Bill

I personally think that the proper view of belief is more along the lines of belief as a product of cultural conditioning. As you say, "He simply believed what that awful day care made their kids practice because he didn't know any better." That is the essence of conditioning belief in children through memetic transmission (the song is a quintessential meme).

The difficulty for rationalists (which includes atheists) is that it is truly difficult to distinguish the propagation of scientific knowledge from the propagation of belief. If I prefer to believe the memes of Scientific American instead of the memes of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, upon what authority do I base such a decision? I am not now and I have never been a true "scientist." By training, I am a computer geek, and I take the word of real scientists when they proclaim exactly what "true knowledge" is. But why should that be so?

On the other hand, if you compare a belief in science with a belief in Santa Claus, it ought to be readily apparant that the former is going to be far more useful to humans in the long run. Is it thus the utility of the belief which makes it valuable to transmit to the next generation(s)?

Along these lines, subjectivists would argue that there is nothing in human experience that truly qualifies as "knowledge." All we have to go on is a set of weighted beliefs that guide our choices as we go through our lives.

I believe in the existence of an objective external reality out there where you all are, but I don't believe it is possible for humans to ever fully know that reality, nor to even prove its existence in other than with indirect methods.

Human experience is generally the true sifter of beliefs. Perhaps that explains why so many atheists and other freethinkers are so elderly, while young children so readily adopt fabulous belief systems. The kids just don't have the experiences behind them to promote better decisionmaking.....

== Bill

phaedrus

Nit picking....but isn't that a generalization....existential angst and the phenomenon of pink unicorn vanishing in a puff of logic/reason, can happen at any age (10 or 60), depends on the individual's learning curve or belief structure..........

Bob Stewart

Keith,

I am not sure how to phrase this next question, but let me try this-- What will it take to turn the belief of either child into knowledge? That is, what would have to take place in the life of either child in order for you to say of either child, "The child (now) knows that Everest is the highest mountain".

Bob Stewart

Bill

Of course its a generalization, which is why I included the words "... is generally ..." there in the middle of the first sentence you choose to quote.

And along those lines (not that there aren't exceptions; I'm still in the "generally" mode), most children have had really little in the way of "true life experiences." Instead, most of what kinds presume to allege that they know actually comes from forceful injections of alleged knowledge by defined authority figures (parents and teachers being the two most influential). If kids are taught that the world is flat, then they will most likely assert that the statement "the world is flat" is true. Similarly, if they are authoritatively taught that pink unicorns vanish into a puff of logic/reason, then they will generally also believe that fact.

So, again, early in a person's life, their claimed knowing will really not be "knowledge" so much as expressions of trust in the teachings that their own "authority figures" have provided to them. Some people are quite capable of existing in this child-like state for their entire lives, and even if they do manage to live to a ripe old age.

Even intellectually active people will not have any opportunity to personally verify much of what they claim as knowledge before they die. Frankly, the vast bulk of what we claim to know at the end of our lives is, in fact, merely echoes of the authority figures to whom we most closely listened on any given topic.

Still, even in this situation, we can make extrapolations from whatever things we do choose to learn about through experience so that erroneous knowledge is gradually pared away over time. And, even "learning" is an "experience" of at least a second-hand variety, so that we can gain experience about the thoughts of different teachers and decide which of their thoughts best integrates into our entire knowledge base. Again, these experiences tend to increase over time, thereby giving older people an advantage in experiences. Perhaps it is this natural process which leads to the cultural standard of respecting elder people for their "wisdom."

But of course, that is yet-another generalization, as some percentage of older people can be quite silly, and not the least bit "wise" in any real sense.

== Bill

rainbow walking

rw: Hmmm...What is the utility in believing in a specific ideology that revolves around faith? I can see the emotional utility in joining a church, for instance...I'm just curious as to how one makes the leap from utility to force? How, for instance, do Muslim fundamentalists come to the notion that they are obligated to force their religious convictions on the more liberal Muslims?

Is there some point where violence becomes more utilitarian than faith? Because, and I could be missing something here, violence just seems anti-thetical to faith. Which brings us right back around to interpretation.

I mean, I see the utilitarianism in interpretation, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to have faith...so once force is introduced, it's not really faith, but obedience that's being sought and seen as utilitarian to those seeking it.

Bill

Given the great variety in human religion that can be catalogued by anthropologists and social scientists, I would argue that there is no basis to believe that the utility comes from any specific ideology whatsoever. The issue for each society, culture, or civilization seems to be the generation of social unity by having everybody believe in the same ideology, or a compatible set of ideologies. Thus, the utility lies in how much those who are within the society can simply adopt the Rodney King attitude of Why can't we all just get along? (Or some theme and variation of that attitude that leads to social unity.)

