[ExI] No gods, no meaning?

Sat Apr 25 04:58:24 UTC 2020

You picked out the one part of his response that didn't completely destroy
your own argument, and singled it out.  Jason--they do that here.  Express
unpopular views at your own risk.  William--mind replying to the other
parts?

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 19:37 William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200425/27ff3012/attachment.htm>