Vatican Sees Immortalism as Competing Philosophy
From the Pope's April 3rd ("Holy Saturday") address, via Aubrey:
An ancient Jewish legend from the apocryphal book “The life of Adam and Eve†recounts that, in his final illness, Adam sent his son Seth together with Eve into the region of Paradise to fetch the oil of mercy, so that he could be anointed with it and healed. The two of them went in search of the tree of life, and after much praying and weeping on their part, the Archangel Michael appeared to them, and told them they would not obtain the oil of the tree of mercy and that Adam would have to die. Later, Christian readers added a word of consolation to the Archangel’s message, to the effect that after 5,500 years the loving King, Christ, would come, the Son of God who would anoint all those who believe in him with the oil of his mercy. “The oil of mercy from eternity to eternity will be given to those who are reborn of water and the Holy Spirit. Then the Son of God, Christ, abounding in love, will descend into the depths of the earth and will lead your father into Paradise, to the tree of mercy.†This legend lays bare the whole of humanity’s anguish at the destiny of illness, pain and death that has been imposed upon us. Man’s resistance to death becomes evident: somewhere – people have constantly thought – there must be some cure for death. Sooner or later it should be possible to find the remedy not only for this or that illness, but for our ultimate destiny – for death itself. Surely the medicine of immortality must exist. Today too, the search for a source of healing continues. Modern medical science strives, if not exactly to exclude death, at least to eliminate as many as possible of its causes, to postpone it further and further, to prolong life more and more. But let us reflect for a moment: what would it really be like if we were to succeed, perhaps not in excluding death totally, but in postponing it indefinitely, in reaching an age of several hundred years? Would that be a good thing? Humanity would become extraordinarily old, there would be no more room for youth. Capacity for innovation would die, and endless life would be no paradise, if anything a condemnation. The true cure for death must be different. It cannot lead simply to an indefinite prolongation of this current life. It would have to transform our lives from within. It would need to create a new life within us, truly fit for eternity: it would need to transform us in such a way as not to come to an end with death, but only then to begin in fullness. What is new and exciting in the Christian message, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, was and is that we are told: yes indeed, this cure for death, this true medicine of immortality, does exist. It has been found. It is within our reach. In baptism, this medicine is given to us. A new life begins in us, a life that matures in faith and is not extinguished by the death of the old life, but is only then fully revealed.
It's been more than 5,500 years, and God never showed up, so now what? In fact, it's been 200,000 years since the beginning of Mankind. God, maybe you're a little bit late, don't you think? Also, note how the Pope casually mentions Christian readers "(adding) a word of consolation" about an Archangel to the text, and refers to Apocrypha as theologically meaningful. Does making stuff up count as theologically significant if it was done far enough in the past?
The Pope asks, "Would that be a good thing?", in reference to living hundreds of years. Well, the average human lifespan used to be around 20, and now it's roughly four times longer, so is that a good thing? Why do people have to live so long? Why does your criticism of hundreds of years of life not apply to today's elderly folks?
The Pope says, "Humanity would become extraordinarily old, there would be no more room for youth." This isn't so, because old people will modify their neurology to make it more fluid, like that of youth, in unprecedented combinations that retain executive maturity while allowing youthful creativity and flow. If we can heal neural aging, then it will only be a matter of time before we can heal the neural rigidity that causes fluid intelligence to decline after roughly the age of 30.
Never mind a brain with a hundred billions neurons, like we have now -- we ought to have brains with tens of trillions of neurons, not necessarily even in the same place. Once we expand and distribute our cognitive architectures, our lives really will be eternal, unless we are pursued by those with the ability to truly snuff out every branch of our mental tree.
The Pope says, "Capacity for innovation would die, and endless life would be no paradise", but wasn't that the idea behind the imaginary Paradise that you believe in? Wouldn't God grant us endless life? Why would we retain our capacity for innovation in Heaven but not on Earth? I suppose that Catholics believe that God will magically restore our capacity for innovation if we make it to Heaven, but why do you believe that magic can do it and science never can? The Bible barely even says anything about Heaven -- for all we know, references to being closer to God after death are probably entirely metaphorical. The detailed descriptions of New Jerusalem are a joke, obviously made up by Bronze Age writers with Bronze Age beliefs. Does God really think that a city of gold would impress people in the 21st century? No, because God has never communicated with humanity outside from delusional human beings today and delusional human beings from the past whose stories got transcribed into "sacred texts".
The Pope says, "Man’s resistance to death becomes evident: somewhere – people have constantly thought – there must be some cure for death." He expresses uncertainty because he doesn't want to say outright that indefinite life extension is possible, but he implicitly acknowledges that life extension into centuries is possible. I'm tired of accusations that mix together incredulity with a moral response -- if the technology isn't feasible, then it doesn't deserve a moral response. If it is feasible, then it deserves a stronger moral response, immediately.
The Pope reveals Christian deathism when he says, "A new life begins in us, a life that matures in faith and is not extinguished by the death of the old life, but is only then fully revealed." Please then -- look forward to your death. A corpse is nothing but worm-food, unfortunately. When the neurons stop firing and start being consumed by bacteria, you die forever. Only a crude simulacra can ever be assembled thereafter.
Eternal life on Earth is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that life extension is a bad thing. We've been "creating life" for centuries by creating new plants and animals for agriculture. Why didn't the Church speak out against that? Because the Church is ultimately forced to approve what people want, and it has no guidance of its own, because God is nowhere to be seen, and his manifest absence makes communication quite difficult.
Even if God did exist, his lack of communication with us, and his alleged genocidal acts in the past, his threats of Hell condemn him as an evil being. If God did exist, we ought to defeat him. We need to grow up and make our own rules -- not depend on an invisible and silent Bronze Age Hebrew deity.
June 29th, 2010 - 22:21
So since I know you aren’t embarrassed by this so I am embarrassed for you. First your woeful ignorance of the christian faith gives you no room to criticize. I recommend that you inform yourself about the things you bash.
Second your ignorance of the topic of christian faith causes you to fall into the trap of the average irrational individual creating a straw-man.
June 30th, 2010 - 00:24
@b
No as someone raised a catholic his interpretation of “the faith” is quite accurate. Also when an objector hits the nail on the head a response like yours is typical.
June 30th, 2010 - 02:02
No. Michael’s ignorance as concerns the subject of religion is a problem. One doesn’t need to be an expert on a subject to decide they have no interest in it. But Michael frequently proselytizes on the subject of religion (especially Christianity) and if one is going to do that, it helps to know what one is talking about. Michael, however, almost always gets even the fundamentals glaringly wrong.
It is a major blind spot and is regrettably harmful to his credibility.
June 30th, 2010 - 02:04
Yes. There is no ignorance (unless you want to specifically point it out), just defensive and confused Christians. If you bother to write a comment saying I’m wrong, PLEASE SPECIFY EXACTLY HOW YOU THINK I AM WRONG. Why not just say, “I’m sufficiently brainwashed, primarily due to a feeling of solidarity with my family, to believe that Christianity is such a good thing that any criticism of it must surely be wrong.” That is the real answer.
Sometimes there is not even a “right” or “wrong” in interpreting religion, because each priest, school of thought, or community has a slightly different angle on a central dogma. The reason why there is so much confusion is that it is all a made-up fantasy to begin with.
June 30th, 2010 - 12:04
Michael, you have only bolstered my argument. You immediately assumed I am a Christian because I was critical of you. You then went even further, assuming to know WHY I am a Christian, if in fact I am, and used this presumption to ascribe motives to my criticism of you. Phew. That’s a lot of rationalizing in just a few sentences. I would hope for better from you, but know that (on any matter related to this subject, at least) I cannot. Your antipathy for religion allows you to relax your intellectual standards to a startling degree, and makes of almost every word an insight into your bias. Is that not ideology?
To give you some credit, the above post is actually a vast improvement on your previous anti religious efforts. I was very pleased to read this for example:
“The Bible barely even says anything about Heaven — for all we know, references to being closer to God after death are probably entirely metaphorical.”
That’s a great start. Though some of the post still strays toward caricature, you’re starting to grapple with nuance.
