<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 4:58 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<br>
<div>On 27/02/2025 20:36, Jason Resch wrote:.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at
12:03 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> 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.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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:<br>
</div>
<div>"to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the
reliability of something, although without absolute proof that
one is right in doing so."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if some religious ideas are, purely by
accident, correct, natural and real.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>My main point refers to
dogmatism. That's what enables the inclusion of the supernatural.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think it helps here to define terms:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">- supernatural: that which is or operates beyond natural laws</div><div dir="auto">- dogma: an unshakable, unquestionable belief</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> 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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I might suggest viewing the the various scriptures (the books) as separate from the priests and adherents (the people).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Consider, for example, this quote from a leader of the Bahai Faith:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"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."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think your real contention is not with religion, but with superstition and dogma. On this we are in full agreement.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I believe fully in what Sagan says here:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">[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.</div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But I, personally, think it is better to refine our
concepts than to throw out words.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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'.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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".</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> 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'.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> 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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Are you willing to update your conceptions in the face of new scientific evidence?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> All the sources I've looked at define religion to be
related to supernatural powers (like gods),</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Buddhism and Shinto generally are considered to not have
gods, yet they are called religions.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Buddhism is more a philosophical system than a religion (although
the concept of reincarnation complicates things),</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"Zen Physics: The Science of Death, the Logic of Reincarnation"</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Zen_Physics/C0HW0PQqIeIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover">https://www.google.com/books/edition/Zen_Physics/C0HW0PQqIeIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So if reincarnation need not be a supernatural phenomenon, does that make Buddhism into a philosophical system, rather than a religion in your view?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(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).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> and Shinto has a
supernatural concept of souls.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> and people's belief in them. As far as I can determine,
'the supernatural' does not, and cannot, exist.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It depends. For example, consider if there are other
universes in a multiverse. Are these supernatural or not?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No.<br>
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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Okay thanks for this clarification.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> 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.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't know what that actually means. I've never understood what
the word 'ontology' is supposed to mean.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Solipsism - (the smallest ontology, a belief in only the existence of ones ken conscious state, all else being non-real and illusory)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Platonism - (a larger ontology still, including all logically possible, self-consistent universes and structures, not just the universe we are in)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
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.<br>
<br>
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'.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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".</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> <br>
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.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If only it were so easy to know what does and doesn't
exist.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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'!)</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>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 <strike>chosen</strike>
local deity is).<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't understand how you can say that.<br>
<br>
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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Likewise there is a difference in meaning between "He killed a mosquito." And "He killed a human."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The meaning of these sentences differ greatly, because of the object of the verb is different.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You recognize a difference between beliefs and dogma. Let's use dogma to refer to unshakable beliefs.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> 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.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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'.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div></div>