801 people (73.5%) were atheist and not spiritual, 108 (9.9%) were atheist and spiritual
I’m curious as to how people interpreted this. Does the latter mean that one believes in the supernatural but without a god figure, e.g. buddism, new age? This question looked confusing to me at first glance.
People who believed in high existential risk were more likely to believe in global warming, more likely to believe they had a higher IQ than average, and more likely to believe in aliens (I found that same result last time, and it puzzled me then too.)
I’m curious as to how people interpreted this. Does the latter mean that one believes in the supernatural but without a god figure, e.g. buddism, new age? This question looked confusing to me at first glance.
I would have expected the opposite given Yvain’s definition of “supernatural”. The existence of an agent (or agents) that created the universe seems much more likely than the existence of ontologically basic mental entities. After all, one man’s lead software designer of the simulation is another man’s god.
Here we reach a usual definition problem about “god”. Is “god” just someone who created the universe, but with its own limits, or is he omnipowerful omniscient eternal perfect as it is in monotheist religions ? The lead software designer of the simulation would be the first, but very likely not the second. Probably best to just taboo the word “god” in that context.
People who believed in high existential risk were more likely to believe in global warming, more likely to believe they had a higher IQ than average, and more likely to believe in aliens (I found that same result last time, and it puzzled me then too.)
Why does it puzzle you?
I assume because higher existential risk would seem to generalize to lower chances of aliens existing (because they had the same or similar existential risk as us).
A more subtle interpretation, and one that I expect accounts for at least some of the people in this category, is that high existential risk makes it more likely that relatively nearby aliens exist but will never reach the point where they can contact us.
If I remember correctly, the terms were defined in the survey itself, such that “spiritual and atheist” was something like believing in ontologically basic mental entities but not believing in a God that met that description. I didn’t find the question confusing, but I did find it only peripherally related to what most people mean by either term. That said, it is a standard LW unpacking of those terms.
I’m curious as to how people interpreted this. Does the latter mean that one believes in the supernatural but without a god figure, e.g. buddism, new age? This question looked confusing to me at first glance.
Why does it puzzle you?
I would have expected the opposite given Yvain’s definition of “supernatural”. The existence of an agent (or agents) that created the universe seems much more likely than the existence of ontologically basic mental entities. After all, one man’s lead software designer of the simulation is another man’s god.
Here we reach a usual definition problem about “god”. Is “god” just someone who created the universe, but with its own limits, or is he omnipowerful omniscient eternal perfect as it is in monotheist religions ? The lead software designer of the simulation would be the first, but very likely not the second. Probably best to just taboo the word “god” in that context.
I assume because higher existential risk would seem to generalize to lower chances of aliens existing (because they had the same or similar existential risk as us).
A more subtle interpretation, and one that I expect accounts for at least some of the people in this category, is that high existential risk makes it more likely that relatively nearby aliens exist but will never reach the point where they can contact us.
If I remember correctly, the terms were defined in the survey itself, such that “spiritual and atheist” was something like believing in ontologically basic mental entities but not believing in a God that met that description. I didn’t find the question confusing, but I did find it only peripherally related to what most people mean by either term. That said, it is a standard LW unpacking of those terms.