> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Erik Reuter > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:24 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? > > Isn't the reasonable response to imperfect knowledge to rationally (or > scientifically) search for more knowledge, or to work on improving the > accuracy of the knowledge you do have?
I never said it wasn't. I'm in favor of science, research, etc. I don't agree with head-in-the-sand religiosity. Faith doesn't require one to abandon science, does it? > Why do you think a reasonable response to imperfect knowledge is to > assume that there exists some divine being for which there is no > reasonable evidence of existence? In other words, your response to > imperfect knowledge is to make your knowledge even more imperfect. I never said it was reasonable. And I guess I'm not really assuming God's existence. I choose to put faith there, rather than assume it to be true. I'm well aware that I may be in error; I just don't think I am. Call it intuition. > One of my assumptions is that any step towards more perfect knowledge is > useful. That is sort of a corollary from my wanting to progress towards > a more Culture like society. I agree. The truth will set you free, in fact. > But apparently, Nick, you don't want to always strive closer to perfect > knowledge, you feel better when you add some comforting belief which is > actually imperfect, poor quality knowledge. Phooey. I've said quite the opposite and I believe quite the opposite. > Did you do a web search or read the link that I posted about Tit-for-Tat > strategies in iterated (repeated) game theory problems? In Axelrod's > prisoner's dilemma competition, a Tit-for-Tat strategy (basically, with > no information, tend to cooperate, otherwise do what your opponent did > on the last turn) or slight variations therein consistently won the > competitions. This strategy reminds me a lot of the Golden Rule. So, it > seems that something like the Golden Rule could be favored by evolution. I've read about everything Axelrod has written, I think. And quite a bit more on game theory, not to mention chaos and complexity research. The more I know about math, biology, etc., the more I'm nonplussed by the arguments against religion. > In contrast to this, Dan has posted that his morals come from god. Did he say that, or did he say that he's trying to follow divine teachings. I'm doing the latter, but behavior doesn't always reflect it. Being religious doesn't mean that I think I'm doing God's will, it means that I'm trying, and that I'm increasingly aware of how far short I fall. More later, if I have more to say about the rest of your message. No time to read it now -- deadline looms. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
