Is There An Artificial God

[Vigile]

So I guess we differ on this point. smile.gif

 

No, I can agree with you on this point. I think you are right. Perhaps we should be discussing excessive greed instead. The type of greed you discussed is I think healthy for all involved. Greed that caused banks to try and profit now by selling mortgages and not caring what happened in the future was not good for anyone. That type of greed is I think irrational and not necessarily a component of capitalism, but rather a byproduct. Is that better?

[Ouroboros]

So I guess we differ on this point. smile.gif

 

No, I can agree with you on this point. I think you are right. Perhaps we should be discussing excessive greed instead. The type of greed you discussed is I think healthy for all involved. Greed that caused banks to try and profit now by selling mortgages and not caring what happened in the future was not good for anyone. That type of greed is I think irrational and not necessarily a component of capitalism, but rather a byproduct. Is that better?

Absolutely. I find that you and I have quite a lot of common ideas, still it doesn't worry me if we would find ourselves in different camps now and then. But you're right, one could see it as healthy greed vs destructive greed, and unfortunately the line can be somewhat hard to establish there too. But at some point, greed does start to harm people, or even harm the system itself, like we can see from recent events.

 

Back to the topic, if we could invent a replacement for religion, what would it be? How would it work? What would it look like? I have tried to think about this before, but I have no good ideas... and right now I have a cute little dog in my lap, so who cares. Absolute cuteness overcome all ill in the world.

 

[mahjong]

Actually, Saviourmachine, I do think similarly to the way you are describing. I take what I want (from all systems of belief) and leave the rest. Some days I believe it all. Some days I believe nothing. It does not bother me if someone says, "God bless you" to me because I interpret it to mean that the person cares about me and wishes me well. I don't suddenly get struck into being a believer in a god.

 

I don't see atheists as cold. I mean, I don't know Dave up close and personal, but he strikes me as a warm and loving person. My kids see me as one of their favorite people, they think I'm a good and generous and caring person, and they all believe in a God of some sort or another. Rather than showing warmth toward a being I cannot see and cannot in any way communicate with, I shower the people I love with love. (None of my kids are religious, thank god.

 

I think that sometimes I want to believe in a god because, after all, I am the only person/being who is with me every moment from conception to death. I just don't want to feel so alone sometimes. But even I cannot talk myself into believing. I have to laugh at myself for even wanting to!

[Saviourmachine]

I don't see atheists as cold. I mean, I don't know Dave up close and personal, but he strikes me as a warm and loving person. My kids see me as one of their favorite people, they think I'm a good and generous and caring person, and they all believe in a God of some sort or another. Rather than showing warmth toward a being I cannot see and cannot in any way communicate with, I shower the people I love with love. (None of my kids are religious, thank god.

Ha ha, I am not gonna say all atheists are cold, I am an atheist myself. :-)

 

But I might give some example. Like I have a subscription on "Skepter" the magazine of skeptics in Holland. They are burning down everything that looks like pseudoscience. And that's a good thing. However, the magazine doesn't breath love, compassion, etc. Of course, that's not its main topic, but yeah, I would like to have it a bit more "multi-disciplinairy". ;-) I would love to read more about compassionate atheists. People like Ingersoll, it's a rare breed. We need to define a framework to express such compassion in parallel with an atheist world view. With a pure atheist agenda, what would we like to achieve?

[chefranden]

My definition of greed is cutting open the golden egg laying goose to get all you can right now.

 

According to Adam's story the green revolution guys came to Bali and said you can get more than this already outstanding yield of rice and they did for awhile. Fortunately the Balinese were able to go back to the old system. But usually when this happens the goose is cooked so to speak.

 

This is what seems to have happened in the housing bubble. Investment banks making money selling mortgage bundles, but then the supply of new mortgages to sell gets short i.e. the goose isn't laying fast enough. Solution, poison the goose with crappy mortgages.

