[ExI] A science-religious experience

Fri Feb 28 14:34:03 UTC 2025

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 4:58 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> On 27/02/2025 20:36, Jason Resch wrote:.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Well, I wouldn't be surprised if some religious ideas are, purely by
> accident, correct, natural and real.
>
My main point refers to dogmatism. That's what enables the inclusion of the
> supernatural.
>

I think it helps here to define terms:

- supernatural: that which is or operates beyond natural laws
- dogma: an unshakable, unquestionable belief

While the two often go together, I think they can be independent. Someone
might see a ghost and believe in the supernatural but not be dogmatic in
their belief, perhaps they could be convinced they saw a shadow, for
example.

Likewise someone can be dogmatic in a belief that is not supernatural, such
as a dogmatic belief in materialism, or in biological naturalism (only
neurons can be conscious).

If religions weren't dogmatic, there would be no problem in questioning
> them, putting their claims to the test. Religions either outright reject
> (often with hostility) attempts to rationally analyse their claims, or
> claim things that simply can't be proved or disproved, or subjected to
> logical analysis.
>

I might suggest viewing the the various scriptures (the books) as separate
from the priests and adherents (the people).

It is only from people that you can receive any hostility, never the books,
which are inanimate collections of ideas. Some of these ideas may be true
or false, but all ideas can be tested.

> The biggest difference, I think, between science and religion is that
> science encourages asking questions, even mandates it, but religion forbids
> it, or at least strongly discourages it.
>

Not every religion is like this, nor needs to be like this. My own personal
religion is not like that, Einstein's religion was not like that, not is
even every organized religion like that.

Consider, for example, this quote from a leader 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."

I think your real contention is not with religion, but with superstition
and dogma. On this we are in full agreement.

I believe fully in what Sagan says here:

[Science] 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
areworthless.
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.

One can have revisable beliefs informed by the tool of science. "Having
beliefs" is not what is in conflict with science, it is only "having
beliefs one refuses to revise" (dogma) that is in conflict with science.

>
> 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.
>
>
> Which leads exactly to the kind of problems I've encountered, where I
> might be using the word to refer to the mind, or a dynamic pattern of
> information-processing subject to natural laws, and the person I'm talking
> to hears their own version of 'immortal soul, not subject to natural laws'.
>

What I think I can show, is that many (perhaps even most) ideas people have
about the soul can be explained and shown to be consistent with, fully
naturalistic and scientific accounts of the world. This is the core thesis
of my book "The Science of the Soul".

The traditional religious version of the word is almost ubiquitous in the
> western world, so I use the word at my peril. Rather than use the revised,
> rational version of the word, I'm pretty much forced to just say 'I don't
> believe in souls'.
>

Here too, I think I could change your mind on this, by showing how fully
rational and naturalistic conceptions of the world contains things that
have most of the properties and abilities ascribed to souls.

I'd be all for improving our conceptions of the word, and happily use it,
> but that's just not going to work, as long as there are still billions of
> people who use it in the traditional way.
>

Are you willing to update your conceptions in the face of new scientific
evidence?

>
> 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.
>
>
> Buddhism is more a philosophical system than a religion (although the
> concept of reincarnation complicates things),
>

Reincarnation is both logically and physically possible according to
standards theories of physics and consciousness. I could explain this to
you if you are curious, or I could recommend the book:

"Zen Physics: The Science of Death, the Logic of Reincarnation"

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Zen_Physics/C0HW0PQqIeIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

So if reincarnation need not be a supernatural phenomenon, does that make
Buddhism into a philosophical system, rather than a religion in your view?

(In my view, I would view it as a religion in either case, as I don't think
belief in the supernatural is a requirement to be a religion).

and Shinto has a supernatural concept of souls.
>

Shinto sees a soul in everything. This is not unlike panpsychism which is a
mostly respected position in philosophy of mind. Yet no one accuses the
panpsychism as a belief in the supernatural, yet it has an essentially
identical world view as Shintoism.

>
>
>> 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?
>
>
> No.
> Not only do they not contradict the known laws of nature, the idea of a
> multiverse is derived from and supported by, science. The fact that some
> people think it's correct and some don't has nothing to do with whether the
> idea is supernatural.
>

Okay thanks for this clarification.