The need for "faith" derives, at least in part, from the phenomena described by Stuart Guthrie whereby humans have an evolved mechanism for jumping to conclusions based upon very insufficient data. In fact, the great utility of science as a methodology is to rein-in and control the natural human tendency to jump to conclusions so that the conclusions we reach are of much better quality. But at this juncture, I feel it is safe to say that all worldviews are based upon some elements of faith due to the recognition that humans cannot ever access "ultimate truth" in any real sense. The old saw goes, "there is safety in numbers." We know that (as I mentioned above) the main utility of religion in any society is the social cohesion which results from everybody believing in more or less the same basic things. This set of common beliefs then creates the "us" group, which is a group of humans which necessarily shares an empathic (emotional) connection that extends well beyond the family unit.

People who do not share those same beliefs thus do not qualify to belong to the "us" group. Those "others" then belong to the "them" group. Violence results when the insecurities and fears of the "us" group are great enough to cause the "us" group to take up arms and attack the "them" group. None of this is the least bit surprising, by the way. This is all based upon the operation of basic human nature. I'm actually surprised that you didn't think of this process yourself, first.

Anyway, needless to say, the level of insecurity and fear among members of the "us" group is actually fairly easy to manipulate by the leaders of the "us" group. Just look at how Bush led "us" into war in Iraq against Saddam and his people ("them"). This process is generally applicable to any group, no matter how sophisticated and/or developed the group might be.

So, to return to your inquiry about Muslim fundamentalists, either that group is, as a whole, naturally fearful and insecure (which could be the case because they are largely uneducated and ignorant people caught up in a world that is spinning around them in an incomprehensible fashion), or else the naturally selfish tendencies of their leaders (a la Bush) causes the leaders to instigate these sorts of insecurities and fears. Of course, I believe that the reality is that a combinatio of both of these factors applies to the typical Muslim fundamentalist group.

In conclusion, there is no real "leap from faith to force." There is, instead, only the inter-group dynamics of which groups choose to get along with which other groups, and to what extent other groups are deemed to be either "friend" or "foe." As we all should know, fundamentalism is most fertile in the lowest economic classes where the people have the least to lose from the employment of violence and so forth. Moderate religion tends to predominate among the higher economic classes, where to employ violence would put at risk the wealth and standing of the group within the larger community.

These are, of course, generalizations. But the underlying law-like behavior which controls this entire process is the evolutionary struggle for survival. This underlying law-like behavior is so predictable that somebody like Spengler could propose an extremely rigid and complex structure for the "birth, life, and death of Culture and Civilization" and not be laughed at. Most people (such as Arnold Toynbee) who have studied these matters in detail would argue that Spengler was too rigid in his constructions, but his overall thesis was essentially correct. (Toynbee, for instance, looked at over two dozen "civilization" groups while Spengler studied only about a half dozen of them.) Of course, the great argument is whether we are truly seeing "law-like behavior" that is founded in some way in evolutionary psychology, or are we just seeing Faces in the Clouds? So far as I know, every major religion was promulgated by violence to some degree or another. Christianity is no exception. Islam was just a bit more honest about why it was sending armies to attack and conquor the surrounding areas.

I agree that violence teaches obedience rather than faith. But obedience then does tend to lead to faith. In fact, that principle underlies Pascal's Wager where the unbeliever is urged to will himself to believe as an act of obedience.

And, on a larger scale, the conquorers aren't so much concerned about the faith of the present generation as they are about the faith of future generations. If they never manage to bring the present generation around to full faith, they can certainly do so when they are allowed to control the education of the next generation. And, on the other hand, a Catholic school or a Jewish yeshiva represents a powerful threat to Islamic teaching, which, more than any other religion, seems to be based upon obedience as a core driving principle.

And I think that explains why Islamic people tend to be more prone to violence than are other religious groups. It isn't only the "us versus them" social struggle for survival (evolutionary psycology, again), but the fact that the core value in Islam is "submission to God's will" (obedience) and anybody who does not join the local mosque is thus automatically disobedient. Tolerance for this sort of disobedience exists only among the upper classes in Islamic cultures (for the reasons previously described). Among the lower classes, such disobedience would be violently punished immediately, if they had their way about it.

Is this all a bit clearer, now?

== Bill

rainbow walking

Hi Bill,
Thanks for that in depth reply. I agree with much of what you say. I'm just beginning to recognize the various ideological strata within our world. In our own American culture, for instance, our primary ideology is capitalism that engulgs all other ideologies. Beneath that is our political structure based on democracy, (although some would argue it's a Republic form of government), Then, within these ideologies, reside all others from theistic to humanistic, some competing more so than others. I'm also of the opinion that all ideologies are a response to the paradox of our mortal existence, thus religious ideologies provide their adherants with some psychological insulation from the angst created by the subtle pressure inherent in our mortality. That, to me, is the utilitarian aspect of theistic ideologies.