For a spectacular glimpse into just how wrong you can sometimes be, however, look through your archives for the post in which you numerically listed a number of your beliefs about what Christianity entails. It stirred up quite the debate in the comments if I recall, with many intelligent commenters expressing precisely how you were wrong on a number of key points. Your responses at the time were similarly defensive and prone to biased assumptions as is the above.
As to the point at hand, I am mostly unconcerned with the Pope’s comments. To my mind they merely mirror what I have heard coming from secular opponents to life extension for years. These are barely religious objections at all, and it is my opinion that we need not worry about any particularly aggressive push from the church against our efforts. In fact, we should be pleased that our progress is being acknowledged as it is. Far more dangerous is the complacency and disbelief that is currently slowing medical progress and costing lives through a lack of action. That’s a harder narrative to get excited about (no clear villain) but it is the thing that will kill us all if we let it.
June 30th, 2010 - 12:41
You’ll have to be more specific about which “christian faith” you are referring to. Is it the protestent or catholic? Reform, Orthodox, Angelican, Lutheran? Baptist, Pentacostal, megachurch, Episicapol, Church of England, Unitarian?
Perhaps instead of name calling you should refer to the specific points that he has wrong. Perhaps write an outline?
June 30th, 2010 - 13:27
After that long post by Mephistopheles, he is STILL too lazy to criticize any specific points in my post. That post in the past was just a general inquiry, it wasn’t meant to be a razor-sharp analysis. But that was back then, this is now.
June 30th, 2010 - 14:13
Not lazy at all. In fact I made the point that this current post is an improvement. Well done. :) The problem ‘b’ referred to, and that I acknowledged as real, is that your demonstrated ignorance of the Christian faith puts you in a position where any evaluation of matters pertaining to the culture and teachings of Christianity is going to be undermined.
I do not think this is at all controversial. If someone had repeatedly demonstrated that they were extremely ignorant of, say, chemistry (while at the same time expressing passionate opinions on the subject) don’t you think it would be appropriate to suggest that this gives them ‘no room to criticize’? Or to ‘recommend that (they) inform (themselves)’?
If, as you suggest, your previous posts do not reflect your current views, correct the record! Otherwise, why should any critique you offer of Christianity be taken seriously? Remember, ignorance you display now may still be floating around online in ten years time. You risk damaging your ability to be a force for positive change when you expose yourself in this way.
July 2nd, 2010 - 01:55
It’s extremely annoying to see you ignore requests to outline points of fact with which you disagree. I’m genuinely interested in your opinion further than “he’s not an expert, from whence his negativity?”
June 30th, 2010 - 00:08
This way lies madness( http://lesswrong.com/lw/xe/changing_emotions/ ). You can’t really do that while preserving what we value in our minds, not on human level, or not in a few centuries (which means at least that neurons won’t be the substrate by then, uploading will come earlier; and which also means that the sanity of our understanding of AGI is in trouble if it doesn’t come before that). You can’t easily modify a bird to fly as fast as Boeing 747, while not killing the bird, it requires actually understanding what you are doing.
June 30th, 2010 - 02:09
Vladimir, of course. Remember that I’m thoroughly familiar with all of the Less Wrong material and was aware of most of it before it was written.
Yes, we can gradually increase our neurons count while still retaining that which we value in our minds. I am not talking about an instantaneous upgrade, but an extended growth process. When I say “neurons”, what I actually mean is often “neurons or neuron-equivalents”. Of course one would have to know what they are doing. All of the above is pretty obvious.
June 30th, 2010 - 03:25
Michael: I don’t see how “gradual change” addresses the problem of the extreme difficulty in making the change correctly. If you don’t have a plan for doing it correctly, you will lose the value, and whether instantaneously or gradually makes no difference. Marking the change “gradual” doesn’t change the nature of the game, doesn’t make the possibility of finding the right solution any closer, and so doesn’t quality as an argument of any strength.
No, you can’t gradually increase the neuron count from hundred billion to ten trillion and still retain the qualities we value, not if you don’t know how exactly that is to be done and why that works. Making the change gradual is effective at making the evaluation of success difficult, at obscuring the quality of result, and it works the same way in the mind when you plan for the change. But it seems to be largely a painkiller for the fear of change (status quo bias), and not at all a panacea it feels to be (even though likely not consciously admitted as such).
