their way, so it doesn't really solve 'the' problem, just 'your' problem, as it were.  If you let other people be part of the decision-making process, you sort of have to accept that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) they'll make decisions you disagree with.

I like your categories. They're well-thought out. You should probably bold them for easy reference as this conversation continues.

However, it seems like your issue isn't with moderates or extremists; it's with faith in general. Voters who don't give much credit to the bible are okay, but everyone else is misleading America.

In reply to katisara (msg # 44):

I'm natoriosly bad at waffling around the point and not making the pint i wished to make int he first place so i will clarify here. (which is why i try to keep posts short so i don't waffle, and i am fully aware that now i am waffleing about how a waffle)

The point i was trying to make was that by default the majority of a religion will have moderate faith. Of those a few will follow the letter rather than the intent, they are more likley to make decisions based upon the letter that no longer make sense in our times. If one person within that community can then convinse the rest of the community to agree then you have those of moderate belief supporting a potentially detrimental cause.

Basically Blind faith is the most detrimental kind, they can be extremists but most of the time they will be your average Joe, not realising the negative impact that their actions could cause.

Of course the same could be said about anyone! but that is because anyone doing anything without thinking it through or doing the research is being detrimental to our culture.

---

For Example, the country that Britain wants is not what tey elected. People blindly voted for people based on information other than the Policies of each party. A brillient Blind testing website during the last election allowed people to pick the policies they thought were best on a number of topics and the parties that people prefered were not who they voted for (green and labour were first with a close lib dem follow up). Again this could be for a number of reasons i put it down to being missinformed.

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ (the website for anyone interested)

Okay. I'm willing to accept that blind faith is extremely dangerous. I'd agree with you that that isn't just the realm of religion (politics is where I see it most often). But I'm not sure how much that applies here, since the previous line of discussion was that moderates are *worse* than extremists, but in this arena, they seem to be, at most, equally bad.

Not to keep arguing the point, (Maybe a little) but hope and use of faith are different. Hope is desire or feeling. Faith means belief, or confidence, or trust.


Just to add in another factor, blind faith.

Is blind faith meaning accepting as truth without looking at evidence? Example, do we accept psychology is true based on blind faith in the psychologists saying it's true? Do we need to research psychology in order to be not saying we have blind faith in psychology?

Believing in psychology isn't blind faith, because it's a reference to authority, plus many of us know people (or are people) who have received psychotherapy and have benefited from it, which provides evidence.

But yes, people do maintain blind trust in people, especially when it comes to personal loyalties, like nationalism or sticking with one political party.

Just for reference, I do not know of any people who have been to a psychotherapy. If I believed they worked, would that be an example of blind faith?

Maybe if it would help, here's an example that might be easier, no one here has been to the sun, is it blind faith to accept what someone else says the sun is made up of? Assuming no here here researches stars.

Second part, do religious people have evidence of benefits? Plenty of people know someone of a religion after all.

Sure, that happens, probably a lot. Side note, does it really matter who you vote for in the US? A two party system where both groups are so evenly matched means they have to give and take on so many things. Essentially, they would have to help each other so that both parties get what they want. Fair statement?

No, actualy voting is statistically one of the most pointless things in existence.  For multiple reasons ;)

I would consider accepting authority as NOT blind faith. So if my dad or my doctor says something, I don't consider that blind, because it's built on the trust I have. Although perhaps I'm wrong in thinking so. I don't imagine I'm an authority for you, so if you took my poor report and assumed it's absolutely true, that would seem like blind faith to me.

I do also research stars. I write for a science fiction RPG, so I do look over (lay-man's versions of) scientific tests and reports.

I was thinking a bit about the difference that people imply when they refer to 'faith' rather than 'belief.'  I'm definitely not at the point where I feel like I can properly express the difference, but one thing I came up with that I wanted to toss out and see what people thought was this:

For a 'belief' you can imagine being wrong, and you could come up with a list of things that would change your mind about the belief if they were true (ie, beliefs are falsifiable), whereas 'faith' would be things that you can't imagine being wrong, and for which you couldn't come up with anything that could change your faith (ie, faith is not falsifiable).

What do people think of that as a difference?

That's a really tough question, Tycho.

One can certainly believe something and recognize that they could be wrong, but I don't think all beliefs are falsifiable (I don't see how the existence of God is falsifiable, for our canonical example). Personally, I see belief as agreeing with statements that are logically independent of current evidence, but I don't expect anyone else to subscribe to that definition :)

Faith, to me, seems a very close word to trust: you can have 'faith in humanity' or can be 'faithful to your spouse', and these are not absolutes and can be easily lost.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:00, Tue 25 Sept 2012.

