From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Sep 06 1999 - 14:50:28 MDT
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, J. R. Molloy wrote:
>
> Dormant memories sound vaguely reminiscent of post-traumatic stress
> syndrome.
Perhaps not too much different -- "you must believe this otherwise
you will be damned..." (in the extreme cases). Or -- "the universe
cannot be understood, this provides the only explanation..." (in the
milder case).
> I wonder how far toward Armageddon the resurgence in religious fervor (and
> religious memes) will take us. Do you wonder how much dormant programming
> might influence Homo sapiens to retreat from a technological Singularity, or
> from an extropic Type I civilization? I view religious memes as analogous to
> infectious disease. Some people display greater immunity than others.
>
The immunity towards all ideas varies from individual to individual.
You *must* base the explanation in a person's own personal experience
and then work your way out to group experiences.
- "If I drop this ball, what will happen?"
- "it will fall to the ground"
- "Why does it fall to the ground?
- "because of gravity" [if you get another answer here all bets are off]
- "Do you think everyone believes in gravity?"
- "yes" [we hope]
- "So would a good system for verifying reality be the belief by
a large number of individuals based on their personal experience?"
- "yes"
- "So do you believe in god?" [or some other variant]
- "yes"
- "Do all people believe in god?"
- "no"
- "Then, your *belief* in god is perhaps not a good system for
verifying god's reality."
- ... end of discussion ...
- "yes"
"Including those who believe in Buddism, Hinduism, Taoism,
Confuscism, etc. who certainly outnumber Christians?"
- "no"
- "Then your beliefs are in direct conflict with
their beliefs, and since there are more of them
they must be correct." [or "beliefs" are like a
democratic system, and religion is simply a
"majority rules" system in one time & place. It
has no relevance, because unlike "gravity", you
can never show a "violation" (of a belief) where
every individual observing would agree that the
"belief" had been violated.]
- "yes"
"Then you are misinformed about these various religions."
Base the discussions strongly on their experience as *verified*
by others experience. Force them to confront (a) the fact that
universal experiences are "valid", while non-universal experiences
are just that (non-universal); and (b) that they were probably
given their beliefs before they were able to think critically
and could determine whether they were being fed "facts"
(i.e. gravity) or "beliefs".
Then explain how science works, i.e. peer review, acceptance
until a theory which better explains the facts appears, etc.
Science is an open system, anyone with sufficient motivation
can verify it. It is/was not dictated by a specific individual.
Force them back until they are confronted with the paradox of their
position (they can't prove (get universal acceptance) of their beliefs),
then offer them an alternative.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:03 MST