June 30th, 2010 - 03:30
Not at all. The paragraph I quoted sounds exactly like the mindless transhumanist cheerleading I’m sure you despise. It’s not intended as such, and some won’t see it is such, but your target audience includes many people who will in fact interpret it this way and take at face value. They will actually believe that just adding the magic juice of more neurons will make them into superpeople (hence the link to Eliezer’s essay addressing a similar confusion).
June 30th, 2010 - 04:42
Vladimir, what if I make the definition of “neuron” merely a data-gathering or data-processing point in an extended exoself? For instance, at the moment, software is mediating our communication, and software agents are performing various tasks for me. Using that definition of a “neuron”, would it be appropriate to discuss rapid growth that retains value?
I’ll try to rephrase to make it sound less like mindless transhumanist cheerleading. Tell me if you think the exoself idea is more appropriate.
I’m sure there are many ways to add neurons that preserve value, for instance adding neurons that merely do a more detailed job of extracting horizontal and vertical lines from the visual field. There are probably certain beneficial augmentations that we could make with understanding not much more advanced than today’s cognitive science (learned through experience such as high-throughput neural circuit screening, which could become possible in the next 10 years), if we had the technology to facilitate it.
June 30th, 2010 - 00:55
Never mind a brain with a hundred billions neurons, like we have now — we ought to have brains with tens of trillions of neurons, not necessarily even in the same place. Once we expand and distribute our cognitive architectures, our lives really will be eternal, unless we are pursued by those with the ability to truly snuff out every branch of our mental tree.
+1
June 30th, 2010 - 01:23
The Pope asks, “Would that be a good thing?â€, in reference to living hundreds of years.
Wow, coming from an 83yo who leads an organisation where all the senior managers are old that’s pretty rich. If popes start retiring when they get too old and if they impose a mandatory retirement age on the cardinals then they could start complaining about old people.
Maybe we could “transform our lives from within” if we had a little more time to do it. It seems that people’s concentration is taken up by education, developing a career and raising children. Leaving time for “transformation” after retirement – if you live that long.
As for creativity in heaven, I always had the impression that heaven would be like a drug high. Nothing really happens but you laze about feeling good. If people do things then they will be unhappy on occasion, things that you try to create sometimes don’t work out, not everyone is equally creative, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation
Finally there is the issue of Universal Reconciliation. If we were to believe in a just and merciful God then it would eventually offer redemption to everyone regardless of how sinful they had been. Even the greatest mass-murderers of the last century could apologise to all their victims and be redeemed – unless of course a sadistic God just wanted to torture them for fun.
If there is no Universal Reconciliation (which seems to be the belief of most Christians – and AFAIK the position of the Catholic Chruch) then allowing sinners to live long enough to redeem themselves seems to be the best thing to do.
June 30th, 2010 - 08:41
I find the Less Wrong post to be highly speculative. He doesn’t have a single scientific citation, either in psychological or biological literature, to back up a single claim. He says that our personality might change if our neurological structure does. Of course, this is what happens in the transition from childhood to adulthood. As a child, I worried about becoming an adult. Would it be worthwhile to genefix people so they don’t become adults without first thinking about it, consenting, and going to a doctor for a procedure? After all, if we are so inimical to neurological change and personality shifts–good or bad, then we ought to at least be consistent in our fear of it. But of course the answer is that we do not mind at all the shifts into adulthood. Which seems to answer the question.
Re Christianity and long lives… isn’t Catholicism pro-life?
Okay, bad joke.
July 1st, 2010 - 03:01
> As a child, I worried about becoming an adult. Would it be worthwhile to genefix people so they don’t become adults without first thinking about it, consenting, and going to a doctor for a procedure? After all, if we are so inimical to neurological change and personality shifts–good or bad, then we ought to at least be consistent in our fear of it.
I disagree that we should be “consistent” in our fear of personality shifts. The reason is moral antirealism: that what is good for me is defined not by logical properties but by arbitrary preference. I prefer to be an adult than to revert to being a child. Some children may consistently say they prefer to be a child than to change into an adult, I do not see this as a reductio.
July 1st, 2010 - 03:13
As a former Christian I say, “Well put! All of it.”
