[ExI] A science-religious experience

Jason Resch jasonresch at gmail.com
Fri Feb 21 12:52:53 UTC 2025


On Fri, Feb 21, 2025, 12:44 AM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 8:35 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 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.
>
> Both are memes provided they make the jump from one mind to another.
> An idea or belief that is not passed on fails to meet the definition
> of a meme.  (A replicating information pattern.)
>
> > One needs beliefs to operate rationally in the world. To decide and set
> goals for what one should try to optimize for in their life or for the
> greater world.
>
> And what is the point of optimizing?  By the standards of evolutionary
> psychology, it is to survive and pass on your genes but also see
> Hamilton's inclusive fitness.
>
> > 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.
>
> A woman who has been violently captured from one tribe to another has
> no conscious goals.  (See the account of Patty Hearst.)  Her behavior
> is the result of low-level wired-in programming.  See
> https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Capture-bonding
>
> > 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.
>
> That's the ideal.  I was just today quoting a horror story about the
> belief of "scientist" John Money.
>
> https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case
>
> > The most rational person sees science as a tool to refine one's
> religion, as a never ending pursuit of truth.
>
> My worldview was reorganized in the early 2000s to incorporate
> evolutionary psychology.  In the view of that field, all human
> behavior has either been directly selected or is a side effect of
> something that was selected.  The human trait of being infected with
> religion is not an exception.  I don't think it was directly selected
> but is a side effect of selection for wars.  You may be able to find
> an argument for the trait of religious susceptibility directly
> improving genetic survival but the Children's Crusade shows the
> opposite.
>

You raise a number of interesting subjects. The interplay between genes and
memes, of survival biases driving psychological coping mechanisms, but I
will focus on what I think is the simplest explanation for why people have
false beliefs. I think it comes down to two principles:

1. Beliefs are useful
2. The truth is hard

I think most would accept those two premises. By beliefs, I simply mean
ideas that one bets are true enough to act on them. And by the truth being
hard, I mean there are generally many false hypotheses for every true
theory.

A direct consequence, however, is that due to the difficulty of finding,
discerning, recognizing, and accepting the truth (on any question or
matter), people will be susceptible to false beliefs.

As to the points you raise, this also includes false beliefs that
nevertheless can help genes propagate. But my point is even ignoring
evolutionary psychology, there's a reason that beings capable of rational
thought and actions will not always act according to true beliefs, even
when they are being 100% rational.


>
> > As Einstein put it: "Science without religion is lame, religion without
> science is blind."
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20250221/950f6c0f/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list