I think the question “Is it rational to be religious?” is one that deserves critical attention and testing, but talk of ancestor simulations completely demolishes the point. Any entity capable of creating an actual ancestor simulation—a fully-modeled “Matrix” populated with genuinely human-equivalent sentient Sims—is an entity for whom the results of such a test would be irrelevant and obsolete. The premise, that some form of Faith might be useful or even necessary for rational humans to maximally act in accordance with their values, is not applicable for a posthuman being.
The technology for creating a real ancestor simulation would almost certainly exist in a context of other technologies that are comparably advanced within their fields. If the computer power exists to run a physics engine sufficient to simulate a whole planet and its environs, complete with several billion human-level consciousnesses, the beings who possess that power would almost certainly be able to enhance their own cognitive and psychological capacities to the point that Faith would no longer be necessary for them, even if it might be for us here and now, or for the Sims in the ancestor simulation. A creator of ancestor simulations would for all practical intents and purposes be God, even in relation to his/her own universe. With molecular nanotechnology, utility fogs, programmable matter, and technologies we can’t even imagine, conjuring a burning bush or a talking snake or a Resurrection would be child’s play.
Proposing ancestor simulations as a way to test the usefulness of Faith is like saying, “Let’s use a TARDIS to go watch early space-age planets and see if rockets or solar sails are the best way for us to explore the universe!”
On the other hand, we do already possess computer platforms that are fairly good at emulating other human-level intelligences, and we routinely create plausible, though limited world-simulations. These are “human brains” and “stories,” respectively. So one way to partially examine and test to determine whether or not it could be rational to be religious would be to write a story about a rational person who adopts a Faith and applies it to maximally operate according to his or her values.
Then, present the story to people who believe that Faith, and people who don’t. Is the story itself believable? Do the other minds processing the simulation (story) judge that it accurately models reality? Unfortunately this method cannot simultaneously generate billions of fully-realized simulated lives so that a wide variety of Faiths and life-circumstances under which they are used can be examined. Instead, the author would have to generate what they consider to be a plausible scenario for a rational person adopting a Faith and write a genuinely believable story about it. To serve as an effective test, the story would have to include as many realistic circumstances adverse to the idea as possible, in the same way that the secret to passing the 2-4-6 Test is to look for number sets that produce a “no.” It could not be written like a fictional Utopia in which the Utopia works only because everyone shares the author’s beliefs and consistently follows them.
Eliezer’s story Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality does a mirror-opposite of this, providing a story-test for the question, “Would the Sequences still be applicable even under the extreme circumstance of being catapulted into the Harry Potter universe?” Some of the best moments in this story are where Harry’s rationalist world-view is strained to the utmost, like when he sees Professor McGonagall turn into a cat. A reader who finds the story “believable” (assuming sufficient suspension-of-disbelief to let the magic slide) will come away accepting that, if the Sequences can work even in a world with flying broomsticks and shape-shifting witches, they’ll probably work here in our rather more orderly and equation-modelable universe.
So, a “So-And-So and the Methods of Faith” story might, if well-written, be able to demonstrate that Faith could be a valid way of programming the non-rational parts of our brain into helping us maximally operate according to our values.
Another method of testing (perhaps a next step) would be to adopt the techniques of Chaos Magic and/or Neuro-Linguistic Programming and try out the utility of Faith (perhaps testing different Faiths over set periods of time) in one’s own life. Or better still: get the funding for a proper scientific study with statistically-sufficient sample sizes, control-groups, double-blind protocols, etc..
I think the question “Is it rational to be religious?” is one that deserves critical attention and testing, but talk of ancestor simulations completely demolishes the point. Any entity capable of creating an actual ancestor simulation—a fully-modeled “Matrix” populated with genuinely human-equivalent sentient Sims—is an entity for whom the results of such a test would be irrelevant and obsolete. The premise, that some form of Faith might be useful or even necessary for rational humans to maximally act in accordance with their values, is not applicable for a posthuman being.
The technology for creating a real ancestor simulation would almost certainly exist in a context of other technologies that are comparably advanced within their fields. If the computer power exists to run a physics engine sufficient to simulate a whole planet and its environs, complete with several billion human-level consciousnesses, the beings who possess that power would almost certainly be able to enhance their own cognitive and psychological capacities to the point that Faith would no longer be necessary for them, even if it might be for us here and now, or for the Sims in the ancestor simulation. A creator of ancestor simulations would for all practical intents and purposes be God, even in relation to his/her own universe. With molecular nanotechnology, utility fogs, programmable matter, and technologies we can’t even imagine, conjuring a burning bush or a talking snake or a Resurrection would be child’s play.
Proposing ancestor simulations as a way to test the usefulness of Faith is like saying, “Let’s use a TARDIS to go watch early space-age planets and see if rockets or solar sails are the best way for us to explore the universe!”
On the other hand, we do already possess computer platforms that are fairly good at emulating other human-level intelligences, and we routinely create plausible, though limited world-simulations. These are “human brains” and “stories,” respectively. So one way to partially examine and test to determine whether or not it could be rational to be religious would be to write a story about a rational person who adopts a Faith and applies it to maximally operate according to his or her values.
Then, present the story to people who believe that Faith, and people who don’t. Is the story itself believable? Do the other minds processing the simulation (story) judge that it accurately models reality? Unfortunately this method cannot simultaneously generate billions of fully-realized simulated lives so that a wide variety of Faiths and life-circumstances under which they are used can be examined. Instead, the author would have to generate what they consider to be a plausible scenario for a rational person adopting a Faith and write a genuinely believable story about it. To serve as an effective test, the story would have to include as many realistic circumstances adverse to the idea as possible, in the same way that the secret to passing the 2-4-6 Test is to look for number sets that produce a “no.” It could not be written like a fictional Utopia in which the Utopia works only because everyone shares the author’s beliefs and consistently follows them.
Eliezer’s story Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality does a mirror-opposite of this, providing a story-test for the question, “Would the Sequences still be applicable even under the extreme circumstance of being catapulted into the Harry Potter universe?” Some of the best moments in this story are where Harry’s rationalist world-view is strained to the utmost, like when he sees Professor McGonagall turn into a cat. A reader who finds the story “believable” (assuming sufficient suspension-of-disbelief to let the magic slide) will come away accepting that, if the Sequences can work even in a world with flying broomsticks and shape-shifting witches, they’ll probably work here in our rather more orderly and equation-modelable universe.
So, a “So-And-So and the Methods of Faith” story might, if well-written, be able to demonstrate that Faith could be a valid way of programming the non-rational parts of our brain into helping us maximally operate according to our values.
Another method of testing (perhaps a next step) would be to adopt the techniques of Chaos Magic and/or Neuro-Linguistic Programming and try out the utility of Faith (perhaps testing different Faiths over set periods of time) in one’s own life. Or better still: get the funding for a proper scientific study with statistically-sufficient sample sizes, control-groups, double-blind protocols, etc..