I think though that there are different degrees of falsifiable though. I can say the contents of a star is falsifiable based on spectrometer readings. But it could be that the readings where wrong because of red-shifting or some other factor. I can also say the existence of God is falsifiable because if I have faith in God and flip a coin, it will always come up heads.

In reply to katisara (msg # 54):

The types of god for which there is falsifiability have more or less all be falsified.  Those which can't betray their vast improbability.

The problem is the moving target.

If the bible god is real, then evolution cannot be true (for a host of reasons)

Evolution is shown to be true.  "No, that's scientific evidence of deception" ...g-d just wanted it to LOOK like there was evolution.

Bingo, ex post facto fix.

Evolution and the biblical god can absolutely co-exist and indeed do for a great number of people.  It's only those who hold to a particular understanding of the text that have difficulties with it.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 56):

To be clear:  OF COURSE what you've said is right.

But it's just a special case of special pleading.

The Bible is true and reliable (even about outrageous and fantastical things) except when it's not.

So, you can decide that "Paul is wrong"(and there are many, many even good xian reasons to believe so) about sin coming to the earth though one man ...and death.  AND so by poetic? (or literal) balance one many's death brings life and the end to sin.

The topic is even more challenging when we have to decide which bible god we're talking about.  To be clear, I do mean the Xian one in this examination.

Evolution being true means, death is not a curse.  It existed before humankind.  And in fact, humankind exists (as we understand it) because of it.

To add fuel to the debate:
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-m...-rarely-prevail.html

Moderates don't win followers, and generally aren't as self-sustaining. So in many ways they don't 'count'.

In reply to katisara (msg # 58):

Meh, in their model they hard-coded it so that people could only be convinced to go towards A or B, but the moderates couldn't convince people of anything:


It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a model where moderates cannot change anyone's minds results in all the moderates becoming extremists.

The statement about moderates not being able to rally people is demonstrably false.  If you look back over the presidential elections, for example, you will find that the vast majority of presidents who have won elections have been moderates.  A few exceptions (like Obama) pop into mind, but they made up for their extremism with charisma.  The majority flock toward a moderate approach in most cases.

In reply to Heath (msg # 60):

I know a lot of people really don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean he's not a moderate.  His healthcare law (the main thing his opponents call extreme) was taken from the other party's ideas, and in particular the other party's presidential candidate.  He's lowered taxes on every (with the exception of those who can afford health insurance but would rather pay the tax/fine for not having it, I guess), and his plan to raise the income tax rate on the wealthy is supported by a majority of people in the country.  You might feel it's a bad idea, but its not really fair to say it's not a moderate idea just because you don't like it.  He IS left of most republicans, but he is also right of most democrats.  He ran his first campaign on the idea of trying to get republicans and democrats to try to put aside their differences and work together.  That didn't work, but I'd argue that was largely due to republicans in congress making defeating Obama their "number 1 priority," rather than due to lack of trying on Obama's part.  Obama's continued many of Bush's policies, such as drone strikes and not having close gitmo, much to chagrin of people who voted for him.

I have no problem if you dislike Obama, dislike his policies, think he's a bad president, or whatever.  But calling him extreme is just factually incorrect.  Republicans have been doing it from the start, but they seem to think "extreme" is a synonym for "disagrees with me."  Republicans and Obama are fairly far apart on many issues, but that's largely due to the republicans moving further to the right, rather than Obama being far left.  Many people (including moderate republicans) have pointed out that the republicans have shifted farther to the right than they've been in a very long time ("Regan would be called a liberal today" and all that).  That doesn't mean people who didn't shift to the right are extremists, though.  Most of Obama's the policies that people now call extreme are ones that republicans supported very recently (in some cases, even the same republicans who are now calling Obama extreme).

So again, say you don't like Obama and his policies, that's fine.  But calling him extreme isn't accurate.  Extremeness isn't measured by how much you dislike a person or their policies.

It's a fair point, Tycho, comparing Obama to the whole spectrum and saying he's a moderate. Personally, I don't like him because he isn't a "moderate democrat", but a "conservative democrat".

This country is really lacking in liberal politicians.

As a Canadian I find the idea of calling Obama extreme absolutely hilarious. He pretty much defines "blah" outside of his charismatic personality.

EDIT:  And that's not to say Heath is the only one who feels that way, it's just a strange thing I've noticed in general.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:06, Wed 03 Oct 2012.

In reply to hakootoko (msg # 62):

Hakoo and Tycho are both correct.

