3 ms·
You said it yourself: Religion. People absolutely require a system of metaphysics. It is one of the most basic and natural needs of mankind; it is how all men
by A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
You said it yourself: Religion.
People absolutely require a system of metaphysics. It is one of the most basic and natural needs of mankind; it is how all men come to account for the world and their existence in the world. People in general have little time for philosophy, so a folk metaphysics must be simple and easy to understand, and must be connected to a straightforward system of moral principles.
Communal hippie living is a lifestyle that one typically grows out of.
The Amish -- like the Hasidic Jews, and like various other religious movements -- are an essentially metaphysical community. The metaphysical principle comes first, and the rest follows. The way they live life is wholly on account of how they interpret their religion's moral principles and strictures.
It's easy to leave one lifestyle for another. Not so easy to leave a religion that you were raised in, and which you have built your entire world-view around. There's a certain IQ threshold for that, as it requires the de novo construction of a new metaphysics.
- whatshisface 4y ago>There's a certain IQ threshold for that, as it requires the de novo construction of a new metaphysics. I am sure that a lot of atheists are flattered hearing this, but come on, they heard about it online, or even from the community's conniptions about outsiders. For that matter "what if what I see with my eyes is what is real" does not take a big I.Q. to think of.
- xupybd 4y agoMaybe but our perception should not be assumed to be correct. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. I'd be surprised if our eyes give us a truthful perception of reality. They give us a functional understanding that allows us to thrive here but nothing more.
- astrange 4y agoSimilarly, being high intelligence is not evolutionarily fit for any given problem because it costs more energy than just being good at that problem. (And saying "IQ" when you meant "intelligence" is a sign of a midwit.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 4y agoBut that's exactly my point, or at least an exemplification of it. If you want to marshal arguments for believing in things which are totally hidden from us, you're doing things like quoting "mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash." I would argue that believing in anything but immediate reality is what takes the most verbal or mental exertion.
- xupybd 4y agoAh, now I see where you are coming from. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, I agree totally.
- User23 4y ago> There's a certain IQ threshold for that, as it requires the de novo construction of a new metaphysics. That IQ threshold isn’t very high as witnessed by the proliferation of supposedly novel midwit metaphysics propounded on the Internet. “It’s all random and emergent man” isn’t any kind of impressive intellectual construct.
- karp773 4y agoJust dumping the old one does not require much IQ or anything, really. It's the establishing of a long lasting replacement that's hard, as evidenced by the very few successful world religions.
- ars 4y ago> There's a certain IQ threshold for that Um, you might want to check the average IQ for Ashkenazi Jews, Hassidic Jews are primarily Ashkenazi. > People in general have little time for philosophy, so a folk metaphysics must be simple and easy to understand Yah, it's quite clear you know basically nothing of Judaism if you think their metaphysics are "simple and easy to understand".