Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA10416 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:42:51 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: mysticism etc Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:40:04 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJCEENFHAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A4A@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent wrote:
<<I'm not a scientist, and I'd accept that many people would think religion
is
more important to them than science, or a scientific frame of mind (which I
interpret to mean skeptical, analytical, intellectual). 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 judgment of
those whose find success and fulfillment in other ways.>>
Yes, you think there is something special about your belief system that
makes it superior to others. It is so obvious to you that it is true, and
the only possible position a rational person could take, that it is
unquestionable. That is blind faith.
[RB]
>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.>>
I've read this paragraph five times, Vincent, and I'm not making sense of
it. What does belief in an afterlife have to do with racism or gassing Jews?
What if it were shown scientifically that there was an afterlife...would it
be OK to gas Jews then? Are you saying that because some people are members
of silly cults that all belief systems are bad? What does relativism have to
do with anything? I would think that the religious would be less of moral
relativists than atheists, wouldn't they? I'm sure you have a point here but
I'm not getting it.
<<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. >>
Yes, I think we can all agree on the evil of that particular straw man.
<<Democracy can be demonstrated to be 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 (although
they usually aren't). >>
Religious ideas can be rationally evaluated in exactly the same way: for
their results.
<<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.>>
I'm reading in a lot here, so correct me if I've got you wrong. You are
assuming that there is one optimal belief system for a human being. This
belief system is inevitably determined by the reality of the universe. If
everyone were rational they would all have this belief system and there
would be no conflict, gassing of Jews, homophobia, or horse races. Is that
pretty close?
<<In the USA, the constitution was founded on ideas about inalienable
rights,
one of which enshrined in the 2nd amendment (I think) is the right to bear
arms. The US is still living with the consequences of that 'right' which at
the time was a quite pragmatic element to include (to allow US citizens to
protect themselves from invasion, or internal attacks from those pesky
natives who quite inconveniently didn't want to give up land that quite
obviously didn't belong to them). Today, it is a direct cause of the
extremely high homicide rate in the US, and yet still many people, including
the politicians, continue with the delusion that gun ownership isn't the
problem, but media violence is (amongst other things).>>
Again I don't see your point. You seem to enjoy pointing out negative
consequences while ignoring positive ones. The United States has endured two
and a quarter centuries and is stronger than ever. However, I actually
researched this while I was writing Virus of the Mind. About half of gun
deaths in the US are suicides. The vast majority of the rest are
crime-related (mostly criminals getting shot). Rises and falls in the
homicide rate are closely related to government attempts to prohibit alcohol
and drugs. With the current draconian drug prohibition, the incentive for
high-risk drug-related criminal activity is at an all-time high and the
homicide rate (as well as the prison population) reflects it. See
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/wod.crime.html
<<It's a classic example of the conflicts between beliefs that can occur,
and
precisely the reason why you need some kind of framework, other than
subjective well-being, to evaluate beliefs and practices. That's why at the
end of the day rationalism is the most appropriate strategy, since beliefs
and practices are judged independently of those who hold them, and that, of
course, includes rationalism itself, which is why I said rationalism
utilised correctly doesn't require faith or belief.>>
Why democracy then? Why not a Platonic council of philosopher-kings?
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.liontales.com
===============================================================
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 : Thu Sep 28 2000 - 16:44:40 BST