[ExI] The void left by deleting religion

[Samantha Atkins]

Lee Corbin wrote:
> I consider the following to be one of Samantha's greatest posts ever, and I
> have time to comment on it.
>
>   
Thanks.  A few clarifications are below.
> On 5/4/2007, Samantha wrote
>
>   
>> Torstein Haldorsen wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Now, while I believe [this] is quite profound, and find it 
>>> intellectually pleasing to have a "religion" of my own design, this 
>>> could easily be entirely normal delusions of grandeur. I don't know, 
>>> but I really love this project, I believe in the potential of the 
>>> idea, and I would love to be able to work on it full time, somehow, 
>>> some time in the future.
>>>       
>> I have considered such a thing myself rather seriously.  In particular I 
>> despair of enough humans embracing rationality and moving sufficiently 
>> beyond the many roots that religion feeds from to maximize our chances 
>> of survival.
>>     
>
> It does seem odd, though, to think of the options as consisting of
> either (a) embracing rationality, or (b) failing to. I take you to mean
> that the progress towards rationality is disappointingly slow. Our
> present luxury does make it increasingly more affordable to be
> rational (i.e, in terms of our EEA driven impulses).
>   
What I meant by "embracing rationality" includes embracing a 
naturalistic world view beyond various levels of magical and 
pre-scientific thinking sufficiently to cleanly consider the world as it 
actually is and the issues before us.   In the US particular there is an 
appalling amount of decision making based on religious notions.    In 
the world at large the vast majority are not close to a naturalistic 
world view.
>   
>> Increasingly I think that many of the roots that feed religion are 
>> aspects of our EP that we will seriously need to struggle to overcome if 
>> we are to have a viable future.    Our future is in the realm of vision 
>> firmly grounded in science and reality.   Great mystical sci-fi romps 
>> into the future while appealing on some levels don't seem to really have 
>> much traction or much relationship to the work needed personally or 
>> collectively.  I could be wrong but I am  quite discouraged regarding 
>> the viability of this sort of thing. 
>>     
>
> Perhaps you mean with our present, limited, human-nature capabilities?
> But genetic engineering is not far off, is it?  Even sooner, enlightenment
> about drugs could also allow whole populations to take something that they
> rationally know will make them more peaceful, increase their prosperity,
> and bring about much more satisfaction and happiness for all.
>   
It often seems to me that the work of examining our psychological and 
sociological proclivities and changing them as best we can with whatever 
tools are available has hardly begun.  I don't believe we can or should 
wait for genetic engineering or even enlightenment about some drugs.  
Some of the work is personal and psychological, some inter-personal.   
One thing some spiritual practices do have is some awareness of these 
levels and tools for the self and group work.  A set of such tools clean 
of religious aspects would be useful.
>   
>>> As i said, if anyone can play the devils advocate and successfully 
>>> convince me why it _wont work_ or why I shouldn't go through with it I 
>>> would be grateful also, as I could stop spending a such ridiculous 
>>> amount of time on a maniac project that is exceedingly likely to fail 
>>> at any rate.
>>>       
>> I think the few of us who are relatively awake and capable among all the 
>> world's billions are likely to accomplish far more if we see as clearly 
>> as we can where we want to go and build the technological (and perhaps 
>> cultural even political) tools for at least some of us to get there.  I 
>> don't think any scheme to inspire or convert or persuade any large 
>> portion of the masses is going to work at this point.
>>
>> I rather liked believing [in the past] that it could though.
>>     
>
> Even though that's rather strongly stated---and with more than a hint of
> elitism---I have to say that nothing in particular is wrong with it, and like
> the above has been stated very succinctly and very well.
>
>   
Sometimes it is easy to forget that we here are a rather rarefied 
sampling of the population.   The vast majority of the people in the 
world are not that much like us in some critical aspects including level 
of intelligence.  Contemplate the normal distribution and your place 
upon it.   Changes, especially large intellectual and cultural changes, 
come from the few, from an elite defined at least by those who see, 
understand and embrace the change.   Hiding from acknowledging that that 
is the case seems to me  unfruitful.    People are not all the same.    
We all know that, right? 

- samantha