Now, in cases where the lines between economic, political and theistic ideologies are blurred, as in the Muslim tradition, I see a greater potential for violent tendancies due to other factors that I shall elucidate momentarily. This was predominant in the Jewish tradition and in the Christian tradition when it too was so co-mingled with political power, as in the case of the Roman Catholic dynasty.

What I'm primarily interested in is finding the common levers of manipulation in all ideologies that lead to war. I know most folks are of a mind to believe it's primarily a psychological factor but I've got some suspicion there are levers or facilitators inherent in all ideologies that enable or facilitate certain mentalities to gravitate towards roles of leadership; mentalities that also gravitate towards dominion and expansionism. It's certainly a justifiable supposition from a historical perspective.

So I'm looking for the common denominators between the major ideologies, not just religious ones, but all ideologies and hope to find some consistent factors within them that may clue us as to what drives the bloodletting and how ideologies initially designed to facilitate continued survival and insulation from the angst of the paradox, always seem to lead us down a path of bloodshed.

Some of the common factors I've noticed thusfar is that all ideologies tend towards legalization, complexity, control and splintering competition from within. I'm still looking for others and would appreciate any helpful insights that might happen to cross your mind as well.

Bill

Spengler would not disagree one bit with your assertion that "there are levers or facilitators inherent in all ideologies that enable or facilitate certain mentalities to gravitate towards roles of leadership; mentalities that also gravitate towards dominion and expansionism."

You ought to read through my transcript, insterspersed with my commentary, of Spengler's view on politics. Spengler's views are expressed in a "mere 27 pages of Chapter XII of Volume II, where he sets forth (from the perspective of 1922, mind you) his vision of Politics down through the ages." I can still see strong resonances with the situation that exists today. I feel that you can find something of value to add to your quest.

That chapter ends abruptly when I finally concluded that I was copying too much of Spengler and not interspersing enough of my own commentary. At that point, I began to fear for a copyright claim, and I stopped. But at some point, I would like to finish off the rest of that chapter. I'm really upset at the most recent extension of the copyright laws because Spengler's book would be in the public domain by now if Congress hadn't extended copyright protection for some number of additional years (exactly how many years is a matter of some dispute since the number of years is based upon facts that aren't necessarily known to anyone other than the publisher).

Anyway, let me quote a couple of relevant paragraphs here: The next page in that series begins to describe some of the things you seem to call "common levers of manipulation." For instance, we have these three paragraphs that merit some commentary in addition to what I enclose in footnotes: In other words, the true political leader is the individual who can inspire others to obey his commands and to act, proudly, freely, and nobly, in response to the commands to action issued by the leadership. "Ours is not to wonder why; ours is but to do or die," the old saying goes.

And the only true objective of leadership is the survival and enhancement of the group led, vis-a-vis any other groups which exist. Again, as I've noted elsewhere, its all about human group dynamics and evolutionary psychology.....

Anyway, I'm sure you will find much grist for your mill in that chapter of my work.

== Bill

Keith Russell

Bill, a parrot can be taught to say 'Everest is the world's highest mountain'.

To understand those words, however--to know what they mean, requires that one understand what is meant by 'height' (distance above sea level) and 'highest mountain', meaning the mountain with the greatest distance above sea level when compared with other mountains.

Then, one ought to have an understanding of how the various tall peaks have been measured, in order to determine that Everest is, in fact, the 'highest'.

Only then can one claim to know that Everest is the highest peak, rather than simply parroting what one has heard others claim.

K

phaedrus

Bill

Of course its a generalization, which is why I included the words "... is generally ..." there in the middle of the first sentence you choose to quote.

Ok, but that statement was Human experience is generally the true sifter of beliefs....no issues with that one....my nitpicking was with Perhaps that explains why so many atheists and other freethinkers are so elderly, while young children so readily adopt fabulous belief systems. The kids just don't have the experiences behind them to promote better decisionmaking

The reason for picking up the issue was a discussion we were having while praying to lord bacchus on how kids today seem to be "more informed" (generalization cap on.....one can also say depending on which culture/country they belong to....that kids are not learning at all...they dont go to schooll.....they are being wayward.....et al) The points that came up in the discussion was the life in big cities given the pace of life, plethora of experiences, the internet.....has all led to kids maybe losing their innocence at a much earlier age compared to us. We were lamenting on the fact that at their age we were busy running around playing games/pranks...and some of these kids (age 10-14) are actually discussing existenialism and wondering whether they should enter the rat race or go travelling and do social work

jp