From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 22:50:42 GMT
Greetings, Grant,
As always, another nice posting from you. I agree that one doesn't need
religion to find faith-based beliefs, and wanted to focus on one element of
your message:
> In numerous posts many of us have pointed out the fact that you
> can't argue
> with memes of faith. People on both sides of the argument will refuse to
> see what they don't want to see in opposing arguments. So to continue
> arguing about it is a complete waste of time. It's not a matter
> of who is
> right and who is wrong. It's a matter of meme dominance and we
> on this list
> should know that better than anyone. When someone posts endless
> arguments
> in support of a faith-based concept, it is equivalent to spam.
Can you say more about WHY faith memes are hard to argue? I am thinking
that we call it faith _because_ it is hard to argue, and so am asking what
you and others might suggest is the technical basis for the hardness.
I will also say that I agree that it is hard, but would not agree that it is
impossible. You may recall from posts of long ago, I have suggested that
having a belief is akin to an action: we hold beliefs based upon the
(subjective perceived) advantage they offer us in doing so.
Hope this question makes sense!
Cheers,
Lawry
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 22:43:44 GMT