From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 14:30:09 MST
Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Statistically, I understand, a majority of the worlds population
> is so much into belief and religion and the supernatural that many
> of them think they have another life coming after this one. That imo
> effects the way they make resourcing decisions and do their cost
> benefit analyses to the extent that they do them at all.
Well, there are more than a few people around here that believe
in a sort of "life after this one" as they are determined to
support the creation of such possibilities whether through
cryogencis, uploading or such increase of capability without
formally dying that the result is no longer what most would term
"human". Others think it quite like that we are in a sim or
are at least "players" in a sim.
The point of bringing this up is that belief in a life beyond
this one, even of the more conventionally religious kind, is not
automatically a sign of serious psychological problems and
limitations. Even conventional religious folks often belief in
and practice good stewardship of resources in this life. Now,
it is true that many who do believe in an "afterlife" and even
some that believe in some types of techno-transcendence,
consider things of "this life" of not enough importance to spend
much time maximizing.
>
> Belief makes for bad social policy.
>
Personally I get a little tweaked by "social policy". It smacks
of collectivism and of centralized power and of some supposed
limit on individual rights to come to whatever conclusions or
beliefs by whatever methods they see fit. It leans toward some
duty to the collective to only think and come to conclusions in
approved ways.
> I need to get to know someone before I give them the benefit of
> the doubt as to having done either qualitative or quantitative analysis
> of any sort *if* they say they have arrived at a position based on
> faith or belief. Actually if the used the words "arrived at a positon"
> I'd probably raise my evaluation a bit. If they use another word
> instead of believe, like perceive, think, suspect etc.. I know theres
> a better chance of some sort of personal processing going on. That
> they are not just parroting what they've heard. I guess I apply a
> crude sort of Turing test to people. I suspect that some others that
> have a strong commitment to reason also make assessments on
> the basis of language. Assessments which are not facts, but are
> definately not mere beliefs either.
>
Why should anyone care whether you approve of the word they use
for their process or not though? I disagree with the
contention, as Lee did, that "belief" usually means or should be
taken to imply an unthinking acceptance.
> Some one who does no better than to believe when reason is
> available in my view is morally copping out in many cases. The
> process of reasoning is available to normal homo sapiens but it can't
> be engaged simultaneously with the process of believeing. Belief
> starts when reasoning stops. If indeed in some peoples cases, on
> many issues, reason every got out of the starting block in the first
> place.
>
>
The above assumes that reason alone is sufficient for all
things. But some quite fundamental philosophical decisions,
such as the Primacy of Matter vs. Primacy of Consciousness, are
not decidable on the basis of reason alone. They are at a
nearly axiomatic level not further reducible. There is also the
matter of a more inductive approach to certain questions of life
and value. For that matter, the entire sphere of values is not
easily reduced to that which reason alone recommends.
> If the extropian dumbs down his/her language in such a forum to
> include the uncritical word belief and thereby justifies by implication
> the view that beliefs are as good as reasons, the extropian has handed
> over a large part of their natural advantage. The listener(s) hear both
> the extropian and the extropian's adversary talking in terms of belief
> and may get the message that as both sides are talking about beliefs
> they may as well choose whichever uncertainty they like. Hell vote
> for the better looking politician, or the tall one.
>
I do not agree and it is not part of Extropian Principles that
we are or should be limited to "reasons" alone.
>
>> For example, people whose thinking
>>is screwed up anyway aren't going to be magically helped by
>>dropping a certain term and fishing around for synonyms.
>
>
> No. To understand my point you need to see I'm thinking like a
> lobbyist and a political activist trying to arm my allies, not like a
> philosopher arguing some esoteric point that doesn't really seem
> to matter to many people at all. I see extropian activities as
> potentially a matter of life and death, I take memes and training in
> memes very seriously. I live in a democracy where "everyone",
> believers and reasoners (I'm simplifying) each get one vote. And
> the majority of votes make the law irrespective of whether belief
> or reason was used by each of the many voters to make their
> personal "decision". There are already a swag of folk who
> specialise in collecting believers. I can't stop people believing but
> I don't have to encourage the dumbing down of the population.
>
This is an aside that actually makes your point weaker. If the
point is specialized to political activism then the general
point you make is lost. It would be better if our democracy was
actually a republic where the majority of people had no right at
all to "vote" on a great number of things interfering with the
freedom of individuals and groups. That would be much more of a
benefit to our interest than a sterile division into "reasoners"
and "believers".
> I certainly won't willingly contribute to the view that belief is as
> good and as valid a way of making decisions in the world as
> reason. It isn't. Indeed promoting such a misconception in a
> democracy increases the chances of my premature demise.
>
When you have employed reason and cannot reach a conclusion but
you have to choose, what do you do? I expect you "make a value
judgment" that at least seems unlikely to be certainly wrong and
seems to be mostly in the direction of the rest of your values.
>
>>>Please do consider ditching "belief", "human life" and "human
>>>beings" from your operating language when other terms are
>>>available.
>>
>
> I'm talking again as a political animal, not merely or mainly a
> philosophical one. I am persuing change and very aware of how
> important it is to win the votes on issues in democracies.
>
It is not important. The votes are a game generally to persuade
the people they actually are in control. The counter-evidence
is easily found.
>
> Sorry just in case that was missed, the pivot point on embryonic
> stem cell research around the world at present (politically)
> speaking is whether an embryo is a human being. Of course
> it is. It exists and its human. Its not a person though. So if we
> don't want to propagate and validate the confusion we'd better
> use the term person and people and personhood or some such
> equivalents when we mean them instead of the less precise terms
> or we are running the risk of helping believers giving us social
> policies whereby actually persons (sick people) cannot be given
> the fullest level of care, because we've traded off their rights as
> a class against the rights of some potential people (embryos) as
> a class.
>
A good point. However, it would be MUCH better to remove stem
cell research and development from that which is subject to a
"vote".
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST