From: Lawrence DeBivort (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 22:50:42 GMT
As always, another nice posting from you. I agree that one doesn't need
religion to find faith-based beliefs, and wanted to focus on one element of
> In numerous posts many of us have pointed out the fact that you
> can't argue
> with memes of faith. People on both sides of the argument will refuse to
> see what they don't want to see in opposing arguments. So to continue
> arguing about it is a complete waste of time. It's not a matter
> of who is
> right and who is wrong. It's a matter of meme dominance and we
> on this list
> should know that better than anyone. When someone posts endless
> in support of a faith-based concept, it is equivalent to spam.
Can you say more about WHY faith memes are hard to argue? I am thinking
that we call it faith _because_ it is hard to argue, and so am asking what
you and others might suggest is the technical basis for the hardness.
I will also say that I agree that it is hard, but would not agree that it is
impossible. You may recall from posts of long ago, I have suggested that
having a belief is akin to an action: we hold beliefs based upon the
(subjective perceived) advantage they offer us in doing so.
Hope this question makes sense!
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 2.1.5 : Wed 04 Dec 2002 - 22:43:44 GMT