Does Reason have Enemies?

Enemies of Reason. What does this statement mean?

Religious Extremists

Can atheists be angry like religious fundamentalists? They can get angry of course, but would they, for instance, blow themselves up, taking hundreds of innocent lives with them? I can't imagine so. Atheists believe that this life is it, and when you die, it's all over. Doesn't sound like the type of person who would blow themselves up to me. A radical Muslim has been brainwashed into believing that such an action will land him in paradise, complete with a harem of "virgins." These people are definitely enemies of reason. "What is wrong with believing in a God?" the question states. Nothing. What is wrong is believing that God commands His believers to kill those who do not believe. I am not saying that all Muslims believe this. I am not saying that most of them do either. I have not read the Qur'an, and so I cannot make assertions either way as to what exactly it tells Muslims to do. Anyone who has please leave comments.
Following God's true Will will never be harmful. Those who strap themselves with explosives or hi-jack planes are NOT FOLLOWING GOD'S WILL. So far I have only mentioned Muslims. How about the crusades, or "Holy Wars" of medieval times? Catholics fought in bloody battles against Muslims. But the Muslims did not instigate the wars. These "Christians" believed that God wanted them to purge the world of the Muslims. That is so against the teachings of Jesus! But the crusaders of this time did not listen to His teachings. Read this from Wikipedia:
"In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins."
All of the Christians who fought in this war did not listen to what God wanted them to do, they listened to what a MAN wanted them to do, this Pope Urban II. He brainwashed them with promises that fighting would gain remission of their sins. If these Christians read their Bibles, they would know that the ONLY person who can cleanse a person of sin is Jesus Christ. Jesus gave His life for all of us. From that point on, it became the mission of Christians to follow Jesus' teachings and spread the Gospel, or "good news," for everyone to hear. To hear, not accept or die! That's what the crusaders were guilty of, which is just what the radical Muslims today are guilty of. But what about all the fighting and wars documented in the Bible? It is a grave mistake to take that as any sort of instruction to take up arms against those who don't believe. If everything in the Bible was taken as something OK for us to do, that would be ridiculous! Under that premise, someone could take any instance of one person in the Bible committing murder and say that it is OK to do so. This is an example of taking the Scriptures out of context, which is something that should never be done.

To conclude, those who truly follow God will not be harmful to mankind, but those who follow earthly leaders who have abused their power and influence and twisted God's words to fit their agendas are. The same for people who take the words of the Bible, or Qur'an or whatever out of context and apply them in a way that suits them personally.

Psychics

What is the harm in psychics and fortune-telling, Tarot reading cards &c.? If these people want to do this, are they not affecting only themselves? Well, the thing is, people who believe in these things can have their emotions manipulated by these "psychics." And most of the time, it's not just emotional damage these people can do. They can empty your wallet. Watch the video.



Just one way "psychics" can scam you out of your money. But money is just on the surface! What really matters are peoples' emotions and, as seen in Richard Dawkin's documentary during the seance, these can be manipulated by "psychic" readers with ease. How is a person who has lost a loved one supposed to have peace if they are constantly pursuing them? They need to accept that they are gone from their life, and posthumous conversations with them are not going to resolve these feelings! They say at first that they need closure, but as the video states, most of the congregation are regulars. They have not moved on, and are addicted to what they think is being in the presence of their departed friends and family. True, this may be soothing for some of these people, but this entire thing could cause some to go mad. Or what if the "psychic" reader had a change of heart, and decided to reveal that he was a fake? What would the emotional response of these victims then be? I will say no more on the matter; I think I have said enough to make my point.

What is the harm in believing in a superstition?

I have a facebook account. I am a member of a number of groups on facebook, one of which is, "No, I don't care if I die at 12 a.m, I refuse to pass on your chain letter!" I loved this group and joined at once. I have seen some chain letters in my time. (Oddly enough, they are usually asking for an increment of money...) I find them laughable, but what is NOT funny is the fact that some people take them seriously! This can be very harmful, depending on the "instructions" of the chain letter. But just what is a chain letter, you might ask? Here's a definition, courtesy Dictionary.com: "A letter sent to a number of people, each of whom is asked to make and mail copies to other people who are to do likewise, often used as a means of spreading a message or raising money."

