[extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet
sjatkins at mac.com
Fri Jan 27 03:13:02 UTC 2006
On Jan 26, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:
> Mind you, I support the idea of "intelligent design" -- but it
> would be *rational* intelligent design with testable hypotheses.
> Of interest might be  which documents the billions of adherents
> for various religions, many of which have fundamental problems
> because they are built on foundations which include arbitrary and/
> or irrational assumptions. This isn't a small problem and
> represents a fundamental problem for extropianism and transhumanism
> in general. It would be interesting to know what fraction of
> "wars" that took place over the history of humanity were due to
> conflicts of belief systems ( i.e. faith based motivations) rather
> than conflicts of resource availability (i.e. survival based
> motivations). The crusades and of course the various Israeli vs.
> Arab conflicts come to mind. I ask this because if even a small
> fraction of those "faith-based" thought machines come to the
> conclusion that transhumanistic ideas (or even science in general)
> represent a growing threat to their cherished belief systems then
> you can kiss the singularity goodbye.
How come? The Crusades and various Israel-Arab conflicts were paltry
little affairs compared to the major wars of the last century. The
historical record doesn't make your case. Now, if we decide to
declare an all out conflict targeted at one or more major religions,
that would be a dangerous and foolish thing to do. Let's not go there.
More information about the extropy-chat