July 1st, 2010 - 05:34
Excellent post! Loved it! I wrote a book about the subject called ‘The Price of Free Will; The Singularity Cometh’…
July 1st, 2010 - 06:52
I don’t know… I have to agree with Mephistopheles on this one. It’s hard to take anyone seriously when they’re so unnecessarily biting like this.
It also seems as if Mephistopheles has nothing against indefinite life extension, or any bias for Christianity. So it just seems your responses have gotten more and more defensive. It almost seems as if you’re just insecure about being criticized by superior arguments.
Honestly, I do agree with some of the things you say in your post. But the way you put it just seems so damn unintelligent and just driven by ignorant antipathy.
July 1st, 2010 - 08:28
R, I think this has to do more with an aesthetic judgement about how harsh or critical someone is allowed to be when responding to the meme complex of religion. Perhaps the two of you react negatively to criticism past a certain level of harshness, regardless of the underlying arguments.
When you say “the way I say it” seems “unintelligent”, do you really mean, “the way you say it challenges societal rules about handling religious issues with kid gloves, so as not to hurt other people’s feelings”? It seems as if there might be a conflation between what is seen as rudeness and what is seen as unintelligent here. What actual points do I make that seem poorly supported?
I’m hardly ignorant about Christianity — I’ve read the Bible cover to cover, which most Christians haven’t done, and was a practicing Christian for some time, which, subjectively, was a perfectly alright experience. The problem is that Christian mythology is just another form of mythology, like Roman mythology, and people take it too seriously in an absurd way, and treat it with an intellectual and social double-standard.
I’m not insecure, it’s just that… don’t you think Mephisto would be obliged to actually criticize some points in my quote, instead of just saying it is wrong and not saying how? It seems more like emotional sensitivity to abrasive argument than anything else, though I could be wrong — but neither of you have actually criticized any of the points I made, so how could I possibly know?
I make plenty of points in the above article, it’s pathetic that critics aren’t even focusing on the material at hand. There are a number of potential arguments that could be made.
July 1st, 2010 - 14:28
“I’m not insecure, it’s just that… don’t you think Mephisto would be obliged to actually criticize some points in my quote, instead of just saying it is wrong and not saying how?”
We appear to be going over old ground, Michael. I am not criticizing your post. Beyond one passing reference to caricature, I have made it plainly obvious that I am not criticizing your post. There is no need for me to provide examples of ‘how it is wrong’, because I never said it is wrong at all. I am commenting on the fact that, as you have identified yourself to be someone who knows very little about Christianity (however many times you read the Bible or however devout you think you were as a child) you are not really fit to offer criticism on the subject that will be of any interest or substance. I apply this standard generally to ALL your writings on the subject of religion, and Christianity in particular.
July 1st, 2010 - 14:55
I know a lot about Christianity. When did I ever say I didn’t? I’ve spent many late nights on Wikipedia and other websites reading about Christian history, theology, and higher criticism. My delicious account alone has 179 links on Christianity, webpages I’ve read in their entirety.
If I read huge tracts of the Bible multiple times, and was in the Church, isn’t that just more evidence that I know plenty about Christianity? I’ve actually been a member of two different denominations, Presbyterianism and Russian Orthodox. I completed Russian Orthodox Church School. I am well educated in theology. I took religion very seriously when I was under the age of about 9, and spent a lot of time studying it. Just ask my sister or my mum!
July 1st, 2010 - 16:00
The age of nine? Wikipedia? I’m not sure if that was supposed to be a joke or not.
But listen, if you say you have studied theology I will take your word for it. I encourage you to continue your studies if you wish to engage critically with Christians on the subject of their faith. There is a lot of really facile, intellectually lazy, fashionable anti-religious nonsense floating around, much of it highly contagious. And yet, religion deserves better critics. I hope you will rise to the occasion, and that the rigor you apply to other subjects about which you are passionate will be directed to any future analysis of the dangers of religion.
July 1st, 2010 - 18:12
The only real solid criticism necessary is EVIDENCE or better said lack of it.
Without solid evidence to back its claimed relationship to the divine, it can not be viewed to be any more related to the divine then moby dick or harry potter. Without this relationship in firm solid ground backed by solid evidence, it cannot rationally be viewed as anything more than fiction.
