[ExI] A science-religious experience

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Jason, you seem to be making a lot of effort to use the word 'religion' to
> refer to things that most people wouldn't consider to be religion.
>

I use the word generally, to refer to any person's set of beliefs. Anything
less than such broad generalization would be to impose my own biases on how
other people's belief systems should be labeled.
And as to the word "belief," I again use a broad definition for it, as
found in the first sense of the word "believe" in the dictionary:
"to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of
something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so."

You are free to use the word "religion" in a different way, to refer only
to those ideas you deem to be false, supernatural, or fantasy.

But I, personally, think it is better to refine our concepts than to throw
out words.

Consider that the scientific conception of the word "energy" for instance,
has undergone vast revision throughout its history of use, but we never
threw out the word. Rather, we kept the word and revised our conception of
energy.

Likewise, rather than throw out a word like "soul", when science provides
us a means to revise and improve our conception of it (as say,
functionalists or computationalist theories of mind allow us to do), then
we ought to improve our conceptions, rather than stamp out the words.

In any case, this seems to be the more natural course that language takes,
regardless of what we wish, so rather than fight it, embrace it. These
words, for better or worse, will continue to exist in the lexicon. But new
ideas and concepts arise all the time, and supplant old conceptions.


>
> You can define the word however you like, but that doesn't mean anyone has
> to agree with you.
>

Of course, I never attempted to impose word use on anyone else. I said I
have no issue with you instead calling it your "personal philosophy".


> All the sources I've looked at define religion to be related to
> supernatural powers (like gods),
>

Buddhism and Shinto generally are considered to not have gods, yet they are
called religions.


> and people's belief in them. As far as I can determine, 'the supernatural'
> does not, and cannot, exist.
>

It depends. For example, consider if there are other universes in a
multiverse. Are these supernatural or not?

If there are other universes, then we must either expand the definition of
natural to include universes that operate according to other natural laws,
or we must admit there are supernatural things in reality.
And consider, if all logically possible universes exist, and we choose to
expand the definition of natural to include them, then the meaning of
"natural" is reduced to mean only "that which is logically possible."

Under such a definition, I am in full agreement with you, that supernatural
things cannot exist.



> The word means 'outside nature', and nature encompasses everything that
> actually exists. So religion is primarily about stuff that doesn't exist.
> The supernatural can make for good entertainment (depending on the writer),
> but that's all.
>

How do you define nature? If you say it is all things that exist, then I
ask: how do you define reality? (How big and encompassing is it in your
ontology?)


>
> For things that actually do exist, I think it just makes sense to avoid
> conflating them with things that don't. So we should use different words to
> label them.
>

If only it were so easy to know what does and doesn't exist.


>
> That's why I disagree with using the word to refer to things like systems
> of ethics, philosophy, personal values etc. I just think we should maintain
> a distiction between reality and fantasy.
>

How do you decide what is real?


>
> I agree that there are some good ideas that feature in some religions, and
> there may be some useful things to be learned from studying them. Just as
> there are some useful things to be learned from studying, say, Mein Kampf
> (though I acknowledge that many people might struggle to find them). But
> those good ideas and useful things aren't exclusive to religions, and can
> be found in other places too. My re-writing of the 10 commandments
> illustrates that. The only valid items in it are to be found all over the
> world, in non-religious contexts. The rest is just scare-mongering and
> insecurity.
>

Regardless of an idea's origin, we can use science and rationality to
explore, test, evaluate, it, possibly discarding it, or possibly refinding
it into a new form that we judge to be closer to truth.


>
> Another objection is that using the word to refer to things that,
> certainly in my opinion, have nothing to do with it, plays into the hands
> of religious apologists who seize on any excuse to claim "Aha! See? you DO
> believe something!/have a religion/faith".
>

I'm not trying to trap you, nor define you.


> So I don't say things like "I believe the scientific method is the best
> tool for understanding the world we have discoverd so far", because I don't
> trust anyone to understand that this use of the word 'believe' is a totally
> different thing from what someone means when they say "I believe in
> Inanna!" (or whatever their chosen local deity is).
>

The word believe means the same thing in both contexts, it is only the
object of belief that differs. If we are honest with ourselves, we all have
beliefs, whether they are in science as a method for finding the truth, or
in Inanna.


>
> Using the words 'religion', 'faith', 'belief' for things like value
> system, philosophy, feelings of awe, etc., is stamping them as belonging to
> the realm of the supernatural, which, at least for me, degrades them.
>

This is a connotation you are ascribing, (incorrectly, in my opinion).
Einstein spoke of his "cosmic religious feeling" when he contemplated the
universe, but he never introduced anything supernatural into it.


> I want to be able to marvel at the milky way without someone tainting the
> experience with their favourite supernatural fantasy.
>

You are free to do so. I am not trying to taint your experience with any
supernatural fantasies. I, (I think like you), am only interested in pusing
what is true.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250226/d5290649/attachment.htm>