From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Sep 16 2001 - 16:19:50 MDT
Robert,
Thank you for this well reasoned piece regarding religion. It
largely maps to what I have seen and experienced. I will add,
however, that in my experience it is very difficult to hold a
well-integrated (non compartmentalized) religious belief system
and still function very extropically. In particular, it is all
too easy to go on "spiritual intuition" and what one wishes were
true and try to lift oneself up by the metaphorical/metaphysical
bootstraps. This can often result in becoming a bit separate
from the "real world" or maybe "simulation" and not so very
effective therein.
Now, if this is indeed a simulation, then not being so effective
in the simulation but actually finding (assuming this is
possible for now) what is behind the simulation, would be quite
reasonable. But if this is not a simulation and one is busy
trying to find what does not exist then it is likely that this
life is wasted and perhaps others around you are led to waste
their lives in such a manner also. If this is a simulation and
we treat it as real and it is possible to do a "Thirteenth
Floor" and create a simulation within the simulation then I
would think that would "graduate" us faster than attempting to
"pierce the veil" using mystical practices and such.
In the realm of values and particularly in the realm of
psychological/spiritual techniques for stepping out of being
bound by our evolutionary wiring to some extent, I believe
religion/spirituality has a tremendous amount to teach. That
sort of stuff will be increasingly important as our powers and
environment go increasingly beyond what our biological wiring
was designed for. I believe it also has much to offer in binding
together groups of people and in practical memetic engineering.
But I will be the first to acknowledge, from my own experiences,
that it is can also be quite dangerous. It is especially
dangerous for those who, like me, do not compartmentalize well,
if at all.
- samantha
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> 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 - 08:10:43 MST