To take it as more than a mere work of fiction, you require solid and convincing evidence for an open minded rational person. If we take it to be nothing more than a mere work of fiction, there’s no reason to hold it with as much import, as most religions gives it.
July 2nd, 2010 - 02:06
“There is no need for me to provide examples of ‘how it is wrong’, because I never said it is wrong at all. I am commenting on the fact that, as you have identified yourself to be someone who knows very little about Christianity (however many times you read the Bible or however devout you think you were as a child) you are not really fit to offer criticism on the subject that will be of any interest or substance.”
This is such a Christian thing to say. You half-denied that you were one in a different post but I can smell this shit a mile off. That you don’t understand what you’re doing wrong here is sadly less astounding than it should be.
July 2nd, 2010 - 18:57
I would love to know why, in your opinion, only a Christian could hold the opinion that someone must be knowledgeable of a subject in order to effectively deconstruct it. If that were true it would be to their credit. As it’s not it merely makes you look foolish twice over.
Anyway, not a Christian. Don’t believe any of it. Think some of it is interesting taken on it’s merits as mythology, philosophy and history.
If you’re going to dismiss what I have to say I would prefer you did so because you think it’s crap, rather than by invoking your obvious and entirely ugly prejudices.
July 1st, 2010 - 10:12
Though present social realities may make this an unwise and offensive thing to write, the moral logic can hardly be argued.
July 2nd, 2010 - 21:21
Michael, I haven’t read any of your prior posts so I will only reference this one. As we have no history, here goes..
I like the points you raise, despite the fact that you are clearly hostile to God and religion, and that isn’t consistent with my value system. I have several friends who were raised Roman Catholic and I sympathize with them over their angst. That doesn’t change one iota of what I believe…just sayin’: I can value your points, appreciate your hostility, and understand where Mephistopheles is coming from – all at the same time.
Your article/post/writing might have come across with less questionable legitimacy had you added a question-mark at the end of your title – “Vatican Sees Immortalism as competing philosophy?” Without that question mark, one is given the false impression that you are going to deliver the points of that conclusion. Though you make some great points, you fail at delivering what your title would reasonably lead one to expect they are about to receive.
The pope clearly questions the validity of immortalism. Because he questions its validity, he sees it as a competing philosophy?? What is clear, from your writing, is that you see them as competing philosophies. However, you fall quite shy of demonstrating that the pope does, in my opinion.
If I’m right, and you do view these two as competing philosophies and wish to be a part of a paradigm shift towards your point of view, you may have to find a way to be more neutral in your views against religion/God. If not, you will likely just be dismissed by the very people whose minds you hope to change/transform. If I’m right, and you wish to simply vent rather than transform, then I would submit that you were successful and who gives a rat’s arse what anyone else thinks!?. If I’m wrong, well – not the first or the last time, surely. I’m okay with it.
You wrote: “Eternal life on Earth is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that life extension is a bad thing….”
My internal dialogue: “No kidding. Christ demonstrated it and brought it to our reality/awareness.”
The church has historically been hostile towards science – to the disadvantage of the church and people of faith. My fear, as someone who doesn’t see science and religion as adversaries, is that science will be hostile to the church/religion – to the detriment of science and innovation, and more importantly: people.
My favorite quote, maybe ever: “Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control.” – The Honorable Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You don’t have to be against religion to be for science. You will simply be regarded as an enemy to others belief systems rather than a pioneer of a new belief system. Little room for positive transformation in that relationship.
Hope any of that helps. Peace/<3/Light~
July 3rd, 2010 - 01:25
The Catholic Church is waking up to the possibility of radical changes in the human condition through the application of advanced technologies. In the 2009 conference of the American Academy of Religion there were several sessions on Transhumanism!
http://www.aarweb.org/Meetings/Annual_Meeting/Past_and_Future_Meetings/2009/default.asp?ANum&DayTime=Sat&KeyWord=Transhumanism&Submit=View+Program+Book#results
July 3rd, 2010 - 19:01
Interesting, David. Especially the last item. The others surpass my experience and knowledge.
