I can think of two posts where teaching transhumanism in public schools is explicitly advocated. Hence, it is already being thought of.
Christianity says “murder is bad.” does that mean saying to kids in public schools “hey, murder is bad” becomes off limits? A similar remark would apply to religions which have correct beliefs about the shape of the world. Note that even if an idea or set of ideas is subscribed to be a religion that’s not an intrinsic reason to exclude it from the classroom. That’s part of why in the US First Amendment issues are so complicated and difficult.
On a tangent to that note, would it be kosher to grow non-kosher insects in apples as it would be thought they spontaneously generate and are therefore kosher?
No. They believe that some animals can (lice and rodents in particular) can spontaneously generate, not that they in general necessarily do. However, there’s actually a serious issue connected to this in that figs often have wasps inside them but this wasn’t known in ancient times when figs were first ruled to be kosher (and in fact more than that are explicitly listed as one of the special foods of Israel in the Bible). No one in the Orthodox community has a good answer for this.
Anyways, the point is that the assumption is made that religion is by default irrational when it might actually be rational.
Well, again you are using a very broad notion of religion. The individuals asserting that religion is in general irrational are probably less likely to do so if one is using such a broad definition.
And if one uses a narrow definition of religion, then for most major religions, if any one of them is correct, then the others need to be not just irrational but deeply so. So even in that framework, thinking that most religions are irrational is the rational thing to do.
Some of the greatest philosophers have been highly religious.
So? That’s not a good argument for much of anything at all. Newton also believed in alchemy. Erdos had trouble with the Monty Hall problem. Or for that matter, some of the the greatest philosophers have been geocentrists. The fact that some people happened to make great advancements and were religious doesn’t say much at all aside from the fact that humans have strong cognitive biases. And many of those great philosophers were by no fault of there own living in ages where a lot of the basic understanding of the world we take for granted war completely missing. If I lived in 1200, I’d think that lightning came from an angry God and that disease had similar causes.
Also, mystical experiences are accepted as fact here as long as they are not religious mystical experiences (see benefits of madness) ( which thing most religions will tell you is very dangerous as there are beings that are wanting to deceive).
The claim is that mystical experiences can be useful not that they are necessarily factual. Speaking for myself, I’ve had practical math ideas from dreams. I check them when I wake up. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes they don’t quite work and sometimes they are clearly nonsense. (No, subconscious, the fact that Martin van Buren was the 8th President of the United States does not tell me anything about zeros of L-functions.) But that’s not a reason think that any such dream is objectively real (Last night I had a dream where I was a powerful sorcerer who was working together with some cyborg elves to stop a terrible demonic menace. I wouldn’t mind if that’s real.)
It seems here that you are interpreting remarks uncharitably, in trying to find the most negative and most religious interpretation of comments. Indeed, the post in question was made in part in response to a general attitude here that mystical experiences are a complete waste that are not at all helpful in any way.
Note that the difference between a mystical experience which leads to a math idea or leads to the structure of benzene is that the claim is something we can check. The religious mystical experiences very rarely fall into that category. But there’s another reason not to take the religious mystical experiences seriously: they all disagree. Every major religion has people who have had mystical experiences and claims that they’ve encountered their deity or its servants or something similar, and yet they all disagree about very basic parts of how the world works. Indeed, that’s probably why some religions claim that there are evil forces out there giving deceptive mystical experiences: one needs some explanation for why every other group has experiences which don’t agree.
There are also instances of people claiming they are more rational than Noble laureates which doesn’t help the claim that they are rational at all.
Smart is not at all the same thing as rational. I have no doubt that Rober Aumann is smarter than I am. I don’t know if which of us is more rational but there’s a decent argument that I am. I know I’m not as smart as Kary Mullis and I’m pretty sure that I’m more rational than he is, and for that matter, judging from these conversations, you probably are too. That people here are more rational than some Nobel Prize winners isn’t a positive statement about people here as much as it is an interesting statement about how irrational people can be and still do absolutely amazing, incredibly brilliant, highly innovative work.
