RE: Belief & Behavior

From: Richard Brodie (richard@brodietech.com)
Date: Wed Sep 26 2001 - 15:27:44 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Dawkins was right all along" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA11491 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:32:45 +0100
From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Belief & Behavior
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 07:27:44 -0700
Message-ID: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBEEHDDIAA.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)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <004a01c14671$4e7936a0$0ea0bed4@default>
Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    I'm not sure what religion you are thinking of that has a "no argument, no
    reflection" policy. Most religions have questioning and reflection as in
    important part of them.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
    Kenneth Van Oost
    Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 2:54 AM
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Belief & Behavior

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Richard Brodie <richard@brodietech.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:04 PM
    Subject: RE: Belief & Behavior

    > But the purpose of religion is not to explain reality. The purpose of
    > religion is to create a desired future.

    Hi Richard,

    Fair enough !!
    But the creation of such a future is biased upon " a no- argument-, no-
    reflection " process, with no accuracy about the very bias of such a
    concept, and therefor IMO, completely misleading and in its contents
    absolute and therefor not desirable. Except for those who were caught
    in the middle, those who are susceptible for such nonsens and for those
    who run this show and charade.

    But, in a way that goes for science too.
    Science like Wade said, is / can act as the unbiaser and is indeed
    necassary for reflective reflection, but that can go as far there are no
    external/ internal misleading inputs.
    Science can only work upon the bias of proof. Speculation about what
    might have been or will be is such a misleading input.
    It has its purpose, but if it is used to create a desired future, then it is
    misleading and has no place in science.

    Hope this is clear,

    Regards,

    Kenneth

    ===============================================================
    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 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 Sep 26 2001 - 17:38:01 BST