<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
On 19/04/2020 19:46, billw wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.46.1587321974.666.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Empiricism is
science and its methods and belief has no place in it. We don't
believe in Darwin's ideas: we follow them because they are the
best at predicting and explaining phenomena we study. Empirical
facts like the finches.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">There is no way a
person who is basically an empiricist and another who uses
authoritarianism and intuition, to have a debate. They are
accepting things based on entirely different criteria and so are
talking at cross purposes.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thank you, bill w, for putting much more clearly and concisely than
I've been able to do, why religion and transhumanism are not
compatible.<br>
<br>
This doesn't mean that a religious person can't also be a
transhumanist, or vice-versa, but just as with the civil engineer
that Spike was talking about, they are going to have two
incompatible world-views going on (assuming that 'religious' and
'transhumanist' keep their normal meanings, as I've discussed
before), and just like Spike, I can't really imagine what kind of
mental gymnastics you'd have to go through to sustain that and not
go crazy. In fact, I suspect that 'crazy' is really the only
sensible way to describe such a person.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben Zaiboc</pre>
</body>
</html>