Constructive Empiricism for the Religious....

[Pineal]

In constructive empiricism a distinction is made between beliefs and ideas that are accepted. The former are considered true, the latter are considered useful. Constructive empiricism is a philosophy of science, but I think it can be interesting to bring it over to religion.

Why 'accept' something one does not believe (potentially, yet)?

Because it works or is useful. The section in the book I am reading on Constructive Empiricism, uses Einstein and Plancks ideas about black body radiation as an example of when scientists used assertions from contradictory theories - in this case classical vs. relativistic physics - to support claims they were making. They were aware that there was a problem and did not believe that everything they were asserting was true, but it worked. Later these inconsistencies were worked out.

In religion I could see this taking effect like this....

You become a Buddhist in part because of a lecture where you heard the Buddhist take on suffering and the mind. This struck you are true or having a number of truths in it. You believe these. You also heard that meditation can eliminate suffering. You don't know whether this is true. You visit a number of temples and choose one where you are impressed with the master or the students you meet there. You engage in the practices. You accept the practices, but you do not know if they truly work or will work for you.

1) you believe in the source of the problem as presented by Buddhism
2) you accept that meditation will help this, but you do not believe this (perhaps, yet) The acceptance of this coincides well with engaging in the practices.

A similar scenario could be constructed for Christianity. You are Jewish. You meet some Jews for Jesus. You have a powerful dream in which Jesus comes to you and welcomes you to Christianity. You now believe in Jesus as a special case - son of God, the prophet, whatever. You accept a lot of other assertions and suggestions for attitudes and practices, because this facilitates participation in a religion that supports your belief in Jesus.

Over time, in either scenario, certain things that are accepted, later become beliefs.

In science Constructive Empiricism is more wary of viewing even well tested theories as necessarily being true - I would add especially when it comes to metaphysics. But they work, especially in relation to the phenomena they describe and this allows the CEist to accept the theories and their explanations of reality without necessary believing they are true.

One reason this is a position for some comes from their recognition that Newton's laws worked, but some of the metaphysics they seemed to support - absolute time and space - are not longer considered true. So something being useful may also be, at least in some senses untrue, especially on a metaphysical level. Hence the distinction between acceptance and believing.

 

[Sapientivore]

Will you marry me?

Seriously though, thanks. I needed a term for this concept.

 

[wynn]

Hence the distinction between acceptance and believing.

I think modernity is bringing on practical and epistemological problems that were impossible in traditional monocultures.

 

[Pineal]

I think modernity is bringing on practical and epistemological problems that were impossible in traditional monocultures.

I would have said this was a solution, actually, rather than a problem. This allows one, whether a secular or religious person in a variety of contexts, to NOT feel obligated to claim one believes all the ideas one is accepting, going with, acting seemingly as if one believed.

 

[wynn]

I don't see it as much of a solution, though.

In a monoculture, people don't feel pressured to accept and believe whatever it is they are supposed to believe - they just accept and believe, as the given beliefs are all there is to begin with.

It is in multicultural settings that the problem of choosing and accepting first appears.

Indeed, in a multicultural setting, we may have "the freedom to choose" - but from an experiential, practical, philosophical standpoint, this is a nightmare for everyone except the most hardened epistemic egotists.

 

[Pineal]

I don't see it as much of a solution, though.

In a monoculture, people don't feel pressured to accept and believe whatever it is they are supposed to believe

I disagree. I think people in monocultures are pressured by parents, schools, peers, social groups, the law, whatever media - if only tales around the fire - religious leaders, etc., to take on specific beliefs and to control any impulses, thoughts, behavior, speech that goes against this. Monocultures have a great deal of enforcement. They know people will not simply believe.

- they just accept and believe, as the given beliefs are all there is to begin with.

I don't think there ever is such a perfect monoculture. Even within very restricted communities - certain Hassidim or the Amish come to mind, given where I grew up, there will still be diverse opinions inside the group and contact with ideas outside the group. I also don't think peopel just accept and believe. Some do obviously, but the issue still arises for individuals.

