Hi Steve, > >> Steve: > >> Sam Harris agrees that we don't have reasons for all of our beliefs. Our > >> most basic beliefs like 2+2=4 are not taught by math books, we have to > >> know that before we open the book. He uses the term intuition to describe > >> these sorts of beliefs. > > Platt: > >Yes, we intuit that a giraffe is not a rabbit. > > Steve: > Also, note that we don't intuit that the bread and wine are the body and > blood of Christ or that Mohammed flew to Heaven on a winged horse or that > the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. Beliefs like these > are based on reasoning that is either good or bad.
Nor do we intuit that mind arises from mindless atoms, or that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a neurologic consequence of vibrations on the eardrum. > Steve: > >> That is very different, however, than saying that our beliefs don't have > >> to be reasonable. Of course we should want our beliefs to have > >> intellectual quality. > > Platt: > >I think it's reasonable to believe that not all who have faith in God have > >low quality intellects or are immoral, and vice-versa. > > Steve: > I agree. I never meant to imply that I thought otherwise. In fact, the > reason why religious beliefs like the virtue of faith are so dangerous is > because these people are not dummies by any means. It is possible to be a > well-educated person capable of building nuclear devices or flying jets into > buildings while still holding these sorts of religious beliefs. Sam Harris > says the reason that it is possible for such low quality intellectual > patterns as the belief that a person will be rewarded in heaven for "sacred > bombings" with dark-eyed virgins can exist comfortably in the mind of > someone along with the sophisticated intellectual knowledge and skills > required to do significant damage is because of the idea that religious > beliefs are personal and should not be questioned. People are generally not > challenged to test their religious beliefs against the same standards that > they use for every other belief that they hold. I agree with him that > thatneeds to change. We need to ask t > he likes of Bush how it is different to say that he will appoint judges who > know our rights come from God or our rights come from Zeus. If rights don't come from God, where do you suggest they come from? > >> Platt: > >> >Of course, we can always adopt new meanings for a word like science. > >> >After all, Pirsig has liberated the word "morals" from human social > >> >behavior. Should we call the MOQ "A Science of Morals?" > >> > >> Steve: > >> Pirsig already did this when he said that it is scientifically moral for > >> a doctor to kill a germ. > > Pirsig > >Are you suggesting now that Pirsig was perhaps putting it too strongly to > >apply the term "scientifically" to a moral decision? I think he was. > >Science involves precise measurements. I don't know how you measure a moral > > decision, much less happiness or suffering.. > > Steve: > Yes, I agree that the word "scientifically" is putting it too strongly or at > least using the word science in a way that I find annoying. For example, any > subject with a self-image problem will call themselves a science. My school > doesn't have home ec. We have consumer sciences. > > But I do think that happiness and suffering can be studied. Here's an > example of a study that could be done to demonstrate that how we use our > attention can influence our own happiness: > > Interview two sets of subjects having them rate themselves about their > happiness using a variety of questions. Randomly assign each person to one > of two treatment groups. One group is instructed that when he/she perceives > that he is being mistreated by someone for the next week he she should > imagine themselves doing physical harm to that person. The other group > should imagine good things happening to that person who mistreated him/her. > After one week reevalute the people's happiness ratings. > > In my opinion, this is a scientific study that can be analyzed > statistically. If there is a significant difference between the happiness > ratings, the results could be used to help individuals decide how to respond > when they feel mistreated to improve their own happiness. One interested in > the results would then of course need to be test the method to see if it > worked for them personally. > > What do you think? Not being familiar with the proper size and structure of such studies I can't give you a "rational" opinion. However, happiness has been studied, notably by a couple of psychology professors who have collated data from almost 1,000 surveys of 1.1. million people to arrive at a global estimate of reported subjective well-being. The results are written up in an article in Scientific American: http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/66883-ebook.htm. Among the findings: .Happiness does not depend significantly on external circumstances. . Happiness is evenly distributed across almost all demographic classifications of age, economic class, race and educational level. .Wealth is a poor predictor of happiness. .Religiously active people report greater happiness. A 16 nation collaberative study of 166,000 people in 14 nations found happiness and life satisfaction rise with the strength of religious affiliation and frequency of attendance at worship services. This last finding should be of particular interest to those who find happiness a measure of morality. Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
