Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA16390 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:05:11 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A41@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: mysticism etc Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:02:52 +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
>I already told you, there's no "secret knowledge", but that
particular
>dig is just too tempting, isn't it? Not that giving in to such
temptation
>is particularly rational, but there you go.
It is 'secret' because according to the position it can only be revealed
through the practice and can't be articulated in a verbal manner. The line
then becomes 'I can't tell you- you must just do'. When the skeptical
student asks 'why?', the answer is 'you'll find out when you do it'. When
the student does it but doesn't get any noticeable response, the mystic then
says 'Oh, well you're probably not doing it right'. The student then says
'well please tell me how to do it right', and the mystic 'I cannot tell you
how to do it correctly, you just must practice until you get it'.
> > I study Tai Chi, full of mysticism in its rhetoric (no doubt you'll
> reject
> > that- or maybe fall off your chair that I'd do such a thing, but hey I'm
> not
> > Mr.Spock :-)!), and I have real trouble when the teachers' start
> waffling on
> > about the 'greatness of the chi', or spiritual energy etc.
>
> This is very easy to understand. "Spiritual energy" is simply subjective
> mental energy. If there is some correlation between subjective and
> objective energy -- it doesn't need to be perfect, far from it -- then
> conservation of "spiritual energy" will be objectively beneficial. All
> spiritual talk is means to an end -- it's not meant to describe objective
> reality (except in minds of deluded fundamentalists -- and all fundies
> are deluded) -- it's meant to have certain effects on the minds of those
> who hear it. Which is why you should not be concerned when your teacher
> talks of such stuff. I'll guarantee your teacher will say the same if you
> ask him/her -- don't worry about it, just concern yourself with what does
> work for you. Because that's what it's all about.
>
> BTW, I'm glad you are not so closed-minded as to reject something just
> because it has mystical associations. Maybe there's hope for us yet!
>
Like I said, I'm not Mr Spock :-) I do think there's a difference though
between doing something for its physiological benefits, and then turning
that into The Answer.
>But why do you believe that? Who told you, and why do you believe
them?
>If you worked it out for yourself, did you do so entirely
rationally,
>with no prejudice, looking at all the evidence? Although I am not,
and
>never have been, a member of any religious organisation (except
Sunday
>school, as a kiddie), I have studied religion formally, as well as
having
>been informally interested all my life, and I can't believe you
came to
>that conclusion by any wholly rational route. It looks just like
more
>atheistic prejudice to me.
This is not a belief, its the basis of religious belief. If you are not
aware of this basic element of religion and how it is therefore distinct
from science, then I can't help you. Christanity, Judaism and Islam, are
all based on the supposed direct link from God to man through Moses, Jesus
and Mohammed. When we ask why these three religions have become so
widespread and dominant, a believer's answer must surely be 'because Moses
did receive comandments from Jehovah; because Jesus was the son of God;
because Mohammed was the mouth of Allah'.
I have looked rationally all my life for a decent piece of evidence for the
existence of God or the value of believing over non-belief, and I haven't
found any yet.
Why does it all fall away if it's metaphorical? To take up your point below
about even the idea of Jesus being the son of God being a metaphor; well if
that's the case, then God can be a metaphor, and if God is metaphorical then
God is simply an idea. Why give it all the weight of your entire life when
it's simply an idea, a theory, without actually thinking about the evidence
for it?
Of course, the more you search for evidence for the validity of religious
beliefs, the more you find deliberate obfuscation. Evidence is a human
trait that god doesn't need, you must just believe- believe and the truth
will be revealed to you. It's a basic meme strategy, the truth-trick, and
I've been immune to it since I was a small child.
>The only thing the Bible has over Burrough's ouvre is having been
>accepted by so many people over such a long period. Unless you see
>yourself as so superior, of course, that that's wholly without
>significance for you.
>(I'm not a Christian, have not ever read the Bible except where I
had to,
>for study purposes or such, but it seems to me you'd have to be
arrogant
>in the extreme to deny that its popularity is evidence of *some*
value,
>even if not much.)
Baywatch is the world's most watched television programme, that doesn't make
it an appropriate model for defining the social and moral order for
generations of people (although it treats women a bit more liberally than
Christianity).