 

What is to stop the market from doing stupid shit like this? Religion may be a way of putting natural controls on a process that isn't understood very well. Something should put the brakes on. Maybe Mammon could say something like thou shall not have more than 10% return and people would listen on pain of being excommunicated or the like. Let's say that 10% is pretty low and not too risky. More could easily be extracted from economy, but 10% keeps it far enough back from the cliff to prevent most accidents.

[Ouroboros]

What is to stop the market from doing stupid shit like this?

My belief? Nothing. We're humans, and humans always find a way to get just little bit ahead and to get a little bit more than the Johnson's.

[Vomit Comet]

The spiritualization that the Balinese attach to their rational, time-tested rice methods is just arbitrary window-dressing. The actual, material practice can be separated from the arbitrary religious/cultural aspect that evolved alongside and on top of it. Maybe it will be robbed of a certain aesthetic or sense of history, but really, it's arbitrary window dressing. Maybe it increases solidarity or makes the work less shitty and tedious, but there are probably alternative means of doing so that would work just as good and wouldn't involve hocus pocus. It's kind of like how all the lights of Las Vegas function to draw the tourists in like moths, but where the rubber meets the road is where dollars leave wallets and stay in Vegas. But at least nobody attributes spiritual/metaphysical qualities to neon, except for weird poets.

[Vigile]

I don't mean this to be offensive. I'm just thinking out loud. This whole thread is starting sound like ivory tower elitism run wild. We see problems with society and so we are offering up ways to trick the plebes into following paths that we feel will best serve ourselves and the community.

 

I think this can only lead to more dangerous and unforeseen results.

 

Why not just teach rational behavior and set up fail safes that punish those who refuse to go along?

 

In the Bali example, if a certain way of harvesting rice produces optimal results, then teach that society this fact rather than tricking them with superstitions. The superstitions surely cause other problems.

 

Religion and superstition are not going to cause greedy bankers from cutting open the golden goose. Arguing that it will is arguing the xian point that society is in a downfall due to a moving away from prayer in school and other such nonsense.

 

The failure in the banks was a failure in government oversight caused in large part by too much superstition in the country. Bush was elected with the backing of industry who sought self regulation. But he could have never been elected had he not appealed to the religious majority in areas that had nothing at all to do with the interests of greedy, short-sighted CEOs.

 

Those who saw it happening and who complained about it were drowned out by those who supported the admin blindly for religious reasons.

 

The failure is a failure of the US education system that has created a population so dim that they can't understand what is in their own best interest until they feel the pain that occurred in the vacuum of their own ignorance. If you create a new national superstition, that too will be appealed to by politicians who will use it as a sleight of hand to take the minds of the citizens off the fact that the politicians are working against their own best interests for the interests of a greedy elite. Citizens need to be more informed. The press needs to be more free. There needs to be more diversity of opinion, not less.

 

In the end we all need to accept the fact that there will never be a utopia or a system that works without problems. Creating a national mind will only create monstrous problems though, like we have seen so many times throughout history.

[Ouroboros]

I don't mean this to be offensive. I'm just thinking out loud. This whole thread is starting sound like ivory tower elitism run wild. We see problems with society and so we are offering up ways to trick the plebes into following paths that we feel will best serve ourselves and the community.

It's fun to do sometimes, and even if we can't change anything, who knows, we might come up with some good thoughts to help ourselves to understand the world better. Anyone with an opinion is putting themselves in an ivory tower of some kind.

 

I think this can only lead to more dangerous and unforeseen results.

 

Why not just teach rational behavior and set up fail safes that punish those who refuse to go along?

That would definitely be one of the core foundations of the "new religion." Reason, rationality, and logic would have to be just as important as math, language, or PE.

 

The failure is a failure of the US education system that has created a population so dim that they can't understand what is in their own best interest until they feel the pain that occurred in the vacuum of their own ignorance. If you create a new national superstition, that too will be appealed to by politicians who will use it as a sleight of hand to take the minds of the citizens off the fact that the politicians are working against their own best interests for the interests of a greedy elite. Citizens need to be more informed. The press needs to be more free. There needs to be more diversity of opinion, not less.