Seems harmless enough. Often these letters request putting a dollar in or even just a penny. It's just a get-rich-quick scheme, and often messages like this one will appear:

LITTLE JESSICA STROM IS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFERING FROM AN ACUTE AND VERY RARE CASE OF CEREBRAL CARCINOMA. THIS CONDITION CAUSES SEVERE MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS AND IS A TERMINAL ILLNESS. THE DOCTORS HAVE GIVEN HER SIX MONTHS TO LIVE.AS PART OF HER DYING WISH, SHE WANTED TO START A CHAIN LETTER TO INFORM PEOPLE OF THIS CONDITION AND TO SEND PEOPLE THE MESSAGE TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST AND ENJOY EVERY MOMENT, A CHANCE THAT SHE WILL NEVER HAVE. FURTHERMORE, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND SEVERAL CORPORATE SPONSORS HAVE AGREED TO DONATE THREE CENTS TOWARD CONTINUING CANCER RESEARCH FOR EVERY NEW PERSON THAT GETS FORWARDED THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE GIVE JESSICA AND ALL CANCER VICTIMS A CHANCE.
http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/cyberspace/folklore/examples.shtml

Now I would not trust this one bit. First of all it's in all caps. They can't have good intentions writing in all caps. Anyway, con artists use tear-jerker stories like this to turn 1 dollar into 1000 bucks. What's the harm in one dollar? Well, this example might be innocuous enough, but take this example: Imagine someone gets a letter telling them to pass on the letter with 5 Euros enclosed to another person, or they will receive 7 years of bad luck. Let's say this person thinks about it rationally and tosses the letter in the bin. What if, by chance, the person has a bad day the next day? Or gets a paper cut when throwing away the letter, then falls down the stairs due to unnecessary paranoia? That person might abandon reason and start to believe that the unfortunate events, which would have transpired whether the letter was binned or passed on, were caused by the chain letter. A person could potentially be driven to dumpster-diving just to retrieve the letter and send it on. The problem is a Confirmation bias of sorts. Bad things happen to the person by coincidence, and they start to connect those things to the letter, and from that point on, every unfortunate event is seen as confirmation that the chain letter is genuine. It's just like the pigeon that connected looking over its right shoulder to getting fed. It happened, by chance, a second time. It jumped to conclusions. By merely the second time it took it as confirmation that the particular action led to food. And what happened with the pigeon? It became an obsession, looking over the shoulder. Superstitions can lead to obsessive behaviour, which is dangerous to the person guilty of superstition, and possibly those around them.

In closing, I will say that many of these things can definitely be harmful to mankind.

Inductive or Deductive? Contemplation is the greatest good...

What I believe he is referring to is the importance of thinking (or contemplating) about what you are going to do or say before you do it. He is discouraging rash actions or statements. This is basically what my parents instilled in me at a young age, “Always think before you act. Consider the potential consequences of your actions.” I usually plan what I am going to say before a syllable leaves my lips, and consider the possible outcomes of my actions, or at least, I try my best to do so. I think that this is what Aristotle was talking about. Only fools act rashly, and it would a disservice to one’s self and others to not think before acting. This is why contemplation is indeed the greatest good.
I surmise this statement to be formed from inductive reasoning, on the premise that the statement itself is rather vague, and seems to have been formed by more specific instances.
Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore, I am. Said by Descartes. It’s similar to Aristotle’s statement, but not the same. Aristotle’s statement is more of a general statement, able to be interpreted in different ways. Descartes’ statement is a bit more specific. He uses the first person perspective, which automatically assumes that the only thing he truly knows is that he thinks. He cannot know that other people think for certain and therefore he cannot know that others exist, but for in his own mind (this guy might really have enjoyed The Matrix). Perhaps “Contemplation is the greatest good” has more significant meaning than I have written about above. Maybe Aristotle’s statement inspired the statement that I believe to be far more profound: I think, therefore, I am. Perhaps Aristotle meant that Contemplation leads to truth, and knowing one’s self at a higher level than ever before. Considerably more deep than simply thinking before acting! So what right do I have to say that one statement is more or less profound than the other? None! Let’s just agree that they are both statements that were brought about with a substantial amount of thought on both philosophers’ respective parts. They are also both quite similar in nature, and merit a good deal of open-minded contemplation.

School of lateral thinking list

What if....

• Students took turns teaching each other: no teacher. Just a supervisor.
• Vending machine tokens were awarded for homework turned in early.
• Homework passes awarded for every 7 or really high mark on a test.
• Instead of red forms, students had to do extra community service.
• Teachers only got paid for each student that passes their class.
• Students get a monetary reward at the end of the year, but every single lesson they miss or assignment handed in late makes the amount lower. Students could do extra credit assignments and serve detentions cleaning classrooms to redeem lost cash.

That's all I could come up with.