I only wish the President were the caricature he's presented as.  Even an extreme black nationalist would please me!

You guys really think Obama is moderate in American politics?  That amazes me.  Even Clinton has a hard time agreeing with him because he is so far to the left.

Under Canadian politics, which is more socialized, he may be considered more moderate, but he is definitely far to the left of moderate in U.S. politics.  He is commonly called a "radical left wing" politician.  I probably should not have said "extreme" because that brings all sorts of crazies to mind, but what what I meant was someone too leftist or rightist to be considered "moderate."

Tycho: It's not fair of you to restate my position and accuse me of disliking Obama and trying to discredit me.  Obama is far to the left of center on anyone's radar in the U.S. and is not moderate.  You go on for two paragraphs chiding me without bringing anything of substance up, not a single fact to prove me wrong.  Have Republicans moved farther to the right?  Some have, surely.  But the Democrats have also moved much farther to the left.  Remember this:  "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." That was a Democrat, Kennedy, and now Obama has changed the tune to "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you" through entitlement programs that are far to the left of anything we've seen, not to mention the debt he sank the country into like socialist European countries.

Romney is a moderate, though, which is why the Tea Party has a problem with him.  But do you think a radical right wing group like the Tea Party (which is actually libertarian, not Republican) could ever get someone elected?  No.  Right or wrong, they are too right wing.

You say Obama is "right" of most democrats.  I have to call B.S. on that one. Sorry.  There are some who are more left than him, but not many.

I don't wish to belabor the point.  My point still stands that a moderate has a much better chance of being elected than a non-moderate, and this has been borne out throughout history, except in cases of revolutions or when the charisma of the leader can overcome his non-moderate views.

I'll just state a few things that Obama does which make him non-liberal. All of these are actions I expect of a conservative:

1) Drone strikes on foreign countries we're not at war with.

2) NDAA. The law that allow(ed) the US military to hold anyone, anywhere, indefinitely without trial.

3) The war in Libya.

Heath:

Wait, so if Obama is a radical and Romney is a moderate (your view, certainly not mine.), and moderates have a much higher chance of being elected then Romney should be looking in good shape right now should he not?

Obviously it's not a cut and dry thing, but that seems to be your stance correct?

(As a total aside I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats win the White House for the next 30 years in the US.  With culture changing as it is I don't see much hope for the Republicans.  Whether that's good or bad I couldn't tell you.  I'm not much of a political guy - I don't vote etc - but just going off the way I see culture changing everywhere, including the USA.)
This message was last edited by the player at 20:51, Wed 03 Oct 2012.

Unless, as I mentioned in my original post, they can overcome their more radical (i.e., left or right of moderate) stance through charisma, or can foster a revolution of sorts.  In Obama's case, he has a lot of charisma; he also is fostering a revolution of sorts by creating a class war where he is promising to take from the rich and give to the poor.  So he is doing everything as he should for a radical to get elected.

I don't know why you think the Democrats will keep power.  The elections of 2010 demonstrate that the Democrats weren't popular, though the Democrats say that was just that the incumbents weren't popular.  Either way, the "incumbency" issue makes the statement highly unlikely.

Yes, Obama has done some things which a conservative would do.  (You forgot that he failed to fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.)  Bush also spent money fiscally like a Democrat, yet no one is calling him a liberal.  Your points, hako, are based on foreign policy issues, and he changed his stance on those after coming into power and realizing he was dead wrong.  And though you would expect those acts from a conservative, I do not see them as conservative or liberal:  Clinton did the same things.

Which I why I said I wanted a liberal to vote for: I want a liberal foreign policy, and every democrat seems to have a conservative foreign policy.

No that have I any time for most of these discussions anymore, I might really enjoy getting behind a thread on this issue.

I think there's some good evidence to suggest we're having a "Party Switch" which has happened a few time in history.  And at least one party replacement (Wigs by Republicans -- that doesn't mean Wigs became Republicans, but rather that history and policy made the wigs unwelcome and Republicans were key to that)...

anyway, I think we're seeing a transformation of the parties and that's why almost everyone is unhappy with their party except that 20% who are PARTY PEOPLE

Obama is NOT liberal, he is a conservative corporatist.

One problem you may be having there "Mark Twain" is you don't know/get that social scientists have proven that the right has gone drastically to the right while the left has extended somewhat but not in either volume or in degree.  (That is both fewer are at the "edge" (a term I prefer in this context to extreme...) and they are not as "far moved" from center as those on the right.)

To Hokoo's list I would add a bunch of domestic issues.