Agree.

 

In the end we all need to accept the fact that there will never be a utopia or a system that works without problems. Creating a national mind will only create monstrous problems though, like we have seen so many times throughout history.

Agree #2.

 

I've said it for years, there's no perfect political system or social structure. The best ones are the ones that can adjust to changes over time and adapt, but have fail-safes from falling into the extremes.

[Neon Genesis]

So the answer might be to have a different kind of religion? Still the same practice, filling the same needs, but yet allow free thought and allowing many versions of belief? (Actually, I suspect that was the idea behind Catholicism.)

So, in other words, we need to evangelize Unitarian Universalism?

[Ouroboros]

So the answer might be to have a different kind of religion? Still the same practice, filling the same needs, but yet allow free thought and allowing many versions of belief? (Actually, I suspect that was the idea behind Catholicism.)

So, in other words, we need to evangelize Unitarian Universalism?

With an atheist twist, maybe?

 

If it's true that people (the majority) would need a myth to stick to, then why not.

 

The problem I see though, is that the more liberal or open minded the belief system is, the less do they tend to evangelize. It's like, the good belief is the one which tolerates other beliefs, which leads to them not trying to push their issue at all. The sheep can't win the wolfs over.

[Vomit Comet]

So the answer might be to have a different kind of religion? Still the same practice, filling the same needs, but yet allow free thought and allowing many versions of belief? (Actually, I suspect that was the idea behind Catholicism.)

So, in other words, we need to evangelize Unitarian Universalism?

 

I dunno man... I get the feeling that they're not the biggest party animals on earth. I'd rather have Alice Cooper be the new pope or something.

[Neon Genesis]

I dunno man... I get the feeling that they're not the biggest party animals on earth. I'd rather have Alice Cooper be the new pope or something.

So, then we should go with Hans' suggestion to add an atheist twist to it and sacrifice virgins to the devil while eating babies at the altar?

[Ouroboros]

So, then we should go with Hans' suggestion to add an atheist twist to it and sacrifice virgins to the devil while eating babies at the altar?

Don't forget the wild sex! Or the endless mead drinking.

[Saviourmachine]

Why not just teach rational behavior and set up fail safes that punish those who refuse to go along?

Because that is boring. That's the point.

[chefranden]

1. Why not just teach rational behavior and set up fail safes that punish those who refuse to go along?

 

In the Bali example, if a certain way of harvesting rice produces optimal results, then teach that society this fact rather than tricking them with superstitions. The superstitions surely cause other problems.

 

 

2. Religion and superstition are not going to cause greedy bankers from cutting open the golden goose. Arguing that it will is arguing the xian point that society is in a downfall due to a moving away from prayer in school and other such nonsense.

 

I've been thinking about this. How does one teach rational behavior? It occurs to me that if rational behavior were the best response to the environment it would have been selected for. Even now one would be hard pressed to argue that rational behavior is what evolution is shooting for. At most rational thought is an adjunct to emotional behavior. It seems to me that teaching rational behavior instead of the irrational would be like trying to teach dogs to walk exclusively on their hind legs while hunting. Some dogs may be able to do it but most wouldn't. If you want that dog to hunt then it would be best not complicate the matter with the two leg walking thing.

 

Teaching the Balinese to be rational would necessarily divert their attention from the real skill, farming rice. People seem to learn the rules better in a religious context because their brains are built for it. I'm starting to think that religion is innate like language probably is. (Pinker) I don't think that the religious bent is just a meme any more, although the doctrines probably are.

 

One reason we don't like religion is that the rules are set and difficult to change. In a world of rapid change like we are in now this may not be very handy. However, we didn't evolve in a world of rapid change. In the slow times a system in which the rules didn't have to be re-argued and then re-learned every few days would have saved time and energy for actually getting on with life.

 

Even rationally thought out different rules are not necessarily better than the old ones, and stand a good chance of being worse. Natural selection went against easy mind changing while at the same allowed for difficult mind changing -- just in case.

