Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA11404 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 15 May 2000 16:33:33 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB193@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Useless memes Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:31:33 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Religions having material consequences regardless of their "truth" or
"falsity" is a given, and is not what is at stake in the memetic approach to
religion.
It sound like you agree with Kierkergaard's 'leap of faith', in that belief
is entirely seperate from empiricism. You can't "prove" whether God exists
or not because it's a belief, so therefore you may as well believe it-
better to be safe than sorry :-) This is an effective strategy for a meme,
since it can maintain support and reproduction even when it conflicts with
logic/experience/experiment, and besides to doubt is to risk losing out-
"the only way to the truth is through me" was what Jesus said wasn't it? Or
something like that.
I think another point would be the process of religious reasoning. Take for
example the recent "revelation" of the third vision of Fatima, which the
Vatican now says predicted the assassination attempt on the Pope in the
early 1980s. If you look at the reporting of this, it probably indicates
the thought process and reasoning which led to the Pope's interpretation of
the vision- all of it a mixture of numerology, and wishful thinking, unless
of course you believe that the Pope is a direct descendent of the disciples
of Christ and thus has a direct line to divinity etc. etc.
The point the memeticist makes is why do particular beliefs persist that can
be refuted by logic, experience or experiment? This is particularly of
interest when the material consequences of religious belief, which for
Christianity includes things like the inquisition, the crusades, slavey and
propaganda (the actual term was first used in the 17th century by the
Catholic church when they established the sacra congregation de propaganda
fide, or the congregation for the propagation of the faith), does not seem
to weaken central memes within the memeplex.
> ----------
> From: Robert Logan
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 12:46 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Useless memes
>
>
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2000, Chuck Palson wrote:
> >
> > I agree with this. I think sometimes its easier to take the literal
> > meaning of something and assume that it is therefore stupid. This is a
> > general mistake - as in when Dawkins and others "prove" that religion
> > is false - without taking into account the entire effect of that meme.
>
> The claim that anyone can prove religion is false is itself false. The
> problem with Dawkins proof is that his fallacy is wrong. :-)
>
> Religions are not true or false in the sense of logic - they are belief
> systems. They are based on axioms which can not be true or false. An
> assumption is an assumption is an assumption which is neither true or
> false. If one postulates the existence of a God on the basis of faith then
> that God exists in that persons belief system and effects their behaviour.
>
>
> I have already shared with this list my non-probativity theorem in which I
> claim science can not prove anything. It goes as follows:
>
> The Science Non-Probativity Theorem
>
> Axiom: A proposition must be falsifiable to be a scientific proposition or
> part of a scientific theory.
>
> Axiom: A proposition can not be proven true and be falsifiable at the same
> time. [Once proven true, a proposition can not be falsified and, hence, is
> not falsifiable.]
>
> Theorem: A proposition can not be proven to be true by use of science or
> the scientific method.
>
> Proof: If a proposition were to be proven to be true by the methods of
> science it would no longer be falsifiable. If it is no longer falsifiable
> because it has been proven true it can not be considered as a scientific
> proposition and hence could not have been proven true by science. Q.E.D.
>
> In the spirit of the Science Non-Probativity Theorem, we can not be
> certain that this line of reasoning is absolutely valid or true. After all
> we have just used the theorem, a syntactical element of the language of
> mathematics to establish a proposition about the language of science. Our
> theorem is not scientifically valid but as a result of mathematical
> reasoning we have created a useful probe; one that can lead to some
> interesting reflections and insights into the nature and limitation of
> science. If it helps scientists and the public, who tend to accept the
> authority of science more or less uncritically, to adopt a more humble and
> modest understanding of science, it will have served its purpose.
>
> All that science can do is to follow its tried and true method of
> observing, experimenting, generalizing, hypothesizing and then testing its
> hypotheses. The most that a scientist can do is to claim that for every
> experiment or test performed so far, the hypothesis that has been
> formulated explains all the observations made to date. Scientific truth is
> always equivocal and dependent on the outcome of future observations,
> discoveries and experiments. It is never absolute.
>
> A scientist who claims to have proven anything is being dogmatic. Every
> human being, even a scientist, has a right to their beliefs and dogmas.
> But it does not behoove a person who claims to be a rational scientist and
> who claims that science is objective and universal to be so absolute in
> their beliefs and in the value of their belief system, science.
>
> If you would like the entire paper email me and I will send it to you.
>
> Bob Logan
> **************************************************************************
> **
> * Robert K. Logan - Assoc. Prof. of Physics - University of Toronto
> *
> * 60 St. George Street - Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A7 - Canada
> *
> * e-mail: logan@physics.utoronto.ca
> *
> * phone: (416)978-8632 or 652-2570 or 927-9200 fax: (416)927-7077
> *
> * Author of: The Fifth Language: Learning a Living in the Computer Age
> *
> **************************************************************************
> **
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 16:34:00 BST