h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Societies are not controlled by the consensus, but they are guided and informed by it. The consensus is the distilled wisdom (such as it is ) of the society hive-mind.

Religions (and similar belief systems) can be seen as memes, which live in the social mindworld. They compete for believers with the other memes, in a Darwinian fashion. The meme with the greatest following has the greatest influence on the consensus, and therefore on the course charted by a society.

To promote your favourite meme, it is not enough for it to be right. Even if it should be that your meme completely and correctly reflects objective reality, it wouldn't be guaranteed success unless that quality also conferred the ability to persuade humans to believe in it. So if you want to promote your meme, you don't have to be right, you only have to be convincing. [Being right as well would be nice! ]

Of course there is another way to influence the course of a society: arrange for you and your meme-brethren to occupy positions of power within society, then subvert the consensus in favour of your own meme. This is, of course, ungentlemanly conduct, but surprisingly common nonetheless. Some suspect it's being done in the USA right now....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>



Say it isn't so!!!

<>

This sounds suspiciously science-fictiony. You haven't been hanging around in Scientologist reading room, have you?

Hi P-C

Consensus? Democracy? Just tyranny of the majority in a dandy hat, especially when that majority is so easily swayed. "Fear the mob" said Caesar and went to the window to give out bread and circuses to the baying pack below.

Consensus does not equal wisdom, in any shape or form. As for memes, nice idea, but only that .

You can influence society without power. The rise of vegetarianism has been meteoric and quite contrary to the benefit of the powerful. A few determined individuals without direct power can change the world, for a moment.

You, Blather and I have influenced people here, each in our time. For weal or woe we cannot say, but we have. We have no power but that of our arguments. Rational or irrational, it seems to matter not to our audience. Passion matters, caring matters, friendship matters, blood matters, little else in our brief span.

You are correct in that we don't have to be right, but only history can judge that by examination of the consequences, if any, of our words and deeds.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

BtM:

P-C:

Hmm. I rather thought that the concept of memes was dreamt up by your Bright buddy, Dawkins.

Math:

Absolutely!

Math:

Here I beg to differ. The consensus is the distilled (i.e. averaged) wisdom of the society in question. Consensus implies no value pertaining to that wisdom, which is probably just as well.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Dawkins coined the term, 'meme', which derives from the Greek 'mimema'. He did not originate the concept of ideas spreading according to genetic rules.

'Meme' has become a popular 'blogword', and I suspect Mr. Dawkins wishes he never came up with it. It is much overused, imo.

Consensus denotes agreement.
Wisdom is the ability to determine truth.

Wisdom is not contingent upon consensus, nor is consensus necessarily a result of wisdom.

Dogma is typically the witless child of consensus, and wisdom the rebel offspring of inquiry

That should be: 'Dogma is typically the witless offspring of consensus, wisdom the rebel child of inquiry'

Oh well. It's a convenient way of expressing what I meant. I assume you meant *evolutionary* rules, Tal?



Maybe I should've said that the consensus is a combination of what the members of a particular society think *is* and *ought to be*, averaged out. Although consensus cannot create or define truth, it is nevertheless a useful rule of thumb, like Occam's Razor. And, like the razor, it can't guarantee results, it just works better than random chance. 'If in doubt, go with the consensus', or something like that.

I see no reason why consensus should lead to dogma. ... Nor do I see any reason why it shouldn't, so it might be best to remain alert and aware of the possibility!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Going back a little...
(P-C)>>"You said in post 7624: "If you can't justify your beliefs to someone else, then why should you be permitted to believe them?"

>>"Permitted" has a pretty clear meaning, I think. Here, it says that, if one can't justify one's beliefs to some third party, that one should not be *permitted* to hold them: thoughtcrime, and all it entails."

What was actually written was a question - '*If* you can't justify your beliefs, then *why* should you be permitted to believe them?'
It's interesting how some people pick up on the 'permitted to believe' bit, but either don't actually seem to consider the 'why' part, or they *do* consider it, and can't/won't/don't come up with an answer they wish to give.

When Faraday was asked what use electricity was, he replied 'What use is a baby?', but I don't think anyone sensible actually thought he was arguing in favour of infanticide, merely making a point.

(P-C)>>"I wonder why the National Secular Society has a "happy heathen" mug?"

To wind up 'True Believers' with no sense of humour? I guess that's why many people would buy one.

(P-C)>>"Since a triple-O God who created the universe, and no God at all, are indistinguishable to us mere mortals, there is no meaning to debating the (non)existence of God, as we have been doing recently."

Surely the things which are indistuniguishable are
a) No God
and
b) One or more gods of whatever capability whose actual effect on the Real World is so small as to be very easily missed, or even non-existent.

If a Triple-O is so non-interventionist that they come under definition (b), then they may as well not exist right up to the point where they decide to actually do something. They can hardly complain that people doubt they exist.


>>"If religion has any value at all, it isn't dependent on the literal (or otherwise) truth of its teachings, but on the effects of its believers on the real world. *Those* we can perceive, and maybe make a value judgement on."

Is it justifiable to tell people *anything* to get them to behave in a way one judges better for society?
If a teacher had some doubts about whether a faith was correct, should they still teach it?
What if they had no real idea if it was correct or not?
What if they really didn't believe it but taught it anyway because they thought it had a good overall effect on society?
Would it be justifiable to bring someone up to believe in an afterlife if that person therefore sacrificed happiness now in the hope of future gain in heaven, even if one didn't believe there was an afterlife, and one didn't make the same kinds of sacrifices oneself?

P-C (to BtM):

Potholer:

The question could so easily have been "If you can't justify your beliefs to someone else, how can you justify them to yourself?", and the sense would have been clear, and maybe the question itself would've received some attention.

