Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Fundies and Newagers Answer Here

Thought I'd set up a thread I might refer people to. My regulars may also want to send them here with links. The premise I'm making very explicit: There's no significant difference between the typical right wing fundie IDiot chunk and the crystal clutching newage (rhymes with sewage)-retro hippies. I'd like to see the two camps try to prove they're different.

Sure, they've got political leanings, but that doesn't really strike me as significant. There is crossover, since there are a bunch of apologist concern trolls who show up to complain in evolution threads about how we're allegedly doing bad things to the liberal cause by demanding science remain a meritocracy instead of letting the Discovery Institute become the intellectual equivalent of a "welfare queen." On the other end, I doubt there's a shortage of right wing newagers out there. I recall a long time ago someone had described attending a massage class that started dipping into spiritualist woo and Facism, claiming that the fact The State approved of their testing that included their spiritual beliefs, their spiritual beliefs must be true.

But enough about zany combinations. Woo is woo. They both perform the same fallacies over and over. They both demand that we abandon empiricism and the scientific method based on subjective personal feelings, peer pressure, a desire for an inoffensive PC world, or whatever. In short, they don't have any regard for knowledge or truth. Too many seem to think no one should ever have their feelings hurt by anything as trivial as fact.

One alarming tendency that hasn't escaped my notice is that this sort of thing so easily leads to moral relativism. "You're trying to make me feel guilty! That's bad! It interferes with me living up to my selfish, egomaniacal nature! How dare you try to make us feel bad about someone lying for profit!" I have to constantly remind myself that I'm just getting some very nasty samples in order for me to have hope for humanity.

They all ask us to abandon the very visible benefits of the scientific method, as if all the modern life-saving and convenient technologies were going to spring up anyway, without the rigor involved in understanding the principles they use. They're the sort who take everything for granted, and have no appreciation for the blood, sweat, and time it took for our ancestors to raise us up to expect the long, healthy lives we're now capable of enjoying.


Random Stuff said...

Differences between Fundamentalists and New-Agers...

Well, the obvious one is that New-Agers think the Earth is our friend whereas Fundamentalists tend to believe it should be beaten into submission.

Not really sure about the relativism thing either. Fundamentalism is generally supposed to be the exact opposite of relativism. If it's in the big book, it's wrong. Fundamentalists don't really care if your feelings get hurt because God says (casual drug use/extramarital sex/whatever else) is wrong. For Fundamentalists everything is black-and-white, whereas New-Agers tend to specialize in finding new shades of gray.

Bronze Dog said...

On the surface, they may look like black-and-white morality, but I've always found that when pressed, they have to make morality relative in order to maintain that God is good.

And, of course, they love making exceptions to the rules for themselves.