Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA01162 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:05:04 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A6D@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: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:02:43 +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
Hi Richard,
>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.
I'd agree strongly with the last point here. I'm not so sure that many
religions encourage testing of their consequences, although they undoubtedly
survive or fail due to their consequences. Most religions at least
nominally demand unquestioning devotion (hence terms like blasphemy,
apostacy etc.).
>I'm a big fan of rational thought myself. I use it often when I go
to Vegas.
Was Tom Jones playing? (now there's a real God if there ever was one :-)!).
> <<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?
In the very narrow area of the acquisition of knowledge and understanding
about external reality, rationalist empiricism is IMHO demonstrably more
effective in achieving results than other approaches. I'd reject that this
was a belief- since I think the evidence is all around us. In other senses,
such as providing psychological well being, then it may not be- empiricism
often confounds the comfortable lies of belief (e.g. the earth as the centre
of god's creation, man as the most important special thing on the planet
etc.). I wouldn't like to be thought of as a fundamentalist, but I
appreciate it's coming across that way.
>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.
Well I'd be interested to hear the logical arguments for nazi anti-semitism.
I think religion adds another, unnecessary level, to innate 'us and them'
tendencies that are a product of kin selection. Political ideologies do
this too, but at least in principle even political ideologies can be
rationally evaluated, religions explicitly refute rational dissection
(although as I acknowledge above evaluation of religious beliefs does
occur), particularly of their core beliefs.
>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.
I'd disagree with this. Racism is based on a range of beliefs which can be
falsified empirically.
>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.
But how do they anticipate and predict the consequences of their doctrines?
On what basis does one recognise the difference between lunatic ravings and
a useful bridge to the future? On the basis of the strength of belief, and
no more.
>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 problem is that the fundamentalist ethos of some religions (or software
companies for that matter) results in the narrowing of choice for people to
the point where they are unable to choose except between dominant systems
that are evidently flawed, or reject them out of hand. Just as with
computers now, so once with religions, non-participation is not an option,
on pain of social exclusion which nobody (except hermits) want.
(Incidentally I have a Mac at work, and a PC at home).
>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.
Well, is it really a mistake to know something of the actuality of causal
relationships rather than constantly follow erroneous beliefs about cause
and effect? Besides who says psychological well being is something we
should strive for in the first place? I'm serious here, should we believe
things that give us psychological well being even though they (may) be
demonstrably removed from social reality?
I think we should confront the anxieties and stresses of modern living by
actually trying to deal with the social realities, rather than hiding away
in what Althusser called the 'beautiful lie'. After all, beliefs are
ideological, they serve someone's interests, and that comes at the expense
of others.
<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.>
>
Thanks for the figures. I wouldn't call 1,500 deaths small. It may
reflect a small percentage of accidental deaths, but in simple terms that'sa
lot of people. That's just a bit less than double the average murder rate
across the whole of the UK (which is around 800 murders a year across the
whole country). The UK population is about a 1/5 of the US at c.57 million.
(I don't know what the figures of accidental death through firearms in the
UK is).
Are 1,500 accidental deaths a year worth the belief in the right to
bear arms? That's for Americans to decide.
> <<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.
The question is whether beliefs or rationality are used to judge claims
about the external social world. I don't dispute us all having beliefs, but
I would dispute us all having life organising beliefs. For example, I
believe that the Mets are a better team than the Yankees and will win the
World Series this year. Not very rational or empirically based (yet!), but
I don't base my entire life on such beliefs. I would also dispute that
those who have such beliefs are psychologically well adjusted, many of them
are not.
>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.
Well, as I say above, I don't think this is really my position,
although it may be coming across this way.
I think the advantages of rational empiricism are all around us, and
don't need my or anyone else's proselytism, to demonstrate that. The only
reason for such discussions as these, and for education in rationalist
thinking, is because there are conflicting approaches from religion,
mysticism and elsewhere that offer people comfortable and easy answers to
life's questions that take people away from understanding their social
reality, and ignore the evidence in front of their eyes of the advantages of
rationalist thinking over other kinds (e.g. we're using one right now to
have this discussion).
As to political systems, well again, it's a very complex area. If
you want me to go further on this I'll need to think about it a bit more-
although I'm more than happy to.
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 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 15:06:22 BST