Re: virus: Logic and Purpose

Sodom (
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:42:57 -0400

Reed Konsler wrote:

> 1) Belief in God must not be very adaptationally problematic either
> to
> the individual hosting the belief or a society comprised of said
> individuals.
> This is obvious given the fact that societies and individuals continue
> to
> thrive and complexify while hosting such memes. As a result you can
> logically claim, at best, that more people would thrive better if they
> did not believe things without recourse to evidence. To assert that
> such
> beliefs will lead to inevitable doom is counter to historical
> evidence.

We don't know this because of number 2 below. If these systems did not
exist, we might already be moving between the stars.

> 2) There are a number of examples of cultures which thrive and
> progress
> hosting mythological/religious/mystical belief systems. There are no
> examples
> of cultures which thrive without these systems. Therefore you have no
> evidence that it is even possible to have culture without religion,
> broadly
> defined. Even your attempt to create "a rational alternative to
> faith" (CoV)
> is conflicted over this issue.

We have murder in every society that ever existed, yet all of us can say
that society would be better without murderers. Thrive and progress are
such relative terms. In the USofA where religion is important, but is
legally excluded from the state, technology thrives. In religious
governments everywhere, where religion is the dominating factor, the
standard of living, educatiuon, and scientific advancement is at it's

> 3) Isn't is necessary for you to prove that such a coorelation
> between beliefs
> held despite evidence and "bad beliefs" exist? Otherwise it is an
> assumption
> that you hold without recourse to evidence...a "faith-based" beilef.
> I would
> hope that in doing so you will not make reference to straw-man
> arguments
> like "If I believe fire won't burn me, I will get hurt" or the more
> tabloidesque
> expolits of snake handlers and Christian Scientists and concentrate on
> the
> more common and universal aspects of faith, which you claim you are
> addressing.
> Reed
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reed Konsler
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

An assumption and faith, are very different things. But I don't
diagree with #3 otherwise.
Reed, we are both here in Boston and should get together sometime.