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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:23 PM, david ish shalom wrote:

> 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).
It is perfectly rational to note that > human intelligence is possible  
and quite likely in the not too distant future (unless we screw up  
badly).   It is also perfectly rational to believe that a Vingean  
singularity will eventually result from such intelligence, especially  
if it is self-improving.  Thus it is rational to be of the opinion  
that a Singularity is possible and possibly fairly soon.   Thus the  
statement that there is no rational reason for believing such is  
demonstrably false.  That some people get carried away is a different  
matter entirely.

> 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 ?!
>
Yes, I worked for some time to wield religion into a tool consistent  
with and leading to transhuman goals.  I came to the conclusion that  
religion is far too broken and loaded down with poisonous elements to  
be used this way.  YMMV but I will live by what I have found by my own  
investigation.  I do not give a fig whether "the public" shuts me out  
because I don't automatically respect their "revealed truth" (aka  
authoritarian fantasies) or not.   The memes that need to be spread  
are not spread by tiptoeing around massive systematic delusion.    I  
can only stand for what I perceive as true as I understand it.  When  
my understanding changes the particulars of what I stand for must  
change.

At no time did I believe that religion is primarily responsible for  
most of the good in the world or for "things working" generally.  I  
was  out to rewrite religion, to create a new religion that was not  
based on perpetuation of some dogma bit that used all the best in  
spiritual practices and religion to different ends.   I even attempted  
to convince myself and others that such could be seen as the  
fulfillment and refinement of that which was essential in religions.   
I came to disbelieve that most of this was so.  I came to the  
conclusion that only a more direct tying of our best aspirations to  
the reality and reason without a lot of religious inflation, much less  
casting the work in terms familiar to existing religions, even less  
trying to make common cause with them,  will make the kind of  
difference I dream of seeing.   I came to see existing religion as  
largely that which is in the way of most of our best hopes and  
dreams.  I cannot make common cause with those sworn to oppose most of  
what we care about without putting ourselves and our share dreams at  
risk.  I cannot seek the highest that I can honestly conceive of by  
perpetuating such a web of falsehoods and pretentious ignorance.

>
> We all agree teaching science is important. I claim it is equally  
> important
> to teach that science is compatible with pro-survival value systems.
>
I don't believe religions are primarily pro-survival of anything  
especially but themselves.  I don't believe that useful value systems  
are generally the invention or property of religions.


> >Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god.
> >
>
> Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' recent works?

Sure.  They make some (partially flawed, partially reasonable) science  
based arguments about the very low probability of their being a God.   
That is not at all the same as a claim that science proves there is not.

- samantha


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061108/324962b2/attachment.html>