There were monocultures I experienced growing up. Despite the diversity around me things like patriotism, being cool, being straight and acting straight, trusting authority, certain kinds of sexism, were taken for granted by nearly everyone. For me growing up I had very harsh experiences of monoculture around these things. I did not, however, accept and believe. Which was not easy.

It is in multicultural settings that the problem of choosing and accepting first appears.

I don't think it is only there. I think people face these choices even in monocultures. People, privately if the culture is oppressive, may decide that gays are OK, despite the Bible, or that their nice atheist neighbor will not be tortured for eternity by God. They may also go against all sorts of not quite theological rules in the community that come through the church.

There can be explosions, where underground, less openly expressed rebellions have been brewing and splits happen in monocultures. This often leads to new churchs or new religions. But even when there is not enough group connection to explode, I still think individuals are navigating ideas they believe, those they accept to function, those they question or disagree with but perhaps are silent about or only share their thoughts about with very close friends.

Indeed, in a multicultural setting, we may have "the freedom to choose" - but from an experiential, practical, philosophical standpoint, this is a nightmare for everyone except the most hardened epistemic egotists.

I'll try not to take that personally. I don't see how the Amish person, who feels bad in relation to many beliefs in their monoculture and either does have some consciousness about why or does not, is in some better position. Those who simply do what authority tells them AND simply think what authority tells them to think likely to not feel certain kinds of crisis. But being born in a monoculture is no guarantee of this as many escapees will tell us.

And being a robot seems like a nightmare to me.

 

[wynn]

I disagree. I think people in monocultures are pressured by parents, schools, peers, social groups, the law, whatever media - if only tales around the fire - religious leaders, etc., to take on specific beliefs and to control any impulses, thoughts, behavior, speech that goes against this. Monocultures have a great deal of enforcement.

They know people will not simply believe.

Hm.

Your stance seems to be presuming that a person has an inherent philosophy that ultimately cannot be thwarted by social conditioning.
(Even if it manifests as nothing more than the person behaving in accordance with the social norms, but being unhappy.)

My assumption is that whatever philosophy a person has, it is entirely from social conditioning: that whatever ontology or epistemology a person may have, have been acquired entirely via social conditioning, and that without the social conditioning, they would have no philosophy.

 

[Pineal]

Hm.

Your stance seems to be presuming that a person has an inherent philosophy that ultimately cannot be thwarted by social conditioning.

I would have said nature. I do not think we are completely malleable. I think some systems work better for some people and all monocultures I see set up approaches to deal with those parts of everyone that are not aligned.

I do think that many people can be thwarted. I also think that there is always a significant minority who still questions, is uneasy, doubts, wishes for something different, on the low end. Speaks to others privately about their doubts and issues on up to open rebellion on the other end. I disagree with monoculture somehow resolving all issues.

(Even if it manifests as nothing more than the person behaving in accordance with the social norms, but being unhappy.)

Of course this happens.

Note: This is the precise quote I am disagreeing with

In a monoculture, people don't feel pressured to accept and believe whatever it is they are supposed to believe

Even your use of the verb thwart above actually supports my disagreement.

My assumption is that whatever philosophy a person has, it is entirely from social conditioning: that whatever ontology or epistemology a person may have, have been acquired entirely via social conditioning, and that without the social conditioning, they would have no philosophy.

This is basically a tabula rasa view of the self. I don't think this is at all the case, going on my experience of friends and their siblings of the same sex, neuroscience and of people in general. I think we come into the world with patterns and temperments. These are of course affected significantly by 'nurture', but I don't think tabula rasa is supportable anymore. Twin studies of twin raised separately also cut against this idea.

I would think that even in most Buddhism there is the idea of patterns carrying over into the next lives. Even if these patterns are ultimately around an empty non-self, the patterns still get reborn. These are not mere blank tape baby minds, but minds with character. I sure had one.

 

[wynn]

Even your use of the verb thwart above actually supports my disagreement.

Of course, I was speaking from what seemed like your perspective.

From the tabula rasa perspective, there is nothing to thwart.

