Metaphor and the Athiest Propaganda Model

[Nautyskin]

The theism of both Descartes and Spinoza is certainly up for debate, but what I really wonder is, how does one determine which came first - the rationale or the belief?

In the case of these classical thinkers, probably the belief. They were brought up in a monotheistic culture, and they rationalised their understanding in accordance with that native cultural framework.

Yep.

It thus seems possible for one's own pre-established belief in the existence of a deity to survive internal rationalist scrutiny.

But you're assuming that the belief, or perhaps the fear of punishment, did not define the boundaries of where they were willing (or perhaps even able) to go.

 

[televator]

Propaganda eh? I remember telling someone that in order to convince people who seem to reject facts, it may become necessary to employ questionable tactics. The same tactics of propaganda that "the other side" uses to influence the masses. In that sense, it was as though people wanted you to lie to them. I feel like this is walking a fine line....

 

[Gnug215]

I wouldn't want to use dishonest tactics.

What I was thinking about was "framing", making a narrative (as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum) and making use of the knowledge we have about cognitive functions.
As someone said above: It would be pointless to manipulate people into becoming atheists; what is needed is for people to make themselves become critical thinkers.
I wouldn't want this to become "Lying for... nobody". And in my mind, it wouldn't have to. I don't think lying would even be more effective than the truth. We just have to realize that some people aren't receptive to the truth, because of the "scaffold" in their mind - because of how the un-truth has been framed to them, so that they now believe that un-truth. We may need some "trickery" to be able to affect said scaffold, but it shouldn't have to be dishonest trickery, just... cognitively aware trickery.
The "other side" has been using narratives and metaphor successfully for ages (perhaps not so much consciously - it was probably just in the nature of the particular "truth" they wanted to spread), and we could easily do the same - even without dishonesty.

 

[Andiferous]

Hypocrisy tends to send the wrong message.

 

[Prolescum]

Hypocrisy tends to send the wrong message.

I love you.

 

[Andiferous]

Aww! I'm melting.

 

[Nautyskin]

Aww! I'm melting.

WITCH!!

 

[Prolescum]

Aww! I'm melting.

WITCH!!

I doubt if Andie would appreciate the insinuation that I've made her wet. :shock:

 

[televator]

I wouldn't want to use dishonest tactics.

What I was thinking about was "framing", making a narrative (as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum) and making use of the knowledge we have about cognitive functions.
As someone said above: It would be pointless to manipulate people into becoming atheists; what is needed is for people to make themselves become critical thinkers.
I wouldn't want this to become "Lying for... nobody". And in my mind, it wouldn't have to. I don't think lying would even be more effective than the truth. We just have to realize that some people aren't receptive to the truth, because of the "scaffold" in their mind - because of how the un-truth has been framed to them, so that they now believe that un-truth. We may need some "trickery" to be able to affect said scaffold, but it shouldn't have to be dishonest trickery, just... cognitively aware trickery.
The "other side" has been using narratives and metaphor successfully for ages (perhaps not so much consciously - it was probably just in the nature of the particular "truth" they wanted to spread), and we could easily do the same - even without dishonesty.

I see what you mean now. That emphasis on "framing" did indeed play a metaphor on my subconscious that made your point more accessible to me. Interesting. You aren't talking about changing the way people think or rationalize. You are talking about structuring your own speech around metaphors that make your information more accessible to them.

However, I still have some reservation of this being a conscious effort on your part while the subject goes on unaware of this. That non-disclosure seems.....not totally honest.

 

[Gnug215]

I wouldn't want to use dishonest tactics.

What I was thinking about was "framing", making a narrative (as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum) and making use of the knowledge we have about cognitive functions.
As someone said above: It would be pointless to manipulate people into becoming atheists; what is needed is for people to make themselves become critical thinkers.
I wouldn't want this to become "Lying for... nobody". And in my mind, it wouldn't have to. I don't think lying would even be more effective than the truth. We just have to realize that some people aren't receptive to the truth, because of the "scaffold" in their mind - because of how the un-truth has been framed to them, so that they now believe that un-truth. We may need some "trickery" to be able to affect said scaffold, but it shouldn't have to be dishonest trickery, just... cognitively aware trickery.
The "other side" has been using narratives and metaphor successfully for ages (perhaps not so much consciously - it was probably just in the nature of the particular "truth" they wanted to spread), and we could easily do the same - even without dishonesty.

