Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA03537 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:20:35 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A4A@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: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:18:02 +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
Thanks for your response Richard.
>You have put your finger on exactly the assumption that
distinguishes the
>rational empiricist from people with other mindsets. You take it on
faith
>that the only ideas worth harboring are those that can be tested
>successfully against reality. It's not that that's wrong, but for a
large
>number of people that is simply not a distinction they are
interested in. I
>do not believe your assertion that some day people will need to
walk without
>a crutch holds up under scrutiny. People lead very successful lives
without
>knowing much at all about science. In fact I bet most people would
say that
>religion is more important than science to the individual
interested in
>living a successful and fulfilling life.
I'm not a scientist, and I'd accept that many people would think religion is
more important to ttem than science, or a scientific frame of mind (which I
interpret to mean skeptical, analytical, intelllectual). But they take
those belief on faith- indeed they're supposed to- and I'd reject that
rational empiricism is even possible to take on faith, if it's being
understood properly. Of course, I am indeed making a normative judgement of
those whose find success and fulfillment in other ways.
>Many ideas have nothing to do with analyzing the existing world but
rather
>with creating a future that pleases us. "Goodwill" is an attitude.
In a
>place where very little goodwill exists, injecting the delusion of
it can
>bring about positive change. Likewise for a simple person the idea
of a
>reward for good behavior in the afterlife may be just the metaphor
that
>launches him or her on a fulfilling life versus a depressive
nihilistic one.
It may also lead them to kill many many people in the belief they are doing
so in order to receive rewards in the after life. It may lead people to
refuse medical treatment for their dying children because their beliefs
prevent it. It may lead them to tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, and a
whole range of other prejudices. Sure, they lead a 'happy' 'fulfilling life
on their terms- but what about other people subject to the consequences of
their beliefs? This is a kind of relativism that shouldn't be (and indeed
in the real world isn't) tolerated:- gassing the jews made many nazi's feel
good.
>Remember, higher animals live their entire lives without knowing
one thing
>about science. It's clearly not necessary to survive. Some people
like
>learning about it and some don't. It's rather presumptuous to put
forth that
>scientific ideas are inherently better than religious, artistic, or
literary
>ones. Who is to say that the nuclear physics that produced atomic
weapons is
>an inherently better set of ideas than the "unalienable rights"
that spawned
>democracy?
Higher animals also do without religion (if not with beliefs). I'm not
saying science alone is superior; nor am I saying that there's anything
wrong with artistic, literary or political ideas. My target here are ideas
that are normative- that tell people how to live, and that have consequences
for others- but which deny/refute empirical investigation of those
consequences.
Democracy can be demonstrated to be a a fairer more equitable political
system than others (if it is still inherently unfair and inequitable) in an
empirical manner- political ideas can be rationally evaluated (althought
they usually aren't).
The notion of rights is indeed vital here, because how we judge the rights
of one individual against another- indeed should we? This is absolutely
central to my point. If we encourage individualistic belief/practice
holding, then someone somewhere will lose out- there's no utopia in
idiolectic beliefs, because those beliefs will inevitably conflict with
someone else's.
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 : Tue Sep 26 2000 - 17:21:47 BST