Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA01687 (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 16:06:01 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A87@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: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:03:20 +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
Interesting points, as ever, Richard.
>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.
Catholicism has mellowed with age, but let's not forget the Inquisition, and
if anyone thinks that such attitudes have long since gone from Catholicism,
think about their attitudes towards for example, the ordination of women or
abortion rights. Questioning is one thing, and indeed many religions
nominally allow this, but anything deemed as fundamental to the belief can
not be tolerated, and is deemed as either apostacy or blasphemy. After all
you can be Jewish and question all you want, as long as you don't say things
like 'Maybe Jesus was the son of God?', or 'Maybe the Palestinians are right
and they have as much right to live here as we do, perhaps even more?'.
>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.
Well depending on the discipline you're studying experimentation and
research are crucial aspects of obtaining a degree. The reason we largely
rely on tranmission of knowledge rather than direct experimentation is that
it's quicker and easier to obtain- but it's not more valid. One of the
problems I find in teaching is trying to both impart knowledge in the forms
of summaries of previous research, theories etc. and at the same time the
importance of critical thinking in taking in such knowledge. Students do
not get good marks for parroting out lecture notes (at least not on my
modules anyway!), because it doesn't show that the student has actually
thought about that information, and that is indeed what you often get.
>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!
I don't need religious belief to get along with people. I do need to be
tolerant of religious believers (believe it or not my wife when I first met
her was an evangelical christian, she's not so certain now, but we don't
have rows about it), but again, I can do that without sharing their beliefs.
Toleration, humility, altruism etc. etc. are not characteristics exclusive
to religious belief, and there are plenty of people who are devoutly
religious who are none of these things. I still don't see a net gain, and I
think it inhibits human curiosity overall.
> <<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.
And what matters is agreement between individuals as to the most appropriate
set of premises within which to judge any claim. Any belief based set of
premises are untestable and thus unfalsifiable, and that's why they are
inherently wrong. Eugenics, is an utterly flawed notion and empirically
falsifiable.
>Well, I can see there's no shaking you from this core belief
despite my
>attempts to encourage you to evaluate it rationally.
The evidence from Israel/Palestine this week shows exactly what I mean.
What exactly is the difference between Palestinians and Israelies, bar their
religions? Or protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland? Or christians
and muslims in Indonesia? etc. etc. etc.
> <<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.
People don't accept rational empirical evidence because they're brought up
in a culture which tells them they don't have to accept anything that
conflicts with their beliefs. This is the nub of my argument- it's this
culture of giving primacy to belief and opinion over rationally acquired
evidence that's causing all the problems. Racist attitudes can be
empirically demonstrated to be false, but many people are happier with their
comfortable lies, since they give them scapegoats for all of their problems,
someone to blame for the problems in society- or more usually problems in
their own lives. I'd argue that these are the kinds of memes to be worried
about, to try and avoid, or to de-programme out of ourselves.
> For instance, if you aspire to a love of learning,
>cordiality, and a feeling of superiority, then academia may be the
religion
>for you.
Well that's a bit unfair: Learning yes, cordiality yes (although it can be
a cut-throat profession and isn't always pleasant), but a feeling of
superiority? I'd refute that.
>I've been doing it for years and I seem to have turned out OK.
Well of course you believe that, that's the point of the belief. But who
are you to judge whether you turned out OK?
>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.
That's a big 'if' in my book. I'd rather be surrounded by cynics than the
Stepford Wives.
> <<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.
Well crossing the street (except for agrophobes) is unavoidable, being shot
is in a country with strict gun controls is avoidable (e.g. Japan). This is
a similar problem regarding car versus plane crashes. We tend to downplay
risks we take everyday and exaggerate risks that we take only occasionally
(e.g. car travel versus plane travel).
I do indeed live in a country where gun controls are such that defending
oneself with a gun can be a criminal offence. A famous recent case (due for
appeal soon) saw a man jailed for murder for shooting and killing a burglar
in the UK. The burglar, a sixteen year old boy who was unarmed was shot in
the back as he was trying to climb out of a window. For me that was
excessive force on the part of killer (although manslaughter was probably a
fairer verdict).
> <<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.
Oh I know I have lots of erronoeus beliefs and delusions, but I'm not proud
of them, I don't see them as essential for my survival, and often I'd be
really pleased if they'd just go away and leave me alone! After all they
are delusions. A good example, would be another sporting one. I wish I
didn't cling onto the foolish belief that England are capable of winning the
World Cup, and then I wouldn't get so mad every time they play like donkeys
and lose to bitter footbal rivals like Germany and Argentina- which of
course they do time and again. Hope, is one of our most unfortunate traits,
and clear evidence that nature doesn't give a damn if we're happy or not.
>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.
I'm not presenting it as the only means to a successful life, I'm saying
it's preferable to a (religious) belief-based life. Art music etc. etc.
aren't necessarily a product of either belief or rationalism, and I see
nothing wrong with lives derived from or reliant on such- indeed I think
such things to be innately human. To live for music, for example, is fine
by me. After all, if people didn't do that we wouldn't have Tom Jones, and
the world we be a sadder place without him :-).
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 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 16:07:34 BST