[Rei Murasame]

But why? What is the purpose of doing that?

[Fasces]

That argument is boring, Rei. Religion is a cheap answer to the lack of meaning in man's life. Man, and society, make his own meaning. Man's civilization is validated in the lives of its citizens. A strong society is its own end, without needing to resort to esoteric nonsense.

Esoterism will ruin the ideology. The movements which are successful are the movements that stick the Serranos into a closet and throw away the key.

[Decky]

That argument is boring, Rei. Religion is a cheap answer to the lack of meaning in man's life. Man, and society, make his own meaning.

Couldn't agree more. All their weird magic stuff is why fascism fails. Maybe if you had spent less time dressing up as Pokemon or whatever Shinto people do than you could have spend more time winning the war?

[Amanita]

I'm not sure if esoterism is being used a byword for religion or spirituality in general (as seems to be the case from how the thread progressed). I would say that Fascism is incompatible with most forms of atheism unless we want it to degenerate to utilitarian authoritarianism (petty police-statism), which I would personally not even classify as Fascism.

[mikema63]

Atheism does not necessarily suggest utilitarianism or a lack of "higher" objectives and goal.

[Amanita]

The problems with atheism run deeper than that. They are primarily epistemological.

If the cause of my beliefs is a series (possibly infinite) of impersonal causes, which had no prevision of the effects they were producing, how could I expect my cognitive faculties, with which I judge to know the cause of my beliefs in the first place, not to be very imperfect? Atheism necessarily leads to one of the strongest and global forms of skepticism. Politics wouldn't (and shouldn't) be of much importance then. The reason most atheists still behave as if they can lay claim to knowledge is either because they are inconsistent and take for granted non-atheistic beliefs or because they do not fully grasp the implications of their beliefs.

Of course this does not mean that any religious or esoteric system (the Hyperborean godhead or deifying a horse-whipped Jew) will do.

[mikema63]

If the cause of my beliefs is a series (possibly infinite) of impersonal causes, which had no prevision of the effects they were producing, how could I expect my cognitive faculties, with which I judge to know the cause of my beliefs in the first place, not to be very imperfect?

This sentence is very unclear.

[starman2003]

If the cause of my beliefs is a series (possibly infinite)

Not infinite--the Universe had a definite beginning but not one requiring "god" bs.

of impersonal causes, which had no prevision of the effects they were producing, how could I expect my cognitive faculties, with which I judge to know the cause of my beliefs in the first place, not to be very imperfect?

Who cares if there was no mythical being supervising the process; evolution by natural selection, the most recent part of which involved competition for better brains, has obviously resulted in extraordinary capabilities. We've progressed from a cave dweller to a spacefarer (or at least could, with a better system.) Indeed our knowledge clearly shows holy bs is at best superfluous, while our capabilities are near the point of duplicating those of the mythical "god."

[Amanita]

If that is how our knowledge came about, there is absolutely nothing averting the possibility of knowing things wrong. Our minds could have developed in such a way that even what we think we know most perfectly could actually be false.

[starman2003]

If that is how our knowledge came about, there is absolutely nothing averting the possibility of knowing things wrong. Our minds could have developed in such a way that even what we think we know most perfectly could actually be false.

Yeah right. The point of evolutionary change is survival. You don't survive by being out of touch with reality.

[Amanita]

I can think of many cases in which you can survive despite being out of touch of reality. In any case, by your very own admission, you can. You believe that humans have hitherto been out of touch with reality (believing the "god bullshit" and a legion of other errors) and, well, we're still here today.

Also, attributing a final cause (survival) to evolution itself requires supplementary explanations which cannot be explained by evolution alone. I think evolutionists have now come to dismiss any instances of teleology from the theory (in my opinion this produces even larger problems but that's besides the point). So it seems that you don't even know your own beliefs.

[mikema63]

Also, attributing a final cause (survival) to evolution itself requires supplementary explanations which cannot be explained by evolution alone.

Evolution is a process driven by passing on genes of survivors, survival drives evolution. Supplementary explanations are completely unnecessary.

[Amanita]

Mike, you are reading the reply out of context. I was replying to starman's claim that evolution shapes our cognitive faculties by ensuring that superior faculties are selected for. My point was that he can only believe that if he takes evolution to have a final cause. In absence of a final cause, superior cognitive faculties are not necessarily selected for (as certainly seems to be the case in the human sphere) and therefore, in view of such, we cannot even be sure that we do not know things wrong. Ultimately my point is that teleological evolution must necessarily require metaphysical foundations (as Sagan beautifully described it when he said that "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself") whereas ateleological evolution, the one favoured by biologists today, pits us in one of the strongest form of skepticism and is therefore necessarily self-refuting.