Note that even if an idea or set of ideas is subscribed to be a religion that’s not an intrinsic reason to exclude it from the classroom.
This is covered in different comments.
judging from these conversations, you probably are too.
Well, considering I am highly religious and find my religion to be highly rational as well as thinking that there are many more ways to find knowledge then just repeated applications of bayes theorem I have to question your assertion of my rationality as such things are considered on this site.
Indeed, that’s probably why some religions claim that there are evil forces out there giving deceptive mystical experiences
Unless there really are evil forces out there.
that you are interpreting remarks uncharitably, in trying to find the most negative and most religious interpretation of comments.
Probably, however given the tone of the mystical answers series I don’t see how you should expect me to do otherwise. I have attempted to be extremely restrained on the subject, especially when responding to comments.
I was a powerful sorcerer who was working together with some cyberborg elves to stop a terrible demonic menace.
Sounds like a the start of a novel to me. Something similar to how Stephenie Meyer got started on Twilight. Maybe if you write it up you will end up making millions.
again you are using a very broad notion of religion.
Is Confucianism a religion? If it is then Transhumanism is as well, if it is not then Transhumanism in general is not currently a religion (although for some people it may be, but some people take the most random things for their religion so that doesn’t say much).
Could you point me to where it is? I don’t see it.
Well, considering I am highly religious and find my religion to be highly rational as well as thinking that there are many more ways to find knowledge then just repeated applications of bayes theorem I have to question your assertion of my rationality as such things are considered on this site.
I didn’t say that you were highly rational. I said you seemed to be more rational than Kary Mullis. That’s the point. There are some very irrational Nobel winners. Rationality is not the same thing as intelligence, or creativity or many other important traits.
Unless there really are evil forces out there.
Well, say hypothetically you were in the position of Screwtape or some other classical demon and you need to draft a policy for what sort of fake mystical forces your demons should do. Which do you think would work better, answering every apparent attempt to get a mystical experience with something that the believer expects to be true, or answering every one of them with a revelation about a specific religion made up by the demons. The second seems a lot more effective. So why don’t they do this? Let me suggest that there’s a simple reason: the existence of such forces is the perfect post-hoc explanation, that’s why so many different religions even when they vehemently disagree can agree on some form of this.
Is Confucianism a religion? If it is then Transhumanism is as well, if it is not then Transhumanism in general is not currently a religion (although for some people it may be, but some people take the most random things for their religion so that doesn’t say much).
I’m generally not inclined to see Confucianism as a religion, although it has strong religious elements. That’s why for example there can be self-identifying Chinese Christians who also practice aspects of Confucianism. In a very similar way, there’s no reason why someone couldn’t be a member of a major religion and still subscribe to what you have listed as transhumanist ideas. The danger of Strong AI could be plausible even in a religious framework (indeed, possibly even more so if one thinks that an intelligent artificial entity would be lacking the moral compass that comes from having a “soul”). Similarly, I’ve had serious discussions with Orthodox Jews over way in an Orthodox framework cryonics should actually be halachically mandatory. Almost every single step you list that is a belief related to a specific technology I could probably find at least one religion which is theologically sympathetic to that belief. So if anything, this looks similar to Confucianism in exactly the ways that Confucianism doesn’t look like a classic religion.
Moreover, the aspects of Confucianism that most resemble a religion are precisely the parts that the transhumanist cluster lacks. Confucianism has veneration of ancestors and sacrifices, and a belief in some forms that worshiped ancestors can intervene in the world. These are classical beliefs that we associate with religions. Nothing you gave resembles anything like that. So this argument if anything undermines your claim, there’s an argument over whether Confucianism is a religion, and the most religious-like aspects of Confucianism are precisely the sorts of things which have no analog in the transhumanist cluster you’ve list.