July 3rd, 2010 - 14:19
Religion is fundamentally incompatible with reason. The basic idea behind religion is using a double standard to evaluate beliefs. Beliefs associated with the dogma get a free pass, those that contradict it get extra demerits. Religion is an enemy of evaluating reality based on the evidence.
July 3rd, 2010 - 19:33
This comment sounds like Atheist-Fundamentalist rhetoric to me. Once I have deemed someone to be a Fundamentalist of any kind, I tend to tune them out – no matter how smart they are. Why? Because I would prefer to continue seeking out the smart people with good reasoning skills. I feel I will learn more from them whether we share a similar religious/world-view or not.
When you make a statement like: “Religion is fundamentally incompatible with reason.” my Math mind hears: “1 = 0″ Since that is not true, I believe the faulty reasoning is on you. Most Fundamentalist rhetoric is generally short-sighted in the same way because it is based on a pre-supposed notion of rightness – “I am right therefore other is wrong.”
Personally, I don’t care what you believe or don’t. I have only carried on because it sounds like you are pretty smart and have some things to share with the world. Best wishes in making your mark, Michael~
July 3rd, 2010 - 16:00
Great post Michael.
For years, I have strove to come up with a simplest argument against religion, one that doesn’t require advanced knowledge of either theology, metaphysics, or mathematics or physics or astronomy.
The reason being, I needed a simple argument that anyone can understand, when talking to any given religionist, who may or may not have any knowledge of the more complex subjects.
I think I may have come up with one, but all I ever get is silence when I ask religionists about this.
The Divine Attributes of Deity.
The religionists claim that God has them.
Three of them are known as the “Omni” attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience).
The religionists operate on the idea that God is a separate and distinct entity from Creation and Man.
This is incompatible with God being Omnipresent.
The only thing mankind has ever discovered that comes close to the Omni-attributes, is a point like singularity.
July 3rd, 2010 - 20:05
wcc, reason is a fluid process with continuous updating and revision based on evidence. Religion is blind respect for a questionable text. Yes, you can bend the interpretations of the holy texts somewhat, but in the end, the text does have something to say, and that something to say often seems pulled out of thin air, morally reprehensible, outdated, or just plain goofy.
Reason means constantly questioning your underlying assumptions. This is forbidden in a traditional religious setting. Even in academia, there isn’t much communication between higher critics, who analyze the Bible as a piece of literature, and theologians, who analyze the Bible as the Word of God.
July 3rd, 2010 - 20:57
“reason is a fluid process with continuous updating and revision based on evidence.” – Absolutely, Michael!!
Faith =|= reason. You may conclude that it is unreasonable to have faith in something you can’t see. But I would be willing to bet you have faith in things you have not seen. Atoms? Electrons? Neutrons? Gravity? You attribute everything that man has discovered to coincidence. I attribute everything man has discovered to an intimate piece of Creation- divine insight, maybe.
Who is right? I sure don’t know. We are both processing the information we receive and attributing it, based on some form of faith. Your assumption that your faith system is correct (rather than your faith system, itself) is interfering with the fluidity of your reasoning. I suggest that this lack of fluidity is the same in the anti-Evolutionists. And they don’t receive a “free pass” on their failed logic,, even if we take communion together.
July 4th, 2010 - 23:46
The concept of the “Hidden God”.
A point like singularity, by it’s very nature, is hidden from observation (light does not escape it).
The “Fall of Man”, also known as “the Wound of Separation”.
The illusion that “Gawd” is separate substance from creation, a kind of substance-dualism.
Religion: An institution bent on perpetuating the myth of the God/Creation substance dualism.
Spirituality: One’s personal relationship to the infinite aspects of reality.
There is more spirituality in the mandelbrot set than there ever will be in any church.
September 25th, 2011 - 07:25
This website can be a stroll-by means of for the entire info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse right here, and you’ll positively uncover it.
April 22nd, 2012 - 19:12
Oh my goodness! Awesome article dude! Thank you so much, However I am going through issues with your RSS. I don’t understand why I can’t join it. Is there anyone else getting the same RSS issues? Anyone that knows the solution can you kindly respond? Thanx!!
May 23rd, 2012 - 05:39
Fathom for yourself how hard is to flatter, but thanks to him we may live. Fresh opportunities targeted above-board in the service of us.