[ExI] A science-religious experience
efc at disroot.org
efc at disroot.org
Thu Feb 20 16:58:02 UTC 2025
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 11:00 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: The meta-level question is why humans
> have religions at all.
>
>
> Religions are just collections of ideas/beliefs.
Hello Jason, I wouldn't be so quick to equate ideas with beliefs. Just to give
you an example:
An idea is a mental concept or a thought that can be considered, evaluated, and
possibly developed or discarded. It is a neutral, objective representation of a
thought or a notion that can be examined, analyzed, and refined. Ideas can be
creative, innovative, or simply a product of mental exploration. They can be
based on facts, observations, or imagination, and they may or may not be
supported by evidence.
On the other hand, a belief is a mental acceptance or conviction that something
is true, often accompanied by a sense of certainty or faith. Beliefs can be
based on ideas, but they also involve an emotional or personal commitment to the
idea. Beliefs can be influenced by various factors, such as personal
experiences, cultural background, education, or social environment. Unlike
ideas, beliefs can be more rigid and less open to change, as they are often
closely tied to a person's values, identity, or worldview.
To illustrate the difference, consider the following example: "The Earth is
round" can be both an idea and a belief. As an idea, it is a mental concept that
can be examined, supported by evidence, and accepted or rejected based on
scientific findings. As a belief, it becomes a conviction that the Earth is
indeed round, often accompanied by a sense of certainty and trust in the
scientific consensus. While the idea can be neutral and open to scrutiny, the
belief is a more personal and emotional acceptance of the concept.
> One needs beliefs to operate rationally in the world. To decide and set goals
Are you sure? What about computers and robots?
> for what one should try to optimize for in their life or for the greater
> world. To act, according to the belief, while not being able to prove, that
> other humans are conscious, or that unnecessary suffering is bad and should be
> avoided when possible. etc. Without beliefs such as these there is no rational
> basis for any goal.
Rational goals and values can be based on pleasure for instance. Granted, you
could say that this implies my belief that pleasure is good, but a biologist
could counter with that we are hardwired as biological beings to seek out
pleasure, and not because we believe pleasure to be good. We experience pleasure
to be good. Based on that, we can live rationally, based on ideas which we think
might increase our level of pleasure.
Likewise, choosing life as a foundation for operating rationally in the world,
could be said to emanate from the will to live, which biology has coded into us.
Note however... that this most certainly does _not_ exclude basing ones values
and purpose in life on transcendent beliefs such as god. That is also a
perfectly viable way to live ones life.
> Note that science never offers beliefs, nor does it proscribe any goals.
> Beliefs must be acted upon with a presumption that they are true. Science can
> provide evidence, but never justifies the acceptance of a belief as true.
This is the truth. It is a method, and ideally, is therefore not able to
proscribe any goals. It can only be used as a tool. Be that to bring us closer
to the kingdom of god (a goal rooted in belif) or to enhance life, or to enhance
pleasure (goals rooted in the biological organism) or to procreate etc.
> The most rational person sees science as a tool to refine one's religion, as a
> never ending pursuit of truth.
I do not see science as a tool to refine my religion. I have no religion. I have
ideas about values, that are to some extent rooted in pleasure, as in long-term
contentment (let me just add to avoid common misconceptions of hedonism).
Science for me, is a tool that can help us promote this goal, and ideally, do
that for as many people as possible.
> As Einstein put it: "Science without religion is lame, religion without
> science is blind."
I don't understand this.
Best regards,
Daniel
> Jason
>
>
> I think I know, but it is almost impossible for most people to understand.
>
> Humans seem to have a bias against too much insight.
>
> Keith
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:43 AM efc--- via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:05 PM BillK via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:32, Darin Sunley via extropy-chat
> > > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > " This offers a solution to the problem of evil. Infinite computational gods can't destroy or change what is
> out there
> > > already, but they can provide continuation paths (afterlives) for those beings after they cease to exist in
> their
> > > universe."