>
> 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.
>
>
> Ah, I see. The thing is, other universes, with their own physical laws,
> will be self-consistent. If somehow, those other physical laws could be
> imported into our universe, they might well appear to be supernatural. But
> within their own universe, they aren't.
>

Okay then we agree that conforming to natural laws refers to a system being
self consistent with itself. In other words, a natural system is
self-consistent, or (logically consistent) and free from contradiction.

>
>
>> 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?)
>
>
> I don't know what that actually means. I've never understood what the word
> 'ontology' is supposed to mean.
>

It refers to a branch of philosophy concerned with what exists and why. To
give a flavor, here are some common examples of different ontological
systems:

Solipsism - (the smallest ontology, a belief in only the existence of ones
ken conscious state, all else being non-real and illusory)

Idealism - (a slightly larger ontology, which includes a belief in the
conscious states of mothers, but accepting only the existence of
consciousness, the material world still being an illusion created by
consciousness)

Materialism - (a still expanded ontology, which ascribes reality to the
material universe, there is not only states of consciousness but atoms, and
particles, and a larger universe)

Platonism - (a larger ontology still, including all logically possible,
self-consistent universes and structures, not just the universe we are in)

I can only answer the question 'how do you define reality?' with 'what is,
> as opposed to what is not'. That excludes things that are logically
> impossible, of course (which defines a lot of, but not all, religious
> ideas), but also other things that, as far as anybody knows, don't exist.
>
> One thing that should be emphasised, I think, is the difference between
> concepts in minds and instantiations of those concepts (see my earlier
> remark about the existence of gods). We can conceive of impossible things,
> or just nonexistent things, and the concepts can be regarded as things, but
> they aren't the same as the things that the concepts are of. 'The map is
> not the territory'.
>

Under a single-universe materialism the map is not the territory, but under
platonism, all logically consistent maps, map to what are a real
territories "out there somewhere".

>
>> 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.
>
>
> It's not always easy, no, but some things are. I have a high level of
> confidence that the traditional monotheistic gods don't exist (note that
> this isn't the same as 'I believe they don't exist'!)
>

Many conceptions may contain internal inconsistencies, which rules out
their existence. But if one subscribes to platonism, then logically
consistent conceptions of god exist (somewhere, not necessarily in this
universe).

>
> 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.
>
>
> I don't understand how you can say that.
>
> If you don't understand, or won't acknowledge, the vast gulf between a
> scientific mindset that demands evidence and expects change, and a
> religious one that rejects evidence amd refuses to change, I really don't
> know what else I can say.
>

I think you misread me. Of course there is a difference between a belief in
science as a method and the belief in the existence of Inanna.

Likewise there is a difference in meaning between "He killed a mosquito."
And "He killed a human."

The meaning of these sentences differ greatly, because of the object of the
verb is different.

Yet, the verb "kill" means the same thing in both sentences. That is what I
mean when I say the word "believe" means the same thing, but of course when
the object of the verb changes, the meaning of the sentence changes.

To "believe" means to "have confidence in." One can have confidence in the
utility of science as a method to find the truth, or one can have
confidence in the existence of Ianna.

This is what I mean when I said the word has the same meaning. So my point
was that so long as there is any thing or idea someone has confidence in,
then they have beliefs.

> Using the word 'belief' in both of these contexts is just a recipe for
> confusion and conflation. Maintaining that it means the same thing in each
> context is, well, the phrase 'beyond belief' springs to mind.
>

You recognize a difference between beliefs and dogma. Let's use dogma to
refer to unshakable beliefs.

Unless you prefer to suggest some awkward phrase like "have confidence in"
or "thinks is true", etc. to replace the word "believe", as I did with
Daniel.

> 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.
>
>
> Maybe Einstein didn't mean the same thing that priests would mean by the
> word, but using it is inviting them to claim justification for their
> vicious nonsense. Maybe he should have just said 'awe'.
>

Another way to look at it: let's not lend the priests any more power by
letting them police our word choices. Instead, let us reclaim language and
imbue words with the meanings we see most appropriate.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250228/16eefdd1/attachment-0001.htm>