I see what you mean now. That emphasis on "framing" did indeed play a metaphor on my subconscious that made your point more accessible to me. Interesting. You aren't talking about changing the way people think or rationalize. You are talking about structuring your own speech around metaphors that make your information more accessible to them.

However, I still have some reservation of this being a conscious effort on your part while the subject goes on unaware of this. That non-disclosure seems.....not totally honest.

I hadn't actually given any thought as to whether the subject would be unaware of it. I think I actually assumed they would be aware. I mean, about as aware as you were when you noticed my use of metaphor to get my point across.

But to reiterate, I wouldn't want to use any kind of dishonesty. Although the OP uses the word "propaganda", I don't get the impression he means it in the sense that we usually think of propaganda. If he does, then I don't agree with it.

I'm not advocating or suggesting dishonesty, but certainly a change of tactics. We need to be more aware of some cognitive and linguistic processes that would enable us to actually reach some of these people - something we haven't done very well.
Perhaps we are just too concrete, rational and logical in our thinking - so much so that we ignore the more abstract and emotional aspect of human thinking.
Some of the people we're debating are downright batshit crazy, but I feel we ought to be able to reach them, too, if we communicate differently.

 

[televator]

I hadn't actually given any thought as to whether the subject would be unaware of it. I think I actually assumed they would be aware. I mean, about as aware as you were when you noticed my use of metaphor to get my point across.

But to reiterate, I wouldn't want to use any kind of dishonesty. Although the OP uses the word "propaganda", I don't get the impression he means it in the sense that we usually think of propaganda. If he does, then I don't agree with it.

I'm not advocating or suggesting dishonesty, but certainly a change of tactics. We need to be more aware of some cognitive and linguistic processes that would enable us to actually reach some of these people - something we haven't done very well.
Perhaps we are just too concrete, rational and logical in our thinking - so much so that we ignore the more abstract and emotional aspect of human thinking.
Some of the people we're debating are downright batshit crazy, but I feel we ought to be able to reach them, too, if we communicate differently.

I see your concerns about reaching folks. It would certainly advance the goal to get people to think critically if we could find a way to communicate in more accessible language. For the record though, I was actually unaware of the metaphor while it was taking effect. I was in the middle of writing a response when I just sort of noticed that you seemingly made a clear point, I thought about the context of the thread, and realized your emphasis on that particular word. I feel almost as though I've been fooled in a sense....but not really...

 

[televator]

I found another video of Mr. Lakoff as he's questioned by a political commentator. I think he gets into more detail about religion in this one and says some interesting things about atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqFxHTh98Ww&feature=grec_browse

 

[Gnug215]

I found another video of Mr. Lakoff as he's questioned by a political commentator. I think he gets into more detail about religion in this one and says some interesting things about atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqFxHTh98Ww&feature=grec_browse

Lakoff says exactly the right thing in that video, where he distinguishes between "honest framing" and "spin".

I would say that the, eh, skeptics community has been better than the Democrats at framing the issues, and not just relenting them to the opposition. However, "us skeptics" have mostly spent the time framing these issues in a sarcastic, derogatory, insulting and sometimes even hostile manner. If we actually wanted to be more effective, we'd realize that the opposition rarely responds well to this kind of thing, and then change our tactics just slightly. Again, not dishonestly, but by framing issues in ways other than sarcastic, derogatory, insulting and hostile. There will always be skeptics who'll frame the issues that way - that is their right, of course, and I'm not suggesting we spend much, if any, energy stopping that - but some us should at least attempt to frame them differently. At least if we actually want to do some good with what we do - and not just sit here stroking our own egos and complacencies, laughing at the stupidity of our "intellectual opponents".

For starters, we might want to start framing faith as something other than just "stupid" or "irrational". Humans are emotional beings by nature, spirituality seems to follow, and we can't just sit here in all our supposed "rationalness" and condemn humanity, as if we're not a part of it.