RE: virus: Logic and Purpose

Brett Lane Robertson (
Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:34:11 -0500

At 03:29 PM 10/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Monday, October 20, 1997 1:54 PM, David McFadzean
[] wrote:
>> I guess there is an underlying assumption here that there is a
>> positive correlation between beliefs held without evidence and
>> bad beliefs (given most common definitions of "bad"). If that is
>> not a reasonable assumption, I might have to withdraw my
>> condemnation of faith.
>Richard Brodie
>Author, VIRUS OF THE MIND: The New Science of the Meme
>Visit Meme Central:


Beliefs held without evidence (were that even possible) should neither be
good nor bad...would most likely fall under a Bell curve where the majority
of these beliefs would be just your average belief. The common definition
of "bad", I'm assuming, is not that bad is "average". Further, "evidence"
in an attempt to prove or disprove is a form of force. Forcing something
may or may not lead to better beliefs: But it must surely lead to a belief
in *force* (which I would consider bad). And, our Declaration of
Independence says that "We hold [certain] truths to be SELF EVIDENT": I
define "self-evident" to mean "without proof". I interpret this statement
to mean that following our natural inclinations leads to truths
which--without proof/force, and other manipulations of our state at birth--
we can infer and which might even be biased toward the "good" side of the
bell curve.

Like I said before, things which require (outside) proof are indicative of a
social delusion--or social definition of what is true (social = external).
Further if faith is "self-evidence", then anything which is accepted
*without* self-evidence is merely *hoped* for--no matter how much external
support there is for it.


Rabble Sonnet Retort
It is better to kiss an avocado than to get in a fight with
an aardvark