Sorry, being a bit flippant there- this is a serious point you make, and
relates to that old conundrum of religions and memes. That Christianity
spread so successfully may simply be a factor of it having good memes rather
than it actually being good for something, but the social utility of
religion in general isn't something I'd deny, it undoubtedly gave people
means to cope with phenomena they did not understand or did not know how to
deal with in the past. Unfortunately for religions, many of those ways of
coping have been increasingly shown to have been misunderstandings of causal
relationships in the natural world, and IMHO should be becoming redundant in
the modern era. They aren't of course, (well so far anyway) and then one
has to ask why.
On religionist's doubts you asked:
>But that's just your assumption, isn't it?
I don't see this as an assumption. These people spend their childhood,
education, and working life within institutionalised religion, and crises of
faith are common-place, but what's at stake for them isn't merely whether or
not they believe in God, but every aspect of their lives, not least of which
is their job. It's quite reasonable for them to struggle with this, it's
only human. Plus, of course, religions offer all sorts of psychological
punishments for apostacy which such people are inclined to be sensitive to
(e.g. you'll go to hell if you don't believe etc. etc.).
>Everything I said in the
>paragraph above beginning "But why do you believe that?" applies
here too.
>Why is the study of religion less deserving of unbiased rationality
than
>that of any other subject? Surely, by your own principles,
religion
>should be studied under precisely the same high standards of
impartiality,
>and passion for the truth, regardless of where it might lead?
>Cynicism is cheap, but it's worth no more than you paid for it.
The study of religion absolutely requires rational investigation, the
problem is that this reveals it to be a house of cards to everybody but the
anti-rational, irrational believers. Cynicism starts to creep in when you
wonder why people are clinging onto certain beliefs despite their evidenced
flaws- it's usually because those beliefs are tools of social control which
those people want to maintain. (Pity is reserved for those who continue
believing from their being delusional).
>The dots thing I never heard about. Nor, in fact, do I recall any
>particular jokes, though I'm sure the satirists made hay. But I
don't
>see what you're trying to say here. Is the fact there were jokes
about
>it, good reason not to take it seriously?
My point was that if you were going to use an example of a liberal
religionist the Bishop of Durham was an odd choice, given that most people
think he's a buffoon.
>Unless you know what "the son of God" means, there's no significant
>difference there.
Christianity's fundamental basis is that people followed Jesus because he-
unlike any of the other anti-Roman opposition groups (e.g. the Judean
People's Front- oops, sorry being flippant again!)- was what he said he was-
the son of God, i.e. the offspring of the creator, the physical
manifestation of God on earth sent to show us the way to God (which of
course was only through him). If that's metaphorical rather than literal,
he's just some bloke good at public speaking and rabble-rousing, no
different to Pericles some 400 odd years before, or Hitler nearly 2000 years
later or any of the countless others in between times.
>No. Their main significance, in my view, is psycho-social.
Religions
>have undoubtedly had many very seriously detrimental effects, but
in
>my view they filled a need, or rather a set of needs, both
individual
>and social.
>(Note the past tense. All this is currently up in the air, and the
>way it's all changing is one of the most fascinating things about
it.
>Unless, of course, for you "it's all wrong". Atheist as a sort of
dour
>calvinist -- fascinating, indeed!)
As I said above, I think it's right to say it served a historical social
function, and indeed that fact that everything's up in the air now is indeed
one of the most fascinating things about it. (Is it me, or did we agree on
something here?!)
>This is not an issue to which I've given very much thought, to be
honest,
>though I know it's a big thing for most atheists, so I'm not going
to
>argue regarding the actual benefits experienced now and
historically by
>the typical religionist. What I do know something about is
Buddhism,
>and the benefits experienced by those modern Westerners who are
lucky
>enough to have access to it -- especially those who, like myself,
>have sufficient background in philosophy and psychology to be able
to
>separate the wheat from the chaff. This wheat can be thought of as
a
>kind of psycho-therapeutic fine-tuning -- where most conventional
Western
>psychotherapy is relatively course-tuning -- and the more
finely-tuned
>mind is capable of conceiving the more subtle facts about the
universe
>and us, and especially the relationship between these two (which
are
>really one).
It's this kind of thing that is really illuminating in your comments Robin.
it's quite clear that you regard these beliefs and practice that you support
because they make you think you are so insightful. That's all such beliefs
and practices offer- an emotional and psychological crutch which people use
to tell themselves they "know" things (meaning they are have value as
individuals). It's a very human thing to do, and we all do it to varying
degrees in varying ways, but it's got nothing to do with reality, and
everything to do with self-delusion.
Vincent
===============================================================
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 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 11:06:27 BST