* He had to devolve on gay marriage before evolving to the level of Dick Cheney.
* He voted for corporate immunity on FISA.  Now maybe you call domestic spying really a national security position (but that's half the problem) is domestic rights are under assault via-a-vis "national security")
* He's personally chosen to kill US Citizens in Pakistan for no known reason ...though he did have a very Islamic name.  Oh, and one was a 14?-year old boy!
* He wants to seem in favour of women by increasing law suits.
* He didn't fight for Employee Free Choice Act
* He won't fight for amnesty or open boarders
* He won't fight for trans-inclusive hate crimes legislation
* He didn't fight for (even less than fight, he give up without concession) either single payer or even the great, highly popular (but still a concession) -- public option.
* He has rarely (and I only know of one example at the convention) where he mentions the poor.  Their slogan even puts "Middle Class First" ...which is a class war action, I agree, it's class war fare against the POOR. (i.e. Republican Light)

I could go on and on, he's not radical.

Revolutionary, do you have a link to a report by those social scientists?

Speaking for myself, I consider myself conservative (although I've probably shifted more liberal than I was a few years ago). Obama may be liberal on his tax policy, but honestly, that's just an area I don't really care very much about. In all of the metrics I'm considered about (personal freedoms, foreign policy, etc.) he's leaned either right or fascist. (I don't mean fascist in a derogatory sense, but in the sense of opposite from libertarianism.)

Compared to other politicians in my area, he's VERY moderate. Compared to other presidents, he's probably about as left-wing as Clinton. I'd be happy of Obama was the degree of radical the Democrats continue to provide (and I'd request that they replace my local candidates with someone about that extreme).

Yes, but by whom?  I think you might have a sample bias, if people who call Obama "radical left wing" are what you consider to be "the center".


If you want to say you like Obama and his policies, feel free.  ;)


I have to disagree with you there.  He is left of center, yes.  But "far to the left" he isn't.  Perhaps what we need is to give a bit more of a definition of what "far to the left" means.  I'm talking about the median voter.  You seem to be talking about the median republican voter, or the median fox news fan.  Remember, more than half the voters in the country voted for Obama.  Even if he loses this time around, all indications are that it won't be a landslide.  Someone who's viewed as a radical left wing person by most americans isn't going to have that happen.


Perhaps you misread my post, as I count at least 4 facts I gave to back up my position:
1.  His health care plan is taken from the other party
2.  he's lowered taxes on everyone (usually a conservative desire)
3.  his plan to raise taxes on the highest earners is supported by most of the country
4.  he has continued many of Bush's policies that liberals dislike.
I realize it's not exactly a Ph.D thesis, but to say I offered no facts is, well, a <strike>lie</strike> exaggeration.  Which of us was it that was complaining about the unfairness of restating the other's position and trying to discredit them? ;)


here is one example of a political scientist who's studied this who says otherwise.  Here's the money quote:
[Emphasis added by Tycho.  Also, the two figures n the article show this very nicely graphically]
This is another article talking about it.  I'm not just making this up and pointing fingers here.  People who study this stuff, and try to find ways to quantify it are saying that the numbers show what most people can observe just by watching the news:  Republicans are moving much more quickly to the right than democrats to the left.


Really, did Obama say that, or did you just make that up?  And with the "entitlements" thing, you're sort of picking the wrong fight with this quote, I'd argue.  The biggest beef with Obamacare that conservatives have is that it makes you buy insurance.  It doesn't give you something for free, it requires you to do something so that the rest of us don't have to pay for it in taxes.  It's a "here's what you're going to do for your country," thing.  You may not like it, plenty of other people don't like it, and I'll admit it's not the system I'd pick if they asked me.  But that doesn't mean it's radically to the left, or much like a socialist European country (I happen to live in a socialist European country, and I can tell you, Obamacare isn't anything like what they have in the UK).  Oh, and there's that odd little issue, that Obamacare was more or less invented by a moderate republican, who now happens to be the republican presidential candidate.


Yes, Romney is a moderate (despite his attempt to brand himself as "severely conservative" back in the primaries), and the Tea party are not moderate.  That doesn't have much to do with Obama, though.


I think perhaps you have a somewhat skewed view of the democratic population in the US, then.  If you don't think there are many democrats more to the left than Obama, you're definitely not seeing a large portion of the country.


I'd agree that moderates tend to (or at very least have tended to in the past) have a better chance of winning presidential races.  I will grant that Obama also has charisma.  I still feel, however, that other than calling him such, you haven't really shown much evidence that Obama is "radial left wing."