It's almost Febuary 15th. Will John From return?

[Zhavric]

John Frum is the name of a mythical messiah worshipped on the island of Vanuatu by a cargo cult. Wiki has some good articles that you should familiarize yourself with before delving into the thread, especially if you have no idea what a cargo cult is:

John Frum
Cargo Cult

From wiki: "The name "John Frum" is possibly derived from World War II GIs introducing themselves to the locals as "John from America"."

As you can see from the articles, the followers of John Frum believe he will return on Febuary 15th, but have no idea what year it is. Will he return this year?

Doubtful.

The Cargo Cult phenomenon is interesting for a few reasons.

It demonstrates how fast a religious cult can come about. No sooner had cargo arrived had groups began praising it as divine.

The cults have sprouted on too many independent islands to be a phenomenon isolated to Vanuatu.

Evidence proving these cults false is readily available, yet the believers hold to their faith.

Much like Jesus Christ, followers of John Frum are sure he'll return. Well aware of Christianity from missionaries, followers of John Frum are quick to point out Christians have been waiting nearly 2000 years for Jesus to return and that John has been gone for less than a century.

It demonstrates the lengths to which people will go for a religious movement. The followers of Frum went so far as to construct fake landing pads out of bamboo.

The debate is to focus on how cargo cults compare with so-called mainstream religion. It's easy to see how accounts of an allegedly miraculous happening can cause individuals to believe that which is demonstrably false.

[Milton Bradley]

Well, at least the John Frum Society has some tangible evidence to suggest he did actually exist, so they can't be written off as completely delusional. ( At least in 1944 )

[Zhavric]

I see where you are going with "evidence", but if it were only about evidence than the cargo cults should be disbanded as soon as someone takes the time to explain & demonstrate where cargo comes from. We can presume missionaries would do this. The fact that many cults still exist tells us evidence is only part of the picture.

[rez]

The basic idea is that nobody knows if god exists, so some people create a way of knowing through hope and faith. They hold on to this hope on the basis that a supernatural being is giving them an external purpose to live by and without this purpose their lives are worthless. If one is honest with themselves, then they are able to see that the way one supernaturalist thinks is not different from another supernaturalists way of thinking. A Muslim is just as much of a magical thinker as a Christian. The Christian and the Muslim both claim a truth, yet both followers are unwilling to examine the the position they are rejecting. A Muslim and a Christian are unwilling to accept that supernaturalism no longer suffices as a method to explain reality. Supernaturalists are unwilling to look at themselves in the mirror and realize that the magical being they call god is all in their heads.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zhavric I see where you are going with "evidence", but if it were only about evidence than the cargo cults should be disbanded as soon as someone takes the time to explain & demonstrate where cargo comes from. We can presume missionaries would do this. The fact that many cults still exist tells us evidence is only part of the picture.

I wasn't really attempting to lead you anywhere, I was just commenting about what I already knew of the JFS.


Overall, I think its a wonderful example of just how gullible people can be. Particularly if some superstitious fear ( like flying for example ) is utilized in the meeting of the strangers/cultures.


( I don't know if you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, but I found it interesting that communication with certain segments of that society haven't changed all that much in the intervening years. Some of those people are still primitive in that part of the world. ( Stone tools, and all ) It's actually starting to look like a good survival strategy to some of us. )

[Jack]

I think cargo cults are fascinating. It's as close as we can get to taking a time machine back to see how Judaism and Christianity got started. Philosophical archeology, if you will.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ish said: I think cargo cults are fascinating. It's as close as we can get to taking a time machine back to see how Judaism and Christianity got started. Philosophical archeology, if you will.

Big Fat Bullseye for you! Nailed it in my opinion.

[Zhavric]

Well, it's the 16th and John Frum was a no show. Again.

Go figure.

He reminds me of another deity that's supposed to be coming back, but never seems to show up...

[Fonceai]

Maybe I missed something.

The cited article states two things...

1. John Frum day is Feb. 15th.
2. The leader of the John Frum movement is quoted as saying he would eventually return.

No where does it specify when he's supposed to return.

It's a common aspect of most religions that the primary figure will return to lead followers to salvation. It establishes a psychological need for a goal of some sort.

After doing more reading about the John Frum movement, it seems fairly harmless, isolated, and its beliefs are incredibly benevolent.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai After doing more reading about the John Frum movement, it seems fairly harmless,

I wouldn't define a movement that teaches something obviously not true as "harmless". Sure, they're not killing people, but delusion is not healthy.

isolated,

Cargo cults are not isolated to a specific island or people. They have occured on many islands too far removed to have knowledge of one another.

and its beliefs are incredibly benevolent.

See above. People shouldn't have to believe in lies to be benevolent to one another. While they're not killing people, they did do considerable harm to the Vanuatu economy.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z I wouldn't define a movement that teaches something obviously not true as "harmless".

That's a matter of opinion.

If what they are teaching is beneficial to them and those around them, regardless of its truth, then why do you think you can say it's harmful?

