From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Sep 16 2001 - 09:22:06 MDT
J. R. wrote:
> Religionism is a brain disease which precludes concern about consequences
> in the real world, as the suicidal hijacking zealots' actions prove.
and
> We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
> regressive force now operating in society.
I think I'll argue that "religion" is a suitcase term.
religion: 1. belief in and worhip of God or gods; 2. a specific system
of belief or worship, etc. built around God, a code of ethics, a philosophy
of life, etc.
There is nothing wrong with having a "religion" that is based on a system
of beliefs that can be rationally justified or one that openly acknowledges
its inability to be rationally justified. For example a religion of worshiping
"God", the creator of the simulation, seems perfectly reasonable to me
if it also acknowledges that there is no way of knowing whether or not we
are in a simulation. It might marginally increase ones chances of getting
uplifted out of the simulation and so being a member of the "Church of
the Simulation" be argued as a rationally wise life strategy. The fundamental
problem is that most religions breed lazy minds. You "believe" the moral
system and history offered by the religion and do not subject it to critical
(rational) analysis. The problem is not the "beliefs" but how one comes
to believe them.
The basic principles of most religions result in behavioral axioms
that we know are extropic -- thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not kill,
do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc. These fundamental
principles are extropic because they generate trust for fellow humans
which allows us to interact in ways that are more efficient from a game
theoretic perspective.
The useless hypothesis here is not "religion" per se. It is irrational
faith or faith based on a lack of evidence that does not openly acknowledge
such lack of evidence.
The extropic perspective should not be to dump on "religion" per se.
The extropic perspective would be to open the minds of people to the
variety of religions that may be equally valid and in so doing perhaps
discover the core set of values and perspectives that uplift humanity
as a whole.
As Charlie's excellent essay points out, the Islamic preservation of large
amounts of "Western" knowledge contributed greatly to the reformation
and uplifting of Western society from the Dark Ages to what we have today.
Likewise, the copying of many Greek and Latin books by monks during the
Dark Ages preserved a heritage that might otherwise have been lost.
Religion is not the problem. It is blind acceptance of a religion that
is.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:42 MST