[extropy-chat] Religion worked for survival - Russel Wallace

[david ish shalom]

*Russel you write:..."there's no rational reason for believing in the
Singularity either (yes, like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of
truth, but the vast bulk of what's written about it, is as much a fable as
Noah bringing two of each
animal aboard the ark). I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be
irrational.   David comment: for believing in the Singularity there are
absolutely rational reasons, yet to all the rest of what you say here I
heartily harmonize with, its wise and out of the box. i would add that this
tendency of many transhumanist to go against religion is not contributing to
transhumanism spreading to the vast masses of humanity and just holding this
crucial meme as marginal and rejected by humanity at large. *i am much
surprised at Samantha, who has taken a leading role in the transhuman
religion group and now turns so vehemently against what she was supporting
there ?!

> What do you mean "it worked"?  What worked exactly?  I am really at a loss
as to what you meant by this paragraph.
*"Religion worked for survival. Look at what happens to modern cultures
where
religion is gone: they fall apart into self-hatred and nihilism, birth rates
plummeting below extinction level, their people rapidly headed for oblivion.
The greatest civilization that ever existed on this planet is dying, in what
should have been its hour of triumph - dying not of any external threat, but
of its own parasite memes; and who will pick up the torch once we are gone?"
*


Really?  I know an awful lot of atheists who are very delighted with
life and this universe and consider life extremely full
>
*If that works for them, great, though I will note that most people who give
up belief in God, in order to find meaning in life, need to substitute some
equivalent belief: aliens, the Singularity, reincarnation or whatever*.

> What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may wonder? Why,
> some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, Dennett.
>
> This is beyond the pale.

I'm sorry it offends you to see things called by their right names.

Preach?  There is no rational reason for believing in God that I am aware
of.

There's no rational reason for believing in the Singularity either (yes,
like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of truth, but the vast bulk
of what's written about it is as much a fable as Noah bringing two of each
animal aboard the ark). I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be
irrational.  *
*
 Theism has done a great deal of harm.

But far more good than harm.

A parable, quoting from memory so the wording may not be accurate, but the
gist of it is:

Young man: "I can see no use for that fence, let's get rid of it."
Old man: "Certainly not. Go and study the problem some more, and when you
come back and tell me you _can_ see a use for it... _then_ we can start
talking about whether to get rid of it."

Superstitious and irrational thinking does even more. How is it
preaching to say this is so?   Again, what is your beef?  I don't see
anything you seem to be saying in the actual article.
>

It isn't about Dennett's article - if it were just him, I wouldn't have said
anything. It's about the prevailing meme in Western intellectual circles
these days that tearing down Christianity and its value system is somehow a
rational or wise thing to do.

Are you claiming that those who say what they honestly thing about
religion and theism should be despised or censored for saying it?
>

*I have not advocated censoring anyone. What I think should be done is this:
when Dawkins goes around using his science to preach atheism, someone - it'd
have to be someone who'd be listened to, something like a professor of
evolutionary biology at a well-known university would be ideal - should
stand up and say: "Dawkins is of course entitled to preach his religious
beliefs - in his capacity as a private citizen. Science says nothing
whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of God, and it is a fallacy
to claim it as authority on either side of that debate."
*
We all agree teaching science is important. I claim it is equally important
to teach that science is compatible with pro-survival value systems.

Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god.
>

Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' recent works?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061106/6c0b944b/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061107/0d08e16a/attachment.html>