[extropy-chat] proto-extropian religions

[Emlyn]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:00:44 +0100, Bryan Moss <bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Spike wrote:
> 
> >The shocking truth is that the *average* typical American
> >is a creationist!  Or might as well be.  Adventist historian
> >Ron Numbers, in his excellent book The Creationists, shows that
> >when people are randomly selected and given questionnaires about
> >evolution, their answers demonstrate so little basic understanding
> >of evolution, answers that are clearly and repeatedly self-
> >contradictory, it is almost meaningless to label the person either
> >creationist or evolutionist.  Fellow Americans, we know not
> >jack about evolution.  Sad.
> >
> >
> 
> An interesting question might be: In lieu of actual knowledge, is it
> better to have unjustified true belief or justified untrue belief (given
> a pop philosophical notion of justification [and knowledge])?  I.e., who
> would you prefer, someone who believes evolution to be true (a true
> belief) but knows none of the arguments and none of the evidence, just
> the raw fact "evolution is true," or someone who believes creationism is
> true (an untrue belief) but has read the Bible from cover to cover and
> has a bookshelf full of books on creation science, intelligent design, etc?
> 
> I submit that as long as the proles believe that evolution is true, the
> details don't matter.
> 
> BM
> 

I would far prefer the person who believes Creationism is true, with
supporting evidence (be it flaky). This person has gone to great
trouble to find out about the origins of life, and to defend an
hypothesis which they obviously feel is under siege. So even though
it's not a search for the truth, it implies an environment where this
defense is necessary. And, as Spike said (?) if people actually spend
some time thinking about this stuff, even for what we might think are
the wrong reasons, then some of them will find out the truth, whatever
that may be, despite themselves.

OTOH, people who support evolution but know zero about it have what is
either a weak belief or an unfounded strong belief. In the case of a
weak belief, their heads can be turned by the first bible thumper who
comes along with some pseudo evidence. In the case of an unfounded
strong belief, it being true is almost beside the point. It implies
that this person is not a rational thinker, not someone who
investigates his/her own assumptions. So the set of beliefs this
person holds are likely to correlate on the larger scale very weakly
if at all with reality.

If we can't have a world where people just seek truth and don't let
their ego get in the way, then I'd rather see us in a world of people
who examine their premises, and find evidence necessary for their
positions, than one full of boneheads who accept positions without
question because someone on TV (or on extropy-chat) told them to.
Better to be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong
reasons; in the former case, being wrong is the abberration, in the
latter, being right is.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *