[extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion

[Pete Bertine]

On 2/20/06, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

Once a "god" (which god?) is introduced into the equation, all logic heads
for the back door.


As I've explained offlist to others the problem is in the definition of
"god".  You can clearly have "gods" with powers greater than yours or an
understanding of the world deeper than yours, etc.  The problem arises when
one involves "God" with a capital G where the definition tends to involve
lots of words beginning with omni- and some of those come into direct
conflict with reality as it is currently understood.  (Mind you the
"current" deep understanding of that reality is extremely problematic IMO). 

Robert

 

[PKB]  Why use the word “god” at all?  How would you clearly define “god” or
“gods  vs.  God?”  Wouldn’t the definition have to include omni-words to the
effect of “God like powers” or “meaning knowable only to god/gods” ?  I fear
that the word “god” however you try to modify it is so loaded,  carries so
much baggage that it would be better off to use “new” words like super
advanced intelligences or Sai’s .  That way there would be no *gods* moving
planets around solar systems, but SAI’s playing marbles with planets.

 

This way there can be no (or less) confusion if the list gets penetrated by
“religious Transhumanists” or cult members.

 

Pete

www.petebertine.com <http://www.petebertine.com/>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/ff7c1533/attachment.html>