Your opinion towards these people, and cargo cults in general, is colored by your blanket dislike of faith and your negative opinion towards people who have faith of some kind.

I think if cargo cults are isolated to a smaller area and aren't trying to spread throughout the whole world, they shouldn't be dismissed automatically as a negative.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai That's a matter of opinion. If what they are teaching is beneficial to them and those around them, regardless of its truth, then why do you think you can say it's harmful?

Truth is better than lies, Fonceai. While cargo cults aren't trying to spread, they teach people to accept things without evidence and ignore actual evidence. That's not a good thing.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z While cargo cults aren't trying to spread, they teach people to accept things without evidence and ignore actual evidence.

The people choose what they want to believe.

Your problem is with thinking there is any "actual evidence" in this matter.

For other people, their observations, passions, and opinions are "actual evidence", and they will base their beliefs accordingly.

In the meantime, consider that when given a choice between a kind voice of passion and acceptance and a harsh voice of denial and emptiness, people choose the kind voice based on how it makes them feel.

In this case, the John Frum movement makes people feel good by doing what they perceive is good. Since those actions aren't overtly harmful, your opinion of them being "wrong" is entirely that... your subjective opinion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai The people choose what they want to believe. Your problem is with thinking there is any "actual evidence" in this matter. For other people, their observations, passions, and opinions are "actual evidence", and they will base their beliefs accordingly.

No. Their observations, passions and opinions are observations, passions, and opinions. Evidence is something else entirely. It's factual information verified by real world events (or in this case objects).

People believing X to be true doesn't evidence X as true.

In the meantime, consider that when given a choice between a kind voice of passion and acceptance and a harsh voice of denial and emptiness, people choose the kind voice based on how it makes them feel.

This evidences people will accept what makes them feel better, not necessarily what's true. It evidences that people can be manipulated to believe falsehoods.

In this case, the John Frum movement makes people feel good...

Feeling good doesn't trump truth nor does the truth need to be obfuscated with happy lies for people to lead happy lives. People can gain the benefits of religion... any religion... without the unsupported claims / outright lies of religion. Cargo cults are an excellent example; The people want someone to bring them cargo and take care of them. They don't need supernatural entities for that.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Feeling good doesn't trump truth nor does the truth need to be obfuscated with happy lies for people to lead happy lives.

Incorrect.

"Buddallavisnuhova says that helping a homeless person by giving them a meal will make you feel good."

"Did you give that homeless person a meal? Did it make you feel good? Was Buddallavishnuhova right?"

It would seem that you don't think feelings are valid reasons to believe something to be true.

If phoenix_fire or Gods Mercenary said that they believe in certain religious messages about feeling good because they have followed them and had those good feelings, does that mean that they are wrong?

When given a choice between what makes you feel good and what makes you feel nothing, people choose what makes them feel good.

That doesn't invalidate what they chose, nor make their belief in it any less true.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Incorrect. "Buddallavisnuhova says that helping a homeless person by giving them a meal will make you feel good." "Did you give that homeless person a meal? Did it make you feel good? Was Buddallavishnuhova right?" It would seem that you don't think feelings are valid reasons to believe something to be true.

Horrible logic. Being generous has its own rewards regardless of what 'Buddallavishnuhova' states. If you need someone named Buddallavishnuhova to tell you to be good what does that say about you?

If phoenix_fire or Gods Mercenary said that they believe in certain religious messages about feeling good because they have followed them and had those good feelings, does that mean that they are wrong?[/quote]

Of course it means they're wrong. Good feelings don't evidence anything beyond good feelings. We also don't need to delude ourselves to attain good feelings.

Delusion is never a good thing, Fonceai. There is no excuse for it.

When given a choice between what makes you feel good and what makes you feel nothing, people choose what makes them feel good.

I could see where you'd think this false dilemma are the only two options available to you. The religious sales pitch goes beyond "our product is really great" and into "your life's TERRIBLE without our product."

It's hard for theists to envision choosing cold truth over warm & inviting lies, but it's really not the tragedy the clergy would have you believe.

That doesn't invalidate what they chose, nor make their belief in it any less true.

Of course it does. Try stating "X is true because it makes me feel good" and you'd be laughed out of any debate. State "Impossible thing X is beneficial because it makes me feel good" and I'd ask why do you need impossible thing X to feel good?

[Fonceai]

Yeah.

You're over-generalizing and I'm just gonna walk away from this one.

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai Incorrect. "Buddallavisnuhova says that helping a homeless person by giving them a meal will make you feel good." "Did you give that homeless person a meal? Did it make you feel good? Was Buddallavishnuhova right?"

Buddallavisnuhova telling "person A" to give a meal to a homeless guy creates the illusion that some higher being dictates morals when really the morals are within "person A". "Person A", for some reason, needs to give meaning and purpose in his life by making shit up that is not based in reality. He sees that operating on pure emotion makes him feel good and associates it with the truth.

