Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA12691 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:31:50 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A54@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, 29 Sep 2000 11:29:05 +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
>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.
Yet again, you ignore the fact that rationalism demands that claims be
testable beyond the feelings of those who hold those claims. In other words
you can test what you call my faith, empirically, but you can't do that with
traditional faiths, where you must either believe or not (or rather you can
empirically examine them in some regards, but they essentially avoid or
reject such examination). If you want to question my confidence in
rationalism as an effective strategy for knowledge acquisition that's fine,
I'm not claiming it's the fount of truth. I am suggesting it's a more
socially beneficial method for knowledge acquisition because it demands the
testing of claims.
>>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.
What this paragraph was arguing was that if you don't have some system of
testing claims beyond that of judging them in relation to individuals'
psychological well being, you end up with a relativism whereby any beliefs
are legitimate so long as they make people feel good. My point was that for
many of those involved in gassing the Jews they really believed it was the
right thing to do, and got a lot of personal satisfaction from that belief-
but how many people other than neo-nazis and anti-semites would regard those
beliefs as legitimate? The question then follows- on what grounds do you
oppose those beliefs, and are those grounds any more legitimate than the
grounds on which the nazi's held their beliefs? If the basis of legitimacy
is purely individuals' psychological well being, then this is where the
relativism comes in.
The claim that somehow religious beliefs are different from beliefs such as
racism, inherently ignores most of human history (e.g. crusades,
inquisition, colonialism etc. etc.). Do the benefits of religious belief
for many individuals throughout history outweigh or balance out atrocities
committed due to those beliefs? Well, that's the moot point, IMHO.
> <<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.
This is the essence of my argument (although I might avoid using the term
'evil').
> <<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.
Well, as I say, I think this is a moot point. What we have is anecdotal
claims of personal benefits gleaned from religious beliefs- extensive
undoubtedly, we aren't talking about the odd person here or there, I'll
concede that. But Baywatch is watched by a billion people around the world,
that doesn't make it the best TV programme in the world (I preferred
Hasslehoff in Knight Rider).
There is the social utility element- community building/maintaining etc.
Well this too is very important, but let's not forget it implicitly, often
explicitly, it involves defining people as 'us' and 'them'. And this does
have its negative consequences (Northern Ireland?).
Religious doctrines and institutional practices do not stand up to rational
evaluation, however, which is precisely why Kierkegaard ended up coming up
with the notion of the absurd leap of faith needed for religious belief in a
rational age, and why agnosticism and atheism have gradually grown since the
Enlightenment. Many intelligent believers in the West recognise this in the
religions of their birthplaces, and so have looked elsewhere for belief
systems that have yet to have undergone the rational evaluation that the
likes of Judaism and Christianity have experienced, e.g Bhuddism, but those
systems' time will come.
>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?
The assumption I'm making is that individual's beliefs are likely to
conflict, and unless we have some system with which to resolve disputes then
violent conflict is going to be the end result, particularly if beliefs are
held to be above/beyond question, and/or refute analysis/evaluation. This
doesn't mean we all have to have the same world view, but it does mean that
one cannot expect to have a belief without challenge, and saying it makes
you feel good isn't a good enough defence.
>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
>
Consequences are vital to consider when dealing with beliefs, and the
psychological well being of individuals is only one kind of consequence.
All I'm really saying is that beliefs need to be evaluted on more than those
grounds. The belief in gun ownership in the US is a good example, because
it undoubtedly reflects many Americans notions of personal freedom, but it
also undoubtedly contributes to the US's far higher homicide rate than other
developed nations (e.g. it is 6 times higher than the UK murder rate- if
that's 'stronger than ever', well...). I'm don't know about suicide rates,
but what about accidental deaths through firearms? What are the rates for
that?
The point would be that the claim is that the individual psychological well
being allegedly induced by certain beliefs offsets negative consequences of
beliefs such as people being killed. I don't see that as being a fair
trade. Besides, it kind of assumes that it's impossible to find
psychological well being if you don't have beliefs- that old adage about
atheists and nihilists being miserable. If we are miserable it's only
because we're having to spend our finite lives amongst multitudes of true
believers; kind of like how smokers feel about ex-smokers who don't shut up
about how bad it is for you :-) (BTW I don't and never have smoked).
>Why democracy then? Why not a Platonic council of
philosopher-kings?
Well, this is a major question of political philosophy. For my tuppence
worth, democracy is advantageous in mass societies, because by giving the
mass population a say in political affairs you can ensure greater compliance
with laws, and thus social stability can be maintained. What was it you
Yanks said to us Limeys- no taxation without representation?
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 29 2000 - 11:33:20 BST