Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [RELIGION] creation myths

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Trivers, it seems to me, sets forth an almost utilarian approach to 
> knowledge.  Knowledge is good for me when it helps me live better (in 
> some utilitarian sense of the word "better" e.g. my genes are more 
> likely to be passed on.)

I wasn't getting that from him.


> So my goal in aquiring knowledge and understanding is primarily for the 
> purpose of me fitting into the world better.
>
> Since knowledge is merely how I perceive it, it carries no content in 
> the moral sense - there is not some knowledge that intrinsically more 
> "right" than someone elses knowledge, except that it causes the former 
> person to relate better to his world.

That's really your view on knowledge -- that it is entirely subjective?


> But then, if my personal experiences cause me to come to the conclusion 
> that God exists, and if this knowledge causes me to relate even better 
> with the world around me, why is it then bad for me to rearrange my 
> whole life around this set of experiences?

If there is no such thing as knowledge, just a collection of subjective 
impressions, then fine, go for it.  But I think there is a real world 
around me.  I believe that my ideas can either align with what is really 
there, or they can go badly off course.  The ideas I prefer to hold are 
accurate ideas -- ones that correspond well with the real world around me. 
I don't choose to believe what makes me feel good.

I think that people have a natural tendency to believe in ghosts and 
spirits.  Does that mean that we should believe in them?  Does it mean 
that they really exist?  People also have a tendency to have 
hallucinations.  Does that mean it is good or that the hallucinations are 
real?  I don't think so.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion