[extropy-chat] Faith-based thought vs thinkers Re: IntelligentDesign: I'm not dead yet

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 31, 2006, at 5:14 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>

> Subsequently over the last few years I've devoted some thought to  
> how much of Catholicism (or Biblical history) could be true if  
> things like miracles relying on nanotechnology, Intelligent Design  
> (of solar systems), ETI (SI) interventions in human evolution or  
> computer based simulations of entire civilizations are feasible  
> (which appears to be the case).
>

Yeah, I've been down that road too.  What I couldn't get a handle on  
is "why".   Of course you wouldn't expect an AI backed character in a  
sim to understand the reason behind the Sim.  Nor would you  
necessarily expect the creator[s] of the Sim to have much more  
empathy for us than we would have for a synthetic character in a  
video game.   Perhaps the purpose was to explore the minimum  
intelligence and external inputs necessary to still reach  
technological transcendence.  Maybe some of the inputs were the  
irritations that religious "pearls" formed around.  Who knows?  Makes  
interesting fiction but it doesn't explain anything or seem to give  
much traction.

> There appears to be a significant element of "group-think" in  
> "faith-based thought".  It would seem to make sense that everyone  
> who eventually reaches the conclusion that Santa Claus is a myth  
> should also reach the conclusion that religions that are based on  
> other "magical" claims are also myths.  While giving up ones belief  
> in Santa Claus is accepted  - giving up ones belief in a fictional  
> reality based set of religious beliefs generally is not.
>

Well said.

> The point which Harris finds objectionable is that the moderates  
> allow the "faith-based actors" to continue to act without forcing  
> (and yes, I used the word *force* again) them to confront their  
> failure to build rational systems for acting.  Irrational actors in  
> other contexts tend to be locked away where they can do minimal  
> harm to society.

We generally only care if someone has crazy notions if they are  
directly endangering themselves or others based on those notions.  I  
grant that we allow religious craziness more leeway than that.    
Having fought a running battle with more mystical ways and basis for  
action at times in my life I perhaps can offer some insights.    When  
I was in the mystical mindset those friends who attempted to  
intervene simply appeared clueless or caring but not really  
understanding.   It was only when the carefully constructed system  
was weakening that it was advantageous to have people I cared about  
point out the insubstantial and illusory nature of what I was  
attempting to hold as true.   Many believers seem different though.   
They think their beliefs on these subjects are their very being.    
They often see only attack and not questions.  They think that  
without their beliefs they would simply not be.    On the other hand  
most believers haven't worked as hard as I did at apologetics.  So it  
should be easier to reach them with firm disbelief and even  
incredulity that they believe impossible and/or utterly unproven  
things.   Further they clam these beliefs are the most important  
thing of all!

One of the most effective wake up calls I received was from a friend  
who grew up in mainland China.  One day at lunch she looked at me as  
if I was some bizarre exotic variant of humanity and said "Oh, do you  
have religion?   How interesting.  I grew up utterly without it and  
no one I have known has had it."    She had an attitude that it was  
some strange psychological malady.  Her friendly direct inquiry led  
me to see my beliefs as she saw them.  It was exactly what was needed  
beyond anything that could raise my defenses.

>
> Each person reading this has made a conscious (or unconscious)  
> choice not to stand in front of their local religious institution  
> on Friday, Saturday or Sunday morning holding up a sign saying "You  
> are acting upon beliefs in *myths*" (in "Western" cultures).  [You  
> either *are* extropic and are acting upon it or you are just along  
> for the ride...]  The continued tolerance of the mental belief  
> systems of faith-based actors (and the actions resulting therefrom)  
> *do* have consequences such as:
>

Yeah.  I was sickened reading articles today suggesting a balance  
needs to be struck between free speech and respect for religious  
beliefs.  Why should such beliefs be respected?   What is the meaning  
of and limits of what "respect" it makes sense to give to other human  
beings in their particular mixture of truth and delusion?  Should we  
treat religion more delicately because its roots run so deep or pull  
all the harder to have a small hope of uprooting it?

I have tried so many mixtures that might perhaps lead to extropian  
goals but with religious memes in the mix.  Again and again I  
conclude that there is no viable way to do this.   Letting go of  
religion appears essential to even beginning to become a fully  
functional, rational  and fully empowered extropian.

- samantha