[extropy-chat] [Bulk] Re: Way, way, way over the edge...

[Keith Henson]

At 03:50 PM 4/18/2006 -0400, Al wrote:
>I couldn't help but notice (and now comment on) the remarkable difference
>between this post and 98% of the other posts to this list. Virtually every
>other message here emphasizes facts, cites references, uses logic to build
>from a set of facts or assertions to a conclusion. And in fact often cite
>footnotes for support, or state known limitations to that conclusion.
>
>This post does not and, being composed of religious belief, of course can
>not. A series of unsupported statements, nearly unrelated though otherwise
>is implied, leading to unfounded conclusions. The contrast is startling.

There was a request out on the list to explain something that could only be 
explained in the terms he used.  I think he did a good job.

>I know which style of message I prefer. I know what I need to be willing to
>share things with friends with confidence and enthusiasm. But I also know
>that higher standard doesn't seem too popular, that for many people the
>dogma is sufficient and convincing, and rigorous thought is more confusing,
>even threatening, than the "easy" version. Heartbreaking.

Maybe so, but consider--there are very few of us and many of 
them.  Understanding them at both the level of the post you deplore and at 
the deeper level of why evolved humans have belief systems *at all* could 
make the difference in your survival at a point in the not so distant future.

Consider.  There are people working on drugs that take people out of the 
addicted state that are in experimental testing now.  There are strong 
reasons to believe the same drugs will snap people out of cults.

On the other hand, the percentage of people who can be sucked into a cult 
is relatively low.  I am fairly sure there are drug treatments that could 
bind most people who were given them into a cult.

And no, I won't go into the details except to say you can find them if you 
look.

Keith Henson