> > > >
> > > > This is the most elegant argument for deism I've ever heard.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:10 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > > >> Computational capacity provides only the power to explore and create (or rather, rediscover what already is
> in the
> > > infinite reality). Computational capacity doesn't enable one to destroy other universes which already are.
> > > >>
> > > >> This offers a solution to the problem of evil. Infinite computational gods can't destroy or change what is
> out there
> > > already, but they can provide continuation paths (afterlives) for those beings after they cease to exist in
> their
> > > universe.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jason
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but it's a pity that Gods don't exist.
> > > It’s a divine evasion for the gods. ‘Don’t hold us accountable for
> > > engineering suffering in the first place! We’ll compensate by granting
> > > you paradise once you’re dead.’ What a generous bargain!
> > >
> > >
> > > What can complicate these discussions is that there are two kinds of things here, each of which has variously been
> called "god" by
> > > different religions in different contexts:
> > >
> > > 1. All of Reality (e.g. Nirguna Brahman, Divine Ground of Being, God the Father) - that which is responsible for the
> existence of all
> > > universes (e.g., the set of all program executions existing in arithmetical truth)
> > > 2. The Great Programmer(s) (e.g. Saguna Brahman, Demigods, Personal Gods, The Simulators, God the Son) - are
> omnipotent over their
> > > creations (e.g. their computer simulations over which the programmer has complete access and control)
> > >
> > > It's been said that the material universe is where God has lost control:
> > >
> > > "Matter is the border of the universal mind of the universal person that the universal (Turing) machine can't avoid
> to bet on when
> > > looking inward and intuiting the gap between proofs and truth.
> > > This entails two processes: the emanation of God into Souls and Matter, and the conversion of the Souls, using Matter
> to come back to
> > > God (which is a sort of universal soul attractor)."
> > > -- Bruno Marchal
> > >
> > > So if you are looking for who to blame for evil, it would be the "type 1" God which you can equate with all of
> reality -- a reality
> > > that is infinite and comprehensive, and necessitates that all possible universes exist. There is much evidence for
> this type of
> > > reality, it can be proven constructively by anyone who presumes arithmetical truths like "2+2=4" exist independently
> of the minds who
> > > think them or material particles that instantiate them.
> > >
> > > Type "type 2" personal gods have their own will and discretion regarding what universes to simulate, how to engineer
> afterlives,
> > > which beings to save, etc. But they can no more override what exists in all of reality, any more than they could
> delete the fact that
> > > 2+2=4.
> > >
> > > You could poetically say God's omnipotence doesn't override his omniscience. There is no power to forget for a mind
> that knows
> > > everything, including the knowledge of what it is like to be any of the beings that suffer or experience evil.
> Moreover, for the type
> > > 2 gods to find the beings to save, they must still simulate the universes where bad things happen. You, in your
> current state (as
> > > well as everyone in our future lightcone) wouldn't exist if WW2 didn't happen, we either would never have been born
> or would have a
> > > brain with different memories. So would it be better for WW2 to have never happened, if it meant the non-existence of
> everyone who
> > > now lives, and and will live in the future of the history of life on earth? Remember the set of all universes
> contains all possible
> > > histories of the multiverse, so the people in the WW2-happened-branch exist along with the WW2-never-happened-branch.
> The naive
> > > approach to addressing the problem of evil is to prevent bad things from happening, but note that in so doing,
> requires wiping out
> > > all the inhabitants of any universe-branch where something unfortunate happened. Does the goodness of all those
> people in that
> > > universe outweigh that one unfortunate thing to be avoided? The question becomes more complicated under the light of
> the true cost of
> > > correcting an evil.
> > >
> > > Jason
> >
> > Another way is to deny the existence of objective email, and affirm our
> > opinion about events. Sometimes our opinions align, sometimes the opinions
> > of the majority align, sometimes the opinion changes. At the end of the
> > day, we have particles, which is not something you can read "evil" into._______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list