Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA27721 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:34:43 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: mysticism etc Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:31:47 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJCENLFHAA.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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A54@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Continuing my discussion with Vincent on rational empiricism and faith after
a brief Vegas vacation:
<<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).>>
The issue is not whether examination and testing is allowed. Science has its
scientists, who actually create hypotheses and perform experiments, and its
science buffs, who just think knowledge is cool and read about it,
essentially taking it on faith. Religion has a similar spectrum, from people
like me, who put quite a lot of earnestness and effort into examining
positions of faith, to the unquestioning masses, who get programmed growing
up and just believe. All belief systems can be tested, but rational
empiricism tends to be tested only against what currently exists and is easy
to measure. Religious beliefs are tested against the results they create in
community cohesion, creating desirable lifestyles, or whatever in particular
an individual or group wants to achieve.
In both realms, only a few people actually do the testing and heavy
thinking. Most of the rest just do as they're told, fitting new ideas into
the matrix of existing ones to avoid dissonance.
<< 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.>>
I'm a big fan of rational thought myself. I use it often when I go to Vegas.
<<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.>>
Reading this trying to understand your point of view, I once again suspect
that you think there is one correct set of beliefs and that people ought not
to harbor any that don't belong to that set. Correct?
<< 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.>>
OK, good point... but this has nothing to do with rational empiricism. In
fact, Hitler's argument than "inferior races" should be exterminated or at
least sterilized to further the human race had quite a case for it
logically. Whether you draw the "us v. them" line at Jews, human beings,
whales, insects, or vegetables is not something that can be decided through
rational empiricism. It is a matter for politics or religion.
<<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.>>
I think racism is in the same category as religious belief. It cannot be
proved or disproved empirically. It again is a matter of personal faith.
[V]
> <<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. >>
>
[R]
>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').>>
I don't think there's a religion in the world that would see itself as one
that tells people how to live but ignores the consequences. In fact it is
pure science much more than religion that creates knowledge without regard
to consequences. Note that I do not think that's a bad thing.
Religious beliefs, however, are not tested against existing reality. In the
worst case they are random leftovers from the ravings of a lunatic. In the
best, they are carefully chosen planks to build a bridge to the future.
<<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 Buddhism, but those
systems' time will come.>>
Choosing one's own religion is by far the superior methodology if one is up
to it. That way you get a custom design for your operating system and don't
have to choose between Windows 98 and MacOS, both of which are buggy and
loaded down with historical baggage.
<<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. >>
Yes, that's the crux of the disagreement. I agree it's quite flippant to say
"it makes me feel good" but if you seriously stop at look at what's
important to you, all those things make you feel good. Social consequences,
altruism, personal pleasure, satisfaction of knowing the truth... all that
is rolled up into psychological well-being. The mistake is thinking that the
only good ideas are ones that are provable against the existing world.
<<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 evaluated 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?>>
Extremely small.
Accidental Firearms-Related Deaths Compared to Other Causes of Accidental
Death (1997)
1. Motor vehicles: 43,200 deaths
2. Falls: 14,900 deaths
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids: 8,600 deaths
4. Drowning: 4,000 deaths
5. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700 deaths
6. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,300 deaths
7. Firearms-related: 1,500 deaths
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors: 700 deaths
9. All other causes (including medical "misadventures"): 13,900
Total deaths: 93,800
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
The US homicide rate is very closely correlated with government efforts at
prohibition of substances people want to use, first alcohol and now drugs.
<<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).>>
Everyone has beliefs. The only question is whether you've blindly accepted
the ones that were fed to you or you've examined your meme set thoroughly
and reprogrammed yourself for what is most important to you, which of course
might include the well-being of society and other individuals.
[R]
>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?>>
I think this conflicts with your argument that there's only one correct set
of beliefs and it ought to be handed down to everyone by the people who know
the real truth.
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 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 22:35:58 BST