4 ms·

> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another It's even worse than that. For religious

by Udo 13y ago

> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance. I don't remember right now who said this first, but the phrase "religion poisons everything" comes to mind. Like a trojan on a computer, religion fortifies the brain against external influence. Most insidiously, religion poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally. If there is such a thing as a poisonous meme, this is it. To use a biochemical phrase, religion has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities, and in doing that it has developed heavily optimized strategies for maximizing infectiousness and resilience.

johnchristopher 13y ago
I don't like this outlook because it's too close to "ignorance is bliss" theme.
- Udo 13y ago
  Pardon me for not getting this, but how can what I wrote be interpreted as "ignorance is bliss"? Shouldn't the conclusion be the opposite of that?
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    I may very well be the one not getting it (english is not my first language and I am sleepy at the moment). Allow me to try to rephrase your explanation: it states that religion act as a kind of shield for the brain[1] (this is bliss) while at the same time blinding him to hard facts[2] (this is ignorance). Did I read too much in your explanation or summarized too much ? [1] external influences [2] the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally
    - Udo 13y ago
      No, that is sort of what I meant to say, except that I would never use the word bliss for describing the state of a host brain. You could argue about the meaning of ignorance, but I really don't think this catch phrase fits well with the statement I tried to make. Competitive inhibition is a more apt term for what's actually going on.
      - johnchristopher 13y ago
        Ah, yes! It just hit me. [Here was an incoherent rambling from someone who really should go to sleep]. Your explanation fitted my biased model but I focused on my beliefs, not yours. My mistake, sorry. Don't know if I made much sense, really sleepy now :] On a related note, I remember Dawkins spoke about memes and how ideas can be seen as some kind of virus that are subject to evolution.
        Udo 13y ago
        I'm willing to talk about it on your terms, you don't have to bend to my mental models. I just don't have enough data yet to reason about yours ;) > On a related note, I remember Dawkins spoke about memes and how ideas can be seen as some kind of virus that are subject to evolution. I haven't read his books yet, but this stands to reason. Memes share a lot of characteristics with organisms, and humanity has built a great eco system for them in recent years. The first time I realized that ideas are actually evolutionary programs was in the 90s when I read Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.
lliamander 13y ago
This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism. For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on. For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any other such discipline is the adherence to a set of intellectual practices rather than a particular set of conclusions that may (or may not) result from employing those practices. Now beliefs are important, but at least for empirical science the usual criteria is that a belief be held only insofar as it is useful. Holding to the Physical Causal Closure (PCC) principle can be quite useful for investigating natural phenomenon, but plenty of intelligent people have been willing to break from it when they think it will help explain other aspects of life. Of course, the PCC principle is not the result of research in empirical science, but rather its beginning. It is itself a philosophical, pre-scientific thesis, and should be dealt with as such. Incidentally, it is because of observations like these that Positivism is no longer a widely accepted philosophy. Lastly, it is frankly uncharitable. What's more likely, that most of the world is brain-damaged and/or mentally stunted, or that you are oversimplifying the issues?
- Udo 13y ago
  It may be due to the advancing night here in Germany, and I don't mean to insult you personally, but this seems like an uninteresting discussion to have about things that can be readily looked up and/or reasoned about without me doing a lot of pointing. Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this. Uncharitable may well be a fair charge, I take it. Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it. This is all incredibly obvious historical baggage we're carrying around from a time when the goat was the pinnacle of technical achievement. However arrogant this may seem to you, I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order. However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you. At a very fundamental level, religious and secular people might never be able to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world. It's probably for the best that we usually maneuver around these black holes on HN.

by Udo 13y ago

johnchristopher 13y ago

I don't like this outlook because it's too close to "ignorance is bliss" theme.

Udo 13y ago
Pardon me for not getting this, but how can what I wrote be interpreted as "ignorance is bliss"? Shouldn't the conclusion be the opposite of that?
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  I may very well be the one not getting it (english is not my first language and I am sleepy at the moment). Allow me to try to rephrase your explanation: it states that religion act as a kind of shield for the brain[1] (this is bliss) while at the same time blinding him to hard facts[2] (this is ignorance). Did I read too much in your explanation or summarized too much ? [1] external influences [2] the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally
  - Udo 13y ago
    No, that is sort of what I meant to say, except that I would never use the word bliss for describing the state of a host brain. You could argue about the meaning of ignorance, but I really don't think this catch phrase fits well with the statement I tried to make. Competitive inhibition is a more apt term for what's actually going on.
    - johnchristopher 13y ago
      Ah, yes! It just hit me. [Here was an incoherent rambling from someone who really should go to sleep]. Your explanation fitted my biased model but I focused on my beliefs, not yours. My mistake, sorry. Don't know if I made much sense, really sleepy now :] On a related note, I remember Dawkins spoke about memes and how ideas can be seen as some kind of virus that are subject to evolution.
      - Udo 13y ago
        I'm willing to talk about it on your terms, you don't have to bend to my mental models. I just don't have enough data yet to reason about yours ;) > On a related note, I remember Dawkins spoke about memes and how ideas can be seen as some kind of virus that are subject to evolution. I haven't read his books yet, but this stands to reason. Memes share a lot of characteristics with organisms, and humanity has built a great eco system for them in recent years. The first time I realized that ideas are actually evolutionary programs was in the 90s when I read Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

lliamander 13y ago

This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism. For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on. For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any other such discipline is the adherence to a set of intellectual practices rather than a particular set of conclusions that may (or may not) result from employing those practices. Now beliefs are important, but at least for empirical science the usual criteria is that a belief be held only insofar as it is useful. Holding to the Physical Causal Closure (PCC) principle can be quite useful for investigating natural phenomenon, but plenty of intelligent people have been willing to break from it when they think it will help explain other aspects of life. Of course, the PCC principle is not the result of research in empirical science, but rather its beginning. It is itself a philosophical, pre-scientific thesis, and should be dealt with as such. Incidentally, it is because of observations like these that Positivism is no longer a widely accepted philosophy. Lastly, it is frankly uncharitable. What's more likely, that most of the world is brain-damaged and/or mentally stunted, or that you are oversimplifying the issues?

Udo 13y ago
It may be due to the advancing night here in Germany, and I don't mean to insult you personally, but this seems like an uninteresting discussion to have about things that can be readily looked up and/or reasoned about without me doing a lot of pointing. Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this. Uncharitable may well be a fair charge, I take it. Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it. This is all incredibly obvious historical baggage we're carrying around from a time when the goat was the pinnacle of technical achievement. However arrogant this may seem to you, I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order. However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you. At a very fundamental level, religious and secular people might never be able to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world. It's probably for the best that we usually maneuver around these black holes on HN.