Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA08235 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:05:57 GMT Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:00:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBKECMEGAA.email@example.com> Message-Id: <B75D6A39-24CB-11D6-A677-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 06:13 , Richard Brodie wrote:
> Rational empiricists
> get hung up on the myth aspect of religions, taking it on blind faith
> that a
> make-believe story cannot possibly have any value. This is an irrational
> position and a blind spot in the worldviews of many smart people.
Yup. Whether you think this is my worldview, I don't know, but it isn't.
I tend to think that religion has usurped, or moves into, the place that
art should be taking, which is, as you say-
> By making and recognizing
> literary allusions, we smile and bond with others. This all has real
> although it's difficult to test empirically, if for ethical
And I am disturbed by looseness of myth and narrative (call it bad art,
if you want) just as much as I am disturbed by looseness with facts, AKA
pseudoscience. There is a great degree of both, and, so far, almost all
religions are criticized by yours truly as bad art.
So, yeah, my main objection to religion is aesthetic, not empirical.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:53:16 GMT