Hi,
Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org> writes:
<<
<If I'm wrong I should feel bad> could be the same meme that kept you
from becoming a Christian a couple years ago, you know? It's an
essential part of our internal feedback loop. I think you may be
being hopelessly optimistic again. How people "should" feel is often
a long way from how they "do".
>>
Re rejecting Christianity: I doubt it. I emerged from almost total innocence into that situation -- if you had to give my position before that "battle" a name, it would be "experiential" atheism:
"There is a new definition of atheism not found among the current orthodox: it is the non-experience of deity. It is not anti-theist, it is supportive of the natural quest for meaning in myth, symbol and practice, and challenges any construct that places itself in the position of worship or unquestioning obedience, whether it be called deity or law. Atheism is substantiated by the experience of no-god, or the lack of experience, not by belief or rational counter-arguments to theism. This definition comes, in part, from Pascal who conceives of a person so made that s/he cannot believe - a person who by nature is experientially limited to atheism."
As to feeling bad being an "essential part of our internal feedback loop", I couldn't disagree more. I think feeling bad is an unnecessary side effect of intellectual development -- a coercion induced irrationality which is entirely unnecessary to the process. Perhaps I'm being "hopelessly optimistic", but can you tell me *why* we need to feel this pain you seem so intent on advocating?
Finally -- "How people "should" feel is often a long way from how they "do"." Agreed. My theory is that this strange situation (which needs explaination) is caused by coercion damage -- and possibly memetic survival strategies as well. What's your theory?
Now, if you want to talk about irrational arguments where the humans somehow *identify* themselves with the memes, and *will* feel personally hurt by arguments made against those memes; but keep the memes in the end anyway (so that, like in your analogy, the memes/genes do not get bloodied), by all means. But I ask you: which of those two situations has the humans in control of the memes, and which has the memes in control of the humans?
(I understand this debate to be about the humanity of argumentation -- that is the direction I wish the final sentence above to be intrepreted in)
Tim: I agree that this is a situation where "rational people may disagree" (and that is a *sweet* line). However, I think that we can both learn considerably more by keeping this exchange going.
ERiC
[1] Note: terming it a "decision" rather overstates the consciousness of the role I played. More correctly, I found myself unable to believe -- and thus forfeited the possibility of love (with her).