http://www.philosophybites.com/ October 9th, 2011 podcast..
"If people shared beliefs the world would become more calmer more peaceful but also no doubt more duller."
Therefore, it's my opinion that individualism is the best answer to the greatest number of people being satisfied with their lives. Yes, organized religion can galvanize and focus large groups of people, but there are individuals in those large groups who feel almost invisible because they are not in agreement with the direction and the values of the group's doctrine but nevertheless don't feel they have a voice and so are silent and suffer silently, all the while at the same time enjoying the social dynamics of the group, dynamics which give them structure, purpose, hope, etc..
"There are dominant systems of belief."
"How do belief systems actually work?"
-Brings up Carl Popper and the topic he pioneered, falsification, as a crucial step in the progress of the scientific method in determining reality..
Allen Bucannon was able to evolve his ethical view of blacks while living in the deep south through asking questions and by challenging his raised to believe racists views, as he came to better and sounder conclusions. So belief systems are not the only way people improve themselves and make better decisions in their life.
"I'm not offering some magic wand which will just wave away people's dogmatism. It's pretty clear that quite a lot of people are relatively unreachable."
"IT'S ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE DEEP EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. AND THEN YOU CAN START ASKING WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF IT. WHAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU THINK YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER PERSON'S EPISTEMOLOGY."
"MY HOPE IS THAT WE ACTUALLY MAY MAKE SOME PROGRESS TOWARDS AGREEMENTS ON THINGS. THAT WE MIGHT MOVE TOWARDS A CONSENSUS ON WHAT IS A REASONABLE INTELLECTUAL STRATEGY BY AGREEING ON WHAT BELIEFS ARE PLAUSIBLE AND WHAT AREN'T."
It's not just about to what degree can we reach an agreement on things... It's that there is a social dilemma in our conversations taking place, which is that we don't necessarily trust that person of opposing view's agenda and he or she doesn't trust our agenda. What happens because of this social dilemma is that both individuals end up talking past each other and just making their points, but not really hearing each other. If there is a trust level issue, how are you going to really hear each other, learn from each other, little alone reach some agreement on issues together...?
And there are a lot of people who don't want to map out what belief systems are plausible and which one's aren't plausible. There are a lot of people who don't want to quantify and dissect their beliefs and THEY'RE STILL VALUABLE PEOPLE TO GET TO KNOW...
"My hope is that where we don't get agreement, we can still get some level of mutual understanding and respect."
