<< Well, I loved your first post, quite interesting. I am curious about your
definitions of L2, L3 and L4 religions. I did agree with what you were saying
though. The last sentence confuses me a litte, i need a reason why the Asian
religions would be more abstract. What in that area of the world culture wise)
would help the meme in develope that way. I guess my quesation is: Are you
suggesting that there is something about Asian culture that would more easily
support abstract god thinking instead of the west's monotheistic view??
Thanks
Sodom
Bill Roh >>
I am curious about these L1,2,3,4 religions that you describe as well. I
watch this list from time to time. Occasionally I jump in with something. My
position is probably a little less academic and a little more atheistically
oriented than many here. While I may seem a little proselytic at times, the
main reason I speak that way is because that language is most comfortable to
me.
I spend a little more time posting in AOL atheist boards, and for some reason
I thought I would like to see what you all thought about this piece that I did
recently, since a lot of it is based on my ideas of memetics and cultural
evolution. I would be happy to hear any comments on it. I am also interested
to hear what this L1-4 religion business is about. Thanks.
Subject: Re: beyond atheism; cultural evolution
From: jakeprime@aol.com (Jake Prime)
Date: 10 Jun 1998 19:14:41 EDT
In article "Re: beyond atheism; cultural evolution"
<1998060521444200.RAA15534@ladder03.news.aol.com>
cbhobart@aol.com (CBHobart) writes:
>Not quite, Darrell. This limit is due to the expansion of the universe. The
>farther objects are from us, the faster they are receding, relatively
>speaking. At the 15 billion light year mark, they are receding at something
>very close to the spped of light. Beyond that, they are moving faster, thus
>the light they emit will never reach us here. And it's reasonably certain
>we'll never travel fast enough and far enough to catch up with it. Thus the
>15 billion light year radius is an effectively permanent limit.
>
>Jake, please don't jump on me for my use of words like "never" and
>"permanent." We all know what I mean.
>
>Chris
As long as you don't start talking about an "eternity" I won't start
nitpicking at you.
ON SUPERNATURALISMS, BOTH OBVIOUS AND SUBTLE:
My position, which is considerably more stringent than just atheism, is that I
don't assign credibility to supernaturalisms. I may talk about them or engage
them for entertainment, imaginitive, or creative purposes, but I do not assign
any credibility to them or supernatural thinking. As a result I spend some
effort to identify and recognize supernaturalisms as I encounter them.
Supernaturalisms are things that are not part of our observational scheme, and
are not concievably part of our observational scheme (hence not testable in
any real manner). Not all supernaturalisms are the obvious ones like souls,
afterlife, ghosts, gods, etc. Some are more subtle, like "infinite" things
and taking a "God's eye" perspective. This is where some atheists may think
that I am nit-picking, but in my view accepting these subtle supernaturalisms
as credible paves the way for more obvious supernaturalisms, and also paves
the way for many religious arguments.
You may enjoy these arguments, and you may not percieve yourself as
susceptible to these more obvious supernaturalisms, but by engaging in them
you lend credibility to supernatural thinking for others. And furthermore, it
is a waste of time and mental energy. In the realm of memetics this is part
of a replicative strategy for religious memes. It occupies adverse agents
with arguments that essentially lead nowhere, and at the same time lends
credibility to supernatural thinking for others if not yourself.
In a perspective independant of atheism and religion, it also makes sense not
to waste credibility on supernatural ideas. This is a simple principle of
economy and practicality. The observable universe is immense almost beyond
our wildest dreams. There is no danger that we would ever run out of
mysteries, adventures, and discoveries to make. It is however, finite none-
the-less, and it is limited by reality. In this way we humans can make a
practical controllable exploration of it.
The realm of supernatural thinking on the other hand, is not limited to what
is real. Therefore there is no way in which we could place limits on
supernatural thinking. It is for this very reason that supernaturalisms and
supernatural thinking have a tendency to take control of people more than
people control supernatural thinking.
Supernaturalisms are at best an imaginitive escape from reality. When we
start assigning credibility to them, however, they become potential
instruments of control. When this happens the escape becomes a passion that
drains limited resources from our drive to control that practical exploration
and journey, individually and collectively as humans.
Religion is of course the biggest promoter and exploiter of supernatural
thinking, but it is not necessarily the source of every supernatural idea. We
slip into a lot of the subtle ones through careless thinking. Once formed in
our minds however, these careless subtle supernaturalisms are quickly
exploited by religion for its own survival and replication.
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW CARELESS "COMMON SENSE" CAN SLIP INTO SUPERNATURALISM:
In your post, I identify one potentially supernatural idea, and it is just one
such subtle supernaturalism. >>At the 15 billion light year mark, they are
receding at something very close to the speed of light. *Beyond that, they are
moving faster, thus the light they emit will never reach us here. And it's
reasonably certain we'll never travel fast enough and far enough to catch up
with it. Thus the 15 billion light year radius is an effectively permanent
limit.*<< If what you say is so, then you have set up a supernaturalism,
something that is not concievably part of our observational scheme.
This is what I call a "common sense" supernaturalism. In our day to day life
here on planet Earth it makes sense to talk about things that are over the
horizon as if they are actually there. We have so many ways to overcome the
simple observational obstacle of our horizons here on Earth that our day to
day horizons are not real obstacles to observation at all.
Our entire globe is part of our observational scheme, so it actually would be
senseless for us to act like the horizon was the limit of our reality. To
some extent it is likewise senseless to say that a tree that falls in an
uninhabited forest does not make a noise. There are so many concievable ways
to get around the apparent observational barriers, that it is hard to imagine
that this event is *inconcievably* part of our observational scheme. In any
case, it certainly calls into question what actually constitutes an
observation, who or what can make one, and when does it occur? That is a
question I am not going to adress now, and could be quite a
scientific/philosophical opus in its own right.
The difference between these horizons and what you talk about, is that the
light horizon *IS* a real observational barrier. We know of no means to get
around the speed of light, and we have no reason to believe that there is a
way. Despite many wishful critics (BTW I think Darrell is one if I recall
from our past exchanges, and there may be several other otherwise staunch
atheists that yearn for this not to be so) relativity has one of the most
solid legacies. If any current general theory of science is likely to be
still standing centuries from now, relativity is one of the most promising
candidates (probably only surpassed by evolution IMO).
Our common sense understanding that there is something over the horizon works
so well, that it does not make sense to doubt it. But it works where it
evolved, here on Earth in our day to day lives. To apply it to something
entirely outside of that realm, like the light horizon of our universe, is
careless and in this case a slip into supernatural thought. It may be fun to
imagine another side to that horizon, like Lewis Carrol imagining a looking
glass world, but like "Through the Looking Glass", I assign it no more
credibility than good fiction.
MY TREATMENT OF SUPERNATURALISMS MEME:
My position is what I call a filtering meme. I do not assign credibility to
supernaturalisms. It is a useful thought-stopper. The purpose of it is to
prevent mental waste, promote excellence in our exploration of reality by
focussing limited resources on problems that are actually solvable, and
further more to thwart the efforts of individuals and religions that would
seek to use supernaturalisms as a method of control.
In this respect some may think me as not a "free-thinker", especially when you
hear me use the words "thought-stopper". But bear with me, I plead. I am not
opposing supernatural thinking. What I am opposing is assigning credibility
to it. Go ahead and play, I say. Just play safely and wisely I recommend.
In good fiction, "real" things happen. Romeo and Juliet really do die.
However the actors do not, and we recognize it as a play after the curtain
falls.
Unfortunately many of us do not treat supernaturalisms the same way. This can
and often does lead to real tragedy on the human stage. The greatest tragedy
being not knowing what could have been achieved. Many of us atheists lend
credibility to supernatural thinking, with no ill consequence to ourselves
individually. We may enjoy the good fight by arguing with religionists in
their own language. I, on the other hand, find myself with very little to
argue with religionists about. I view these arguments as something akin to
arguing, over a few stiff drinks, with a drug addict about his or her
addiction to drugs.
Is it a slippery slope? Not necessarily, but I think it is probably best to
treat it as if it were, if for no other reason than in the name of excellence.
Yes, this may be a blind move by a blind watchmaker in the game of cultural
evolution, but aren't they all?
-Jake
Nothing is "mere".