Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA05022 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:19:51 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A8F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Sin Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:17:18 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>If we're looking at it historically, rather than conceptually, I
think
>the "original sin" must be disobedience. And I thought of putting
it
>that way *before* I thought: ah, that's what it is in Genesis, too!
(Believe it or not) I completely agree with you here, Robin. I think the
sin of obedience, seen as primal in so many mythologies, reflects that old
question of the pre-society nature of man (if there ever was such a thing).
Hobbes thought man was evil in the "state or nature" and society's rules
were necessary to curtail that tendency. Rousseau thought man was value
free in the "state of nature", and it was society that constrained and
dictated behaviours- hence his famous opening line to 'The Social Contract',
'Man is born free but is everywhere in chains'.
>The one major facet of religion I really don't like -- and I think
>it's the only facet many anti-religionists see -- is
authoritarianism.
>But it is quite endemic. The only religious leader who said people
>had to check everything out for themselves was the Buddha, as far
as
>I know. In Christianity, obedience to God is very, very prominent,
and
>there can be no doubt that has extended to obedience to the
priests,
>his representatives, and to the secular authorities where state and
>church are in cahoots, which is probably most of the time.
Again, I'd agree completely here (apart from the bit that authoritarianism
is the only thing many anti-religionists see; but I'll concede that
personally that it's a significant element).
>And to go back to the beginning, you must admit it must be tempting
for an
>alpha male whose powers are waning, to promote *any* reason for
doing as
>he says, besides "I'll beat you up if you don't!" "Don't question
me --
>it's, it's.. it's a sin, that what it is!"
And for many people the threat of things like committing sin or eternal
damnation is actually perceived as far greater than threats of physical
violence, so ti's quite an effective strategy.
>And to bring science back in, *that* becomes a sin when the
authorities
>decide it's a bad idea to let people discover things for
themselves.
>Nietzsche was right in the sense that getting understanding is the
>most important thing people can do for themselves, so where it's
>proscribed, it could be considered the first significant sin, but
I'm
>convinced that disobedience, of any kind, was the first historical
sin.
I suppose in a sense science could be seen as a kind of disobedience
(Galileo springs to mind). After all it often involves asking awkward
questions that challenge fundamental beliefs. It also involves constant
questioning of authority- or at least it ideally should do- and most social
systems are constructed around institutional hierarchies of authority that
don't like being challenged (of course science can be as guiltly of that as
any other area).
For once, it looks like I'll be standing next to you in front of the firing
squad.
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 11 2000 - 13:21:35 BST