Re: virus: Re: Why religious?
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 22:32:00 -0500 (CDT)

On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Martin Traynor wrote:

> On 17 Oct 96 at 6:25, Schneider John wrote:
> > Let us replace the term "good" with "useful", and rephrase what we
> > have above
> Great idea.
> > Some value truth more than usefulness, while others value
> > usefulness more than truth.
> Works well. But then you go on to say;
> > Now, Mr. Leeper's list works very well for that: the parties he
> > listed all have found the "religion meme" to be very useful: it
> > helps or helped them to achieve their rather nefarious ends. By the
> > same token, we might start another list of those who have found the
> > religion meme to be useful in doing 'good' (or at least,
> > attempting)... Mother Theresa and Jesus Christ come to mind
> > immediately.
> Which is again using the value judgement of 'good'. Why do that when
> you've managed to dispose of it so neatly? It may appear clear to you
> who is good and who is bad, and indeed using the examples above you
> may even find a concensus of agreement, but it is a value judgement.
> Unless you want to open the 'what defines the difference between a
> moral and an immoral act', 'does altruism exist' debate then value
> judgements should be used with extreme caution.

Especially since the use of value judgment terms ['should', 'must'], when a
pragmatism judgment is actually intended ['it is convenient to'], is an
entire type of natural error in human thought, from the viewpoint of
Cognitive Therapy [only on oneself! One reason psychologists charge
$100/hour is that what they do makes the patient uncomfortable.]

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd