<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/02/2025 20:36, Jason Resch wrote:.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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. My main point refers to
dogmatism. That's what enables the inclusion of the supernatural. 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>
<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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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'. 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'. 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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><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), and Shinto has a
supernatural concept of souls.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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>
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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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'!) <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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>
<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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.37.1740688606.18427.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<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>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben</pre>
</body>
</html>