[ExI] No gods, no meaning?

Fri Apr 24 23:34:43 UTC 2020

To presume the supernatural is not real is to assume we currently possesses
a complete understanding of nature, which I am sure we don't have

This is a non sequitur and hence false.  bill w

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:31 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2020 18:16, Jason Resch wrote:
>> Various things.
>>
>>
>> The problem is, the very nature of religion is about control, not
>> figuring things out.
>>
>
> I would say that depends on the religion. What about Bahai Faith
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith#Summary>, Unitarian
> Universalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism>, the Universal Life
> Church <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church>, and
> countless others?
>
>
>> Religions are about prescriptions and proscriptions. You have to do this,
>> you can't do that. You must believe this, you can't question that. That's
>> one problem, rather. Another one is that science is about *finding out*.
>> Religion is about *believing*.
>>
>
> In my view, both religion and science are about believing. You can say
> religion is the set of beliefs one holds. Science is a tool by which we can
> refine, deepen and correct errors in our beliefs.
>
>
>> In science, evidence is king. In religion, evidence is the enemy.
>>
>
> Again, this is highly dependent on the particular religion. Take these
> words, from the son of the founder of the Bahai Faith:
>
> "If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a
> religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings
> upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the
> human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone!
> Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly
> fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the
> wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the
> despairing slough of materialism."
>
>
> According to Carl Sagan,
>
> "[Science] works. It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool.
> But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing,
> applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred
> truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from
> authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts
> must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and
> not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. The obvious is sometimes
> false; the unexpected is sometimes true."
>
>
> Could we say that Carl Sagan's belief in science his "religion"? Why or
> why not? What elements of belief are necessary for something to be labeled
> a religion in your view?
>
> How does it square with what these scientists have said about the nature
> of the relation between religion and science?
>
> "Science and religion are both still close to their beginnings, with no
> ends in sight. Science and religion are both destined to grow and change in
> the millennia that lie ahead of us, perhaps solving some old mysteries,
> certainly discovering new mysteries of which we yet have no inkling."
> -- Freeman Dyson
>
> "Science can now offer precisely the consolations in facing death that
> religion once offered. Religion is now part of science." -- Frank Tippler
>
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --
> Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>
>>
>> You can say that the word 'god' can mean a lot of different things. Fine.
>> Sell that to the religious folks, see how far you get.
>>
>
> I don't need to. All of those examples of different concepts of God I
> provided are core elements of existing religions. Creator, Truth, Reality,
> and Consciousness, are the most common descriptions of God across most of
> the major religions today.  For example, just sticking to God as Truth, you
> find:
>
>
> *Judaism/Christianity:* “Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O
> LORD, the God of truth.” -- Psalm 31:5
> The mathematician Hilda Phoebe Hudson said “To all of us who hold the
> Christian belief that God is truth, anything that is true is a fact about
> God, and mathematics is a branch of theology.”
>
> *Islam*: "Al-Ḥaqq (The Truth, The Real)" -- One of the 99 names of God
> given in the Koran
> The Muslim polymath Ibn al-Haytham described his theology saying, “I
> constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for
> gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better
> way than that of searching for truth and knowledge.”
>
> *Hinduism*: "Parabrahmana (The Supreme Absolute Truth)" -- One of the 108
> names of Krishna
> “I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of
> the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being
> differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears
> as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth.” -- Hymn to the Absolute
> Truth in the Brahma Saṁhitā
> Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi said "If it is possible for the human tongue to
> give the fullest description of God, I have come to the conclusion that God
> is Truth.”
>
> *Sikhism*: “There is one creator, whose name is truth" -- The Mul Mantar
> (Root Mantra)
>
>
> These religions account for about half the world's population.  It shows
> that when you get past the fables and mythology, and into the theology of
> various religions, the concepts of God become much more nuanced. If you
> want more examples, such as the idea of God as a Creator or God as
> Consciousness, I can provide those as well.
>
>
>
>> All the things you mention might (or might not) be reasonable, but none
>> of them are any reason to worship, obey a set of commandments, or otherwise
>> bow down and accept unquestioningly what some priest or ancient book tells
>> you. And *that* is what religion is about.
>>
>
> That perhaps is what it is about to you and perhaps others. But it doesn't
> have to be that way. There are sets of beliefs compatible with science, and
> there are ways of believing that incorporate scientific understanding to
> evolve one's beliefs over time.
>
> I agree with you that a static belief system is not as good as one that
> can adapt in response to new evidence and understanding. I am not arguing
> for a static belief system, only pointing out that there are frameworks of
> belief (what you might call religious systems) that transcend the
> definition of religion that you provide.
>
> Interesting thought: Is Sagan's definition of science itself a static
> belief? How could it ever change?
>
>
>>
>> If you, or anyone else, wants to start a religion that's not about power
>> and control, doesn't assert that magic (the supernatural) is real,
>>
>
> To presume the supernatural is not real is to assume we currently
> possesses a complete understanding of nature, which I am sure we don't have.
>
>
>> that doesn't care who you have sex with or what you eat or wear, and
>> doesn't tell you that you must believe certain things without question,
>> great. Go ahead. I might even join it (of course, I'm already a member, on
>> account of being an Omnitheist :D ). But I'd have to ask, what makes it a
>> 'religion'?
>>
>
> A religion, in my definition, is just a set of beliefs. Perhaps more
> specifically, a set of basic or fundamental beliefs about reality.
>
>
>>
>> PS Please don't CC your replies to the list, to my email address. There's
>> no need, and it's annoying. Thanks.
>>
>
> My apologies.
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200424/cdbb663b/attachment.htm>