As it was, the concept of *permission* to hold certain views was raised. This pre-supposes the existence of some agency willing and able to grant or withhold permission to hold beliefs or opinions. Images of thought police and thoughtcrime, intellectual eugenics and other sorts of related unpleasantness serve to distract attention from other aspects of the discussion up to that point.

The 'happy heathen' comment was my mistake: I was confusing 'heathen' with 'pagan'.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"Images of thought police and thoughtcrime, intellectual eugenics and other sorts of related unpleasantness serve to distract attention from other aspects of the discussion up to that point."

But who created those distracting images - the reader, or the writer? If people wish to play the 'persectued' card, they may end up trying to play it when there are alternative paths to tread.

If one uses a little reason and realises that it's not exactly easy for anyone to stop someone else thinking something, the moral panic at the possible implications of the question may subside, and the actual question could be addressed. Even if moral panic may give a comforting warmth at times, it is almost always a distraction from reality.

Thinking about possible obvious answers to the 'why' interpretation of the question:
"Because people should be allowed to believe anything, however unjustifiable it is to other people."
"Because people may have had a direct communication from a deity which they can't explain."
etc,
I can understand why people might not wish to answer it.

In fact, it seems difficult to frame any answer which doesn't have at least the possibility of a demeaning interpretation which I guess most believers wouldn't find easy to accept.

Which may indeed have been the original point of asking that particular question.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're pursuing, if there is one. I found the introduction of the concept of *permitting* opinions to be held to be distasteful and distracting. Others may agree. Or not.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

There is a point, which even you should be able to understand.
Just try answering the actual question that was asked, and see what answers you get.

I find it hard to come up with much except arguments of the form
"People should have the right to believe *anything*"
with the implicit or explicit follow-ups of "... however imposible to explain" or "... however daft", with a final qualification of "As long as those beleifs don't get expressed in a way that harms others.

If someone was incapable of believing without acting, society would have as much justification for trying to change their beliefs as it would to try and limit their actions.

At one extreme, if someone believed something that was clearly *wrong*, trying to change what they believed could be regarded as good mental health practice, rather than the actions of thought police.
The issue is partly one of where and how the clearly wrong fades into the simply unknowable, however likely or unlikely the knowable is to be actually true, and what the consequences of various beliefs are in reality.

Gratuitous insults are unbecoming; be nice!



As I remember, the question was: "If you can't justify your beliefs to someone else, how can you justify them to yourself?" (removing the reference to "permission").

The answer is simple: no-one needs to justify their beliefs, to themselves or anyone else. And the resoning behind it is as follows:

Society gives its members certain benefits, and applies certain constraints. It is reasonable to expect that society should minimise these constraints, only restricting its members where it is necessary. In this case, it is safe (from society's point of view) to allow complete freedom of belief and thought, because members of the society are constrained by their *actions*.

Thus I may believe that all atheists should be burned at the stake , and this is fine because if I actually try to do this, or even incite others to do it, I can be stopped. I can think what I like, but I can only do what is allowed, or face the consequences.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The problem with that, PC, is that our beliefs inform our actions. Our beliefs, after all, are our maps with which we use to navigate the shared world.

Taking your example further, the belief that atheists should be burned at the stake, even if you don't act upon it, brings with it other activities. At the very least it would cause you great difficulties in dealing with atheists in personal relationships. It may damage your relationship with a close family member. It may cause you to tacitly support anti-atheist pogroms or legislation. It may eventually cause you to act so poorly in front of atheists that you or the other resort to physical violence.

Now, let's just say one of those seemingly minor influences actually shows up in your life. Maybe you have a grandson who professes atheism, and as a result of your attitude, one or the other of you shuts the other out of his life completely. It develops into a bitter feeling that divides the family for years, and some members of the family stop showing up at Christmas and Thanksgiving every year.

Theoretically, this belief has had a very real cost to your life. These are the consequences, which don't have anything to do with law and criminal punishment. Was it worth it? If your beliefs about atheists are correct, it may well be. But how can you possibly expect your beliefs to be correct if you can't even justify them?

Agreed in almost every detail, BtM. Whatever beliefs we have, have consequences, and we must accept them.



This part still seems to bother you, doesn't it? Well you won't like the answer much. First: I can justify my beliefs to myself, as all sane people can. It's a talent we humans have. Those who can't find a way to justify their own beliefs to themselves literally cannot survive.

The problem is that those with whom we disagree are unlikely to accept the validity of our justifications. So justifying ourselves to some third party, particularly an unsympathetic third party, is *MUCH* more difficult. Quite probably impossible.

Finally: I don't expect my beliefs to be correct; I expect them to be useful to me in living my life the way I want to. I used to spend time worrying about correctness and such. No more. I cannot demonstrate that *anything* (significant) is correct, and I now perceive no particular value in correctness for its own sake.

My beliefs, religious and otherwise, give my life purpose and direction, and they bring me joy in one form or another. That's quite enough for me.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<< First: I can justify my beliefs to myself, as all sane people can. It's a talent we humans have.>>

Insane people can justify their beliefs to themselves, too. This is why a third-party opinion is necessary. How can you know that you're not insane?

...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Seriously: no third-party opinion is necessary. We constrain the *actions* of citizens, not their thoughts, as already discussed. Insanity is socially defined (also as previously mentioned), so you can know if I'm insane by asking (say) a jury of my peers. The only way *I* could know I was insane is to ask my peers, but I might not want to, and I might not understand the need to, and.... I don't think *I* can know if *I'm* insane, in practice. But there's n o need. If my actions prove anti-social, then you (plural) can take all necessary steps. Where's the problem with that?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"