Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA01359 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:36:59 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: mysticism etc Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 06:34:15 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJGEGNFIAA.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) In-reply-to: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A6D@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent wrote:
<<Most religions at least
nominally demand unquestioning devotion (hence terms like blasphemy,
apostacy etc.).>>
I disagree. Catholicism, for instance, is a very large religion and is based
on forgiveness of sins, not unquestioning devotion. There are only a very
few things you could do to get kicked out of the Catholic Church. Judaism
goes even further and encourages deep questioning of religious tenets. The
Talmud is a collection of such questioning and discussion throughout the
ages. There are religions that are stricter than others. Memetically, I
think the less strict ones have to have a bigger component of vertical or
horizontal evangelism.
<<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.>>
If that were true, universities would be set up all wrong, wouldn't they?
Instead of reading or listening to lectures, students should be off
performing experiments. No, direct transmission of knowledge is demonstrably
more effective in achieving results than rationalist empiricism. The
fundamentalist folly is that people believe they are rational empiricists
when they have really acquired most of their programming and knowledge base
by reading, accepting the memes that fit into their existing worldview
without too much dissonance.
You're still stuck on this dichotomy between scientific knowledge and
religious lies. The creation myths are a very small part of religion.
Religion is about getting along with people. If you really wanted to study
that from a pragmatic angle you could (as I did in researching my book
Getting Past OK). Then you would have the pleasure of being ridiculed by all
the rational empiricists who think that thinking about anything other than
the nature of the universe as it currently exists is self-help claptrap. Try
it, it's fun!
<<Well I'd be interested to hear the logical arguments for nazi
anti-Semitism.>>
I've never been interested to hear them but they center on eugenics. As you
know, logic can be employed to reach any desired conclusion given the right
set of premises.
<<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.>>
Well, I can see there's no shaking you from this core belief despite my
attempts to encourage you to evaluate it rationally.
[RB]
>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.>>
Wow. This really shows the depths of your blindness. Go into a bar in South
Boston and try to falsify people's racism empirically. If you're lucky
you'll escape with an eye of color.
<<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.>>
At some point you have to trust yourself. I would recommend choosing a
religion in which everyone involved has some quality you aspire to, not just
the cult leader. For instance, if you aspire to a love of learning,
cordiality, and a feeling of superiority, then academia may be the religion
for you.
<<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've been doing it for years and I seem to have turned out OK.
<<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. >>
Again you are presenting a false dichotomy. What if self-programming for
psychological well-being actually tended to improve others' lives rather
than coming at their expense? I would much rather be surrounded by happy,
successful people than by cynics any day of the week.
<<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.>>
It is a lot of people when you add them all up, just as any negligible risk
turns into real numbers when multiplied by hundreds of millions. But in
terms of the reality of everyday life, crossing the street is much more
dangerous than owning a gun. I hope you never have a psycho stalking you
under a government that forbids you the ability to defend yourself.
<<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.>>
All your beliefs influence your life. The trick is choosing the ones that
influence it in a desirable direction. You are fooling yourself if you think
you have no erroneous beliefs or delusions.
<<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).>>
This is a clear illustration of your faith-based position that empirical
knowledge is the be-all and end-all for having a successful life. There is
no empirical support for this position, which I believe to be largely
erroneous. Most people would be far better served by learning table manners
than nuclear physics.
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 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:38:16 BST