It would seem that you don't think feelings are valid reasons to believe something to be true.

The limbic part of the brain contains our emotional thoughts and provides humans with a sense of truth or importance, despite, the fact that this part of the brain can neither read or write. When you combine the part of the brain that reads and writes and the part of the brain that process emotions, then one will be able to form reasonable thought. The funny thing is, if one balances out these two parts of the brain the person will no longer have an emotional belief, but a rational thought.

If phoenix_fire or Gods Mercenary said that they believe in certain religious messages about feeling good because they have followed them and had those good feelings, does that mean that they are wrong?

Yes because their truth completely contradicts The_Genius's truth even though they all are abiding by the same supernatural beliefs! If they were honest with themselves they would read all the supernatural constructs and accept all of them as the truth.

When given a choice between what makes you feel good and what makes you feel nothing, people choose what makes them feel good.

correct, but where does critical thought come into play?

That doesn't invalidate what they chose, nor make their belief in it any less true.

Thus operating on pure emotion makes people immobile and irrational. Humans need to respond to challenges in order to progress in life.

[Fonceai]

@rez

Thank you for your response. I will try to draft my comments with the same respect you put into yours.

Quote by: rez Buddallavisnuhova telling "person A" to give a meal to a homeless guy creates the illusion that some higher being dictates morals when really the morals are within "person A".

I was very careful to make a distinction in what I stated. If you look back, you'll see that the deity didn't tell anyone to give a meal to anyone else. The deity simply said that giving them a meal would give good feelings.

The higher power didn't necessarily dictate a moral... it simply played on the probability of a certain effect by committing a specific moral action.

Quote by: rez "Person A", for some reason, needs to give meaning and purpose in his life by making shit up that is not based in reality. He sees that operating on pure emotion makes him feel good and associates it with the truth.

I understand what you're saying here, but I think the misunderstood previous aspect led to your conclusion which does not quite relate to the point I was making.

With respects, I'll try to clarify.

The similarity I was making was between the deity I used and most of the cargo cults. The modern use of deities, messiahs, and prophets is a careful one.

Instead of saying, "This deity says to do action X or you'll suffer punishment Y" they instead say, "This deity says that if you do action X you'll feel reward Y."

The difference is in the careful use of language and appeal to positive reinforcement to demonstrate the validity of a deity.

I think you make a very valid point about the person "making shit up"... it's unnecessary to have to attribute the emotional rewards with some kind of deity. Then again, my opinions about theism and deities are unique.

The focus of that example wasn't on the person for believing in the deity, but more in the person communicating the rewards for following a certain ethic. That is the lure of modern cargo cults because it is something that is very hard to disprove.

Quote by: rez The funny thing is, if one balances out these two parts of the brain the person will no longer have an emotional belief, but a rational thought.

I acknowledge that that paragraph is valid.

To link that to my previous point about emotion, again the lure of something like the John Frum movement is that it speaks of emotional rewards that you can tangibly experience. The left side of the brain directly relates the truth of the cause and effect and the right side feels that effect.

Quote by: rez Yes because their truth completely contradicts The_Genius's truth even though they all are abiding by the same supernatural beliefs! If they were honest with themselves they would read all the supernatural constructs.

Good point.

Let me know if you disagree, but it would seem then that the truth one feels regarding matters of religion are purely subjective truths... a.k.a. opinions.

Quote by: rez correct, but where does critical thought come into play?

It comes into play as I mentioned above, and I will try to express this clearly...

You have two people.

One presents you with a system of unified morals and ethics and says that if you follow them you will feel good. Sure you can do the opposite and still probably feel good, but they stick with what they know to be generally true about human nature.

The other presents you with nothing. They show that you would feel good anyway no matter what you do, because it's your choice.

Critically thinking, if you do one or two of the former's moral actions and do feel good, you come to the conclusion that it's probably true that all of those actions result in good feelings.

The latter doesn't really offer you anything other than telling you it's your choice.

Add to that former system a series of stories that illustrate the morals and ethics, instead of just a list of rules on a stone tablet, and you have an entertaining way of communicating an emotionally rewarding system of morals and ethics.

Notice, I'm not mentioned any kind of afterlife reward. It's staying completely tangible and real. That's how modern cargo cults function.

Quote by: rez Thus operating on pure emotion makes people immobile and irrational. Humans need to respond to challenges in order to progress in life.

To this, I can only say that no one likes being unprepared for a challenge. The former system above can have stories that might give you insight on how to relate those challenges to situations that you can see your way through.

The latter offers you nothing.

Again, people who follow the former aren't wrong. They just have a different value system on which they build their moral and ethical framework.

The John Frum movement doesn't seek to control the world or alter the perceptions of those who follow the movement. They suggest positive real life consequences for normal, daily actions. That attracts people, and appeals to their own ability to come to consequences. That's hardly brainwashing or conning.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai You're over-generalizing

O_o

You came up with 'Buddallavisnuhova' as catch-all for any religious doctrine. How am I over-generalizing?