So this argument if anything undermines your claim
You missed my point entirely. I conceded that I might be using too broad of a category with the title of religion and pointed to an example where there is debate over whether it counts as a religion or not to determine membership in the category. (incidentally part of the argument is over whether ancestor worship is part of Confucianism or is from traditional Chinese “heaven” worship). Since you do not consider Confucianism a religion then Transhumanism is not a religion, as I conceded.
. Which do you think would work better, answering every apparent attempt to get a mystical experience with something that the believer expects to be true, or answering every one of them with a revelation about a specific religion made up by the demons.
Actually I think mystical experiences with things the believer expects to be true works fine once the religion of the believer has already been modified away from strict truth. This creates groups that believe in very different things and have reinforcing experiences such that if the truth were attempted to be restored it would face social momentum against it rather then be a constant among confusion. As far as I can tell though both tactics have been used depending on what can be made to work.
Could you point me to where it is?
I consider this to have been covered in theOtherDave line of discussions.
Christianity says “murder is bad.” does that mean saying to kids in public schools “hey, murder is bad” becomes off limits? A similar remark would apply to religions which have correct beliefs about the shape of the world. Note that even if an idea or set of ideas is subscribed to be a religion that’s not an intrinsic reason to exclude it from the classroom. That’s part of why in the US First Amendment issues are so complicated and difficult.
No. They believe that some animals can (lice and rodents in particular) can spontaneously generate, not that they in general necessarily do. However, there’s actually a serious issue connected to this in that figs often have wasps inside them but this wasn’t known in ancient times when figs were first ruled to be kosher (and in fact more than that are explicitly listed as one of the special foods of Israel in the Bible). No one in the Orthodox community has a good answer for this.
Well, again you are using a very broad notion of religion. The individuals asserting that religion is in general irrational are probably less likely to do so if one is using such a broad definition.
And if one uses a narrow definition of religion, then for most major religions, if any one of them is correct, then the others need to be not just irrational but deeply so. So even in that framework, thinking that most religions are irrational is the rational thing to do.
So? That’s not a good argument for much of anything at all. Newton also believed in alchemy. Erdos had trouble with the Monty Hall problem. Or for that matter, some of the the greatest philosophers have been geocentrists. The fact that some people happened to make great advancements and were religious doesn’t say much at all aside from the fact that humans have strong cognitive biases. And many of those great philosophers were by no fault of there own living in ages where a lot of the basic understanding of the world we take for granted war completely missing. If I lived in 1200, I’d think that lightning came from an angry God and that disease had similar causes.
The claim is that mystical experiences can be useful not that they are necessarily factual. Speaking for myself, I’ve had practical math ideas from dreams. I check them when I wake up. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes they don’t quite work and sometimes they are clearly nonsense. (No, subconscious, the fact that Martin van Buren was the 8th President of the United States does not tell me anything about zeros of L-functions.) But that’s not a reason think that any such dream is objectively real (Last night I had a dream where I was a powerful sorcerer who was working together with some cyborg elves to stop a terrible demonic menace. I wouldn’t mind if that’s real.)
It seems here that you are interpreting remarks uncharitably, in trying to find the most negative and most religious interpretation of comments. Indeed, the post in question was made in part in response to a general attitude here that mystical experiences are a complete waste that are not at all helpful in any way.
Note that the difference between a mystical experience which leads to a math idea or leads to the structure of benzene is that the claim is something we can check. The religious mystical experiences very rarely fall into that category. But there’s another reason not to take the religious mystical experiences seriously: they all disagree. Every major religion has people who have had mystical experiences and claims that they’ve encountered their deity or its servants or something similar, and yet they all disagree about very basic parts of how the world works. Indeed, that’s probably why some religions claim that there are evil forces out there giving deceptive mystical experiences: one needs some explanation for why every other group has experiences which don’t agree.
Smart is not at all the same thing as rational. I have no doubt that Rober Aumann is smarter than I am. I don’t know if which of us is more rational but there’s a decent argument that I am. I know I’m not as smart as Kary Mullis and I’m pretty sure that I’m more rational than he is, and for that matter, judging from these conversations, you probably are too. That people here are more rational than some Nobel Prize winners isn’t a positive statement about people here as much as it is an interesting statement about how irrational people can be and still do absolutely amazing, incredibly brilliant, highly innovative work.
This is covered in different comments.
Well, considering I am highly religious and find my religion to be highly rational as well as thinking that there are many more ways to find knowledge then just repeated applications of bayes theorem I have to question your assertion of my rationality as such things are considered on this site.
Unless there really are evil forces out there.
Probably, however given the tone of the mystical answers series I don’t see how you should expect me to do otherwise. I have attempted to be extremely restrained on the subject, especially when responding to comments.
Sounds like a the start of a novel to me. Something similar to how Stephenie Meyer got started on Twilight. Maybe if you write it up you will end up making millions.
Is Confucianism a religion? If it is then Transhumanism is as well, if it is not then Transhumanism in general is not currently a religion (although for some people it may be, but some people take the most random things for their religion so that doesn’t say much).
Could you point me to where it is? I don’t see it.
I didn’t say that you were highly rational. I said you seemed to be more rational than Kary Mullis. That’s the point. There are some very irrational Nobel winners. Rationality is not the same thing as intelligence, or creativity or many other important traits.
Well, say hypothetically you were in the position of Screwtape or some other classical demon and you need to draft a policy for what sort of fake mystical forces your demons should do. Which do you think would work better, answering every apparent attempt to get a mystical experience with something that the believer expects to be true, or answering every one of them with a revelation about a specific religion made up by the demons. The second seems a lot more effective. So why don’t they do this? Let me suggest that there’s a simple reason: the existence of such forces is the perfect post-hoc explanation, that’s why so many different religions even when they vehemently disagree can agree on some form of this.
I’m generally not inclined to see Confucianism as a religion, although it has strong religious elements. That’s why for example there can be self-identifying Chinese Christians who also practice aspects of Confucianism. In a very similar way, there’s no reason why someone couldn’t be a member of a major religion and still subscribe to what you have listed as transhumanist ideas. The danger of Strong AI could be plausible even in a religious framework (indeed, possibly even more so if one thinks that an intelligent artificial entity would be lacking the moral compass that comes from having a “soul”). Similarly, I’ve had serious discussions with Orthodox Jews over way in an Orthodox framework cryonics should actually be halachically mandatory. Almost every single step you list that is a belief related to a specific technology I could probably find at least one religion which is theologically sympathetic to that belief. So if anything, this looks similar to Confucianism in exactly the ways that Confucianism doesn’t look like a classic religion.
Moreover, the aspects of Confucianism that most resemble a religion are precisely the parts that the transhumanist cluster lacks. Confucianism has veneration of ancestors and sacrifices, and a belief in some forms that worshiped ancestors can intervene in the world. These are classical beliefs that we associate with religions. Nothing you gave resembles anything like that. So this argument if anything undermines your claim, there’s an argument over whether Confucianism is a religion, and the most religious-like aspects of Confucianism are precisely the sorts of things which have no analog in the transhumanist cluster you’ve list.
You missed my point entirely. I conceded that I might be using too broad of a category with the title of religion and pointed to an example where there is debate over whether it counts as a religion or not to determine membership in the category. (incidentally part of the argument is over whether ancestor worship is part of Confucianism or is from traditional Chinese “heaven” worship). Since you do not consider Confucianism a religion then Transhumanism is not a religion, as I conceded.
Actually I think mystical experiences with things the believer expects to be true works fine once the religion of the believer has already been modified away from strict truth. This creates groups that believe in very different things and have reinforcing experiences such that if the truth were attempted to be restored it would face social momentum against it rather then be a constant among confusion. As far as I can tell though both tactics have been used depending on what can be made to work.
I consider this to have been covered in theOtherDave line of discussions.