This is basically a tabula rasa view of the self. I don't think this is at all the case, going on my experience of friends and their siblings of the same sex, neuroscience and of people in general. I think we come into the world with patterns and temperments. These are of course affected significantly by 'nurture', but I don't think tabula rasa is supportable anymore. Twin studies of twin raised separately also cut against this idea.

Sure, tabula rasa is hard to defend.
But on the other hand, the moment we agree that there is some kind of inherent characteristics, philosophy or nature to people, we're with both feet in intelligent design. And how are we going to defend that?

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

But on the other hand, the moment we agree that there is some kind of inherent characteristics, philosophy or nature to people, we're with both feet in intelligent design.

Says who? Even if we have inherent programing(and we most certainly do, though there are outliers in every data set), who's to say that it has to be intelligently designed?

 

[wynn]

It is only via some kind of intelligent design that we can defend the notion of humans having intelligent/relevant inherent characteristics, philosophy or nature.

Characteristics, philosophy or nature arising out of random, unguided evolution, cannot be considered relevant to the point that they could serve as a reliable guide for action.

To conceive of (some of) our characteristics, philosophy or nature as the results of an unintelligent, random, unguided process, renders those characteristics, philosophy or nature unintelligent, random, unguided as well, so we cannot simultaneously conceive of them as being suitable to serve as reliable guides for action.

What we want, of course, are reliable guides for action.

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

You should know by now that evolution is hardly unguided or random. It may not be guided by an intelligent force, but natural selection is about as far from random as you can get. A very large portion of our traits, from our ability to love one another to our proclivity for war are all inherent and a product of evolution, this doesn't invalidate them it just explains them. Unless you're looking for some truly objective guide and then you're just shit out of luck because no such guide exists.

 

[Pineal]

Sure, tabula rasa is hard to defend.
But on the other hand, the moment we agree that there is some kind of inherent characteristics, philosophy or nature to people, we're with both feet in intelligent design. And how are we going to defend that?

1) Oh, who cares if we can defend it. Or let's say that is not a disqualifying criterion for me. I believe a whole bunch of stuff many people would think I cannot defend - in the sense of satisfying them or providing enough evidence to get published in Nature magazine. Fortunately, they also have such beliefs, not that they remember this when my beliefs are on the table.

2) I don't think it necessarily leads to intelligent design. Cats and horses and dogs, regardless of nurture will show differences in learning styles, expertise, interests and even character - individuals of course reaching the edges of bell curves, but still. Very few cats will ever chase cars and try to bite the wheels, regardless of parenting.

'We' are one species, but one can invoke 'differences in genes' leading to differences in tendencies as above. Whether by design or stochastic processes is another issue.

 

[wynn]

My point is that if we are to value our own intelligence (and intuition), we must (implicitly) believe there is more to us than merely our bodies produced by chance.

Only intelligence can beget intelligence.

We generally believe that the dichotomy luck vs. intelligence is valid.

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

Only intelligence can beget intelligence.

Normally this is where I'd say "prove it", but I don't honestly think that you believe this. After all, evolution by natural selection seems to have done a great job with both primate and cetacean intelligence. We have plenty of examples of naturally evolved intelligence for us to conclude that our own is no different, especially since our intelligence differs from animal intelligence only in degree, not in type.

 

[wynn]

Do you believe that that the dichotomy luck vs. intelligence is valid?

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

Nope, but then I'm not sure how that would be a dichotomy.

Also, I've found that evidence is more trustworthy than any philosophy.

 

[wynn]

Nope, but then I'm not sure how that would be a dichotomy.

For starters, at school - surely you thought it makes a difference whether you study a subject or not?

Although being schooled by multiple choice tests only (as it is common in the US) does tend to blur the line between luck (guessing) and intelligence.

Also, I've found that evidence is more trustworthy than any philosophy.

We cannot conceive of "evidence" without having a philosophy that enables us to do so.

 

[Arioch]

And we can't conceive of philosophy without having brains which, through evolution, are capable of doing so. I can take you in loops here all day, but I don't think that would be very productive.

Here's something productive, you said that intelligence can only beget intelligence, and regardless of how useful that idea may be(I personally see no use in it), it is demonstrably false.

 

[wynn]

Self-hate is demonstrable, too.