This post seems to be a long exercise in defining a certain way of using a word (“God”).
And yet, if that was the whole point, you could have picked any semantic label (how about “Yargle”). But if the post was about how Yargle is another name for the universe, and we were going to express Yargle, it seems a lot less interesting.
What’s missing from this post is why it’s at all a good idea to use “God” rather than “Yargle.” What’s the point?
You could think of the aim of this post as trying to steelman theism to a rationalist, while simultaneously steelmanning EA/rationalism/… to a theist.
Why “God?” Part of this exercise is to examine how people have used the word “God” throughout history, look at what purpose the concept has served, and, for example, observe how similar the ‘God’ concept is to the rationalist ‘reality’ concept. Arguably, the way people used ‘God’ a thousand years ago is closer to our “reality” concept than to the way many people use ‘God’ today. It is interesting to see what happens when you decide to take certain compatibilist definitions of God seriously.
Instrumentally, an invisible alpha provides a check on the power of the actual alpha. A king a few centuries ago may have had absolute power, but he still couldn’t simply act against what people understood to be the will of the actual alpha (God).
I read it like that. It could be more clear in that though. The way it is written right now pattern matches easily with religion. This is partly due to the quotes I think, though the quotes are also what facilities the bridge between theists and non-theists. I think it is useful to have words and concepts that overlap in the domains.
This post seems to be a long exercise in defining a certain way of using a word (“God”).
And yet, if that was the whole point, you could have picked any semantic label (how about “Yargle”). But if the post was about how Yargle is another name for the universe, and we were going to express Yargle, it seems a lot less interesting.
What’s missing from this post is why it’s at all a good idea to use “God” rather than “Yargle.” What’s the point?
You could think of the aim of this post as trying to steelman theism to a rationalist, while simultaneously steelmanning EA/rationalism/… to a theist.
Why “God?” Part of this exercise is to examine how people have used the word “God” throughout history, look at what purpose the concept has served, and, for example, observe how similar the ‘God’ concept is to the rationalist ‘reality’ concept. Arguably, the way people used ‘God’ a thousand years ago is closer to our “reality” concept than to the way many people use ‘God’ today. It is interesting to see what happens when you decide to take certain compatibilist definitions of God seriously.
An invisible alpha male who commands your tribe what to eat, when to have sex, and whom to kill.
Later: creator and manager of reality.
Much later: reality itself… but also, in some mysterious way, all of the above.
‘Invisible alpha’ seems like a big step up over actual alpha on the ladder of cultural evolution.
In the end, reality itself has always been the ultimate arbiter of any claim to truth or authority.
Epistemically, invisible alpha is a retreat from the observed absence of visible alpha, saving the hypothesis by redefining it in just the ways required to evade the evidence.
This is the big step up.
Instrumentally, an invisible alpha provides a check on the power of the actual alpha. A king a few centuries ago may have had absolute power, but he still couldn’t simply act against what people understood to be the will of the actual alpha (God).
I read it like that. It could be more clear in that though. The way it is written right now pattern matches easily with religion. This is partly due to the quotes I think, though the quotes are also what facilities the bridge between theists and non-theists. I think it is useful to have words and concepts that overlap in the domains.