On 5 May 2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days
about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us
simply accept them without question.
Yes. There is no way to avoid having to accept most things. People
lack the time and the resources to do otherwise.
Since belief in the religion of one's culture is so important, people
do devote the time and the resources to it. One consequence is that
many have numinous religious experiences.
As Roy Rappaport (1) said
A numinous experience compounds the emotions of love, fear,
dependence, fascination, unworthiness, majesty and connection.
It does not have any particular references, but 'is powerful,
indescribable, and utterly convincing.'
Traditionally, numinous religious experiences were interpreted in
terms of a culture's religion.
However, communications about numinous religious experiences often
fails to cross cultures. In contrast communications about science
often succeed in crossing cultures.
This is because a scientific communication can also (but does not
always) provide a numinous experience. In other words, a scientific
communication can be `utterly convincing'.
There are three ways that a person gains an undeniable, internal,
numinous experience from a scientific communication:
* From replicated internal experience
This is to say, the listener *replicates the reasoning*.
Mathematical beliefs come from this, because people reason.
At the same time, internal experience includes dreams, visions,
and personal revelation. Many religious beliefs are confirmed by
revelation.
Mathematics is transcultural because people from different
cultures follow the same process of reasoning and come to the
same conclusions. But people from different cultures who each
have revelations often interpret them differently.
* From replicated observation
This is to say, the listener *replicates the observations*
Astronomical observations and old-fashioned biology are examples.
The key is that the person himself or herself makes the
observations, and understands how they are made.
Otherwise, the `observation' is simply a report by another:
another case of _replicated hearing_.
In addition, the person must also reason that there are no better
alternative interpretations of the observations.
* From replicated action
This is to say, the listener *replicates the experiment*.
Again, a key is that the person do the experiment and not let
another do it.
These three methods are successful because the person's own experience
is undeniable.
By the way, two other ways for gaining belief are:
* From replicated culture
For many people, this is the background of all their beliefs.
Actually, this is a subset of _replicated hearing_, but people do
not remember when they heard. It is `knowledge that they have'.
* From replicated hearing
This is the dominant mode for establishing a new belief, since it
means going by authority. (It includes hearsay.)
These two ways do not cross cultures.
Dave Land is surely correct when he says that
I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored ...
After all, the children who didn't, died.
But I am not so sure that
... listening *critically* to authorities even more so.
As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed
during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were
told.
As for definitive statements: any human decision regarding evidence
involves a judgement. Is the evidence weak, suggestive, or strongly
suggestive? Your judgement may be strong enough to bet your life on,
but it is not an absolute.
When the word `evidence' is used, should others presume that the
writer means `suggestive' even if he or she uses absolute language?
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
(1) `Ecology, Meaning and Religion',
Roy Rappaport,
1979, North Atlantic Books, p. 217
ISBN 0-913028-54-1 paperback
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
