Re: Disbelieving in belief - a variant

From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 11:02:18 MST


At a very basic level, belief is not only necessary, but is present in
everyone, whether they deny it or not. Without belief you couldn't walk
across the room. To do so requires believing in the possibility and the
desireability. And this belief is always based on non-logically derived
axioms.

Still... there are degrees and degrees. Some beliefs appear, to those
who do not hold them, less rational than others.

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>
>>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
> I don't think there is a tremendous value in simply changing the word
> employed. I was attempting to point out that
>
> 1) belief in an afterlife or something near magical (e.g. Singularity)
> is not confined to the religious;
> 2) such belief does not necessarily imply irresponsibility in "the
> real world" or at least the one we deal with now.

I would argue rather that the world we are living in is a direct
consequence of our beliefs. Certainly with respect the the predicted
future outcomes of possible choices. (Here I am using the word belief
to refer to those not logically justifiable foundation premesis upon
which our decisions for action are based, and separate from the sensory
input data. The beliefs are necessary in order to *interpret* the
sensory data.)

> ...
>
>>> Even conventional religious folks often belief
>>> in and practice good stewardship of resources in this life.
>>
While true, I would argue that religious belief patterns were originally
designed to bind the tribe together for coordinated actions, and that
more modern derived customs tie into the same inherrent patterns. Note
that the word religion comes from re-ligio meaning to bind together.
Thus they were useful without needing to be true, or even related
sensibly to the true/false axis. In fact, modern religions have
intentionally distanced themselves from relating to true/false.
(Frequently they claim to be not true, but TRUE!, which is a clue.)
They rarely dare even consider whether or not they are still useful, or
whether they have become merely addictive processes. But they always
claim a foundation which cannot be tested in any objective fashion. And
they are right to do so. That's not where they are rooted.

> ...
> I don't believe that real rights are something granted by the society
> or that they must be paid for by duties/responsibilities to the
> society. I do of course agree that it is foolish not to live in
> reality instead of fantasies. But human rights are a mockery if they
> are merely what your tribe deigns to give you and determines the
> payment for.

In some sense, human rights are a mockery. In another sense, these
"rights" are the goals that the civilization is striving for. Do people
have the right to speak freely? Without getting hurt? This demands
government enforcement, as otherwise the local bully will stop you. But
the government is just a distant bully, who's bigger than the local
one. So there is a social contract that limits the actions of this
distant bully. (This contract seems to be getting frayed as computers
and communications bring the distant bully closer. Whoops!)

>> Problem is when citizens try to rely on rights that are not
>> underwritten by real responsibilities they find those rights
>> cannot be relied on.
>
> I disagree strongly with your entire model of rights here.

Rights cannot, per se, be relied on. And it doesn't matter how
righteously you personally have acted. Rights are a social contract,
and only exist in the context of that contract. When the balence of
power shifts drastically, expect that the social contract will be
re-written by the party with a new and more dominant role. Seen in this
way, rights act to limit the violence within a society, much as a
pecking order does in a flock of chickens. The arguments are over how
much control the central authorities shall have over what actions. (And
over what intermediate authorities will be allowed to exist.)
N.B.: As the approaching singularity causes frequent changes in the
balence of power, expect turmoil as first one group and then another
attempts to rewrite the social contract to their own benefit.

> ...
>
>>>
>>> When you have employed reason and cannot reach a conclusion
>>> but you have to choose, what do you do?
>>
>>
>>
>> I make a provisional assessment, or if need be a final assessment
>> as dictated by the need to reach a decision as best I can given the
>> circumstances.
>> ... I aim for more than "unlikely to be certainly wrong" this end of
>> the ranging is usually despatchable quite quickly (it depends) but I
>> also look to a judgement on what is "more likely to be right".
>> ...
>
> Voting is becoming a charade that really effects nearly nothing imho.
> The government is generally out of control of the people. Having the
> people vote even super-rationally will not imo likely be sufficient to
> bring it under control.

This seems true. Perhaps voting irrationally would be more successful,
it could hardly be less so.
OTOH, the recent electronic voting machines in my area have no audit
trail, so it is quite possible that the vote will come out to the
desired result, no matter which way people vote. I'm not even sure that
refraining from voting would be counted.

>>>> 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
>>>
"Of course"? I think we have a trouble here with a definition of
terms. I would agree if you said it was becomming a human being, but
"is"? This seems to be a case where artificial sharp boundaries are
being imposed to make decisions easier, as opposed to correct or
rational. (OK. You seem to want to reserve the term person for special
use, but do remember that this term is already much overloaded, meaning
everything from the tentacle of a Man o' War to an individual specially
choosen to speak to and for god. ) If you say "an embryo is, of course,
a human", then you are accepting terminology that will bias the decision
of the argument. Even if you were to specify a precise definition... is
one cell a human? What if researchers determine how to turn somatic
tissue into totipotent stem cells, and grow an entire new body from one
cell? If not, why not?

> ...
> Reimpose strict Constitutional limits on what the government has any
> right to stick its nose in. Exactly how we would get there from here
> is a very good question. It is also one I think we better put some
> considerable effort into answering.
>
> - samantha

A very important step. An this is the least of the reasons why. But as
to how.....?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST