Given the general disdain this group (infected population) has for
religion,
I'm interested to see which aspects influence the numerical rating
scheme.
I hope it's based on members, age, and potential influence (wealth,
etc.),
as that seems to make sense with the CoV mindset.
eEc
> ----------
> From: JakePrime@aol.com[SMTP:JakePrime@aol.com]
> Reply To: virus@lucifer.com
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 8:53 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: playing safe with supernaturalisms
>
> In a message dated 98-06-12 10:58:26 EDT, you write:
>
> << 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".
>