 

Rationally speaking, it seems to me, that if one wants a pack of dogs to be better hunters it would be best to work within their innate behaviors.

 

2. I would be surprised if anything "just worked". I don't think that belief would keep certain people from cheating, but it may place restrictions on them not the least of which would be the anger of their co-religionists against their sin of greed. Imagine if the righteous anger that is presently directed at gays and abortions were directed at Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and so on. Imagine if Alan Greenspan were being treated like Ted Haggard. That would add to some self adjustments on The Street.

[Vigile]

I've been thinking about this. How does one teach rational behavior? It occurs to me that if rational behavior were the best response to the environment it would have been selected for.

 

I agree we humans are not entirely rational. Yet rationality is what I equate to progress. I don't think it's a valid goal to attempt or even hope for turning society into a bunch of Spocks but what I'm suggesting is giving people tools of rationality to work with.

 

Americans graduate with a very poor understanding of logical fallacy and the scientific method. As a result a vast majority live in a fantasy world where the stars guide their destiny and imaginary beings watch over them.

 

Societies with lessor levels of education are even more steeped in fantasy life. Americans at least are very good at understanding rational thought where the rubber meets the road. Farmers don't do rain dances, they understand the basics of chemistry and engineering and they act accordingly and so they don't resort to mythology to help them do their jobs in the most efficient way possible based on current scientific progress.

 

Nevertheless, in areas where issues are more abstract, such as global threats, large numbers of voters believe in god's will and adopt principles not unlike manifest destiny and none of this is good for the country and it's even worse for the world. Europeans OTH have developed a more rational baseline of reason over the past 50-60 years and scratch their heads in wonder as Americans still look to religion as they evaluate and support their government.

 

Even now one would be hard pressed to argue that rational behavior is what evolution is shooting for.

 

Evolution isn't the guide for truth or our destiny. It plays a big role to be sure but it is those who use reason over evolutionary emotion that succeed best in life. For example, investors who merely respond to the evolutionary emotions of fear and greed end up getting wagged by the tail as those who employ rationality to the markets and fade the crowds. They can do this because they understand statistics and probabilities where the crowds are left in the dark.

 

Likewise, those who believe in voodoo are in the dark while modern medical technology bypasses human emotion and ignores the natural tendency toward viewing patterns where none exist as they let the data be their guide. The result has been an explosion methods and medicine with statistically verifiable efficacy.

 

I do think it's easier to lead society with myths and grandiose ideas than it is with rationality but the results of this easy path are and have been proven to be very dangerous because it leaves the crowds vulnerable to the bad ambitions of those who use those myths for their own agenda. Teaching critical thinking skills and encouraging their use would go a long way toward helping people act in ways that are in their own best interest rather than acting in ways that are in someone else's best interest.

 

Case in point, the war on terrorism. People are irrationally giving up their freedom because they don't have the skills to think critically about fear mongering. Were people to simply evaluate statistics and reason that they are far more likely to die in a car accident or from a heart attack than from a terrorist bombing they would be must less likely to allow lawmakers to rip from them their hard fought for freedoms.

 

Teaching the Balinese to be rational would necessarily divert their attention from the real skill, farming rice.

 

And what happens to these people when there is a drought? Or using another example, Brasil, what happens to the land when the farmers cut down the rain forest because the farmers don't understand crop rotation and other modern farming methods that allow them to reuse land instead of using it up and then moving on?

 

2. I would be surprised if anything "just worked". I don't think that belief would keep certain people from cheating, but it may place restrictions on them not the least of which would be the anger of their co-religionists against their sin of greed. Imagine if the righteous anger that is presently directed at gays and abortions were directed at Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and so on. Imagine if Alan Greenspan were being treated like Ted Haggard. That would add to some self adjustments on The Street.

 

Again, the problem here is abuse. Religion and myth have not been used to raise ire but instead have been used to allow ire to be overlooked. For example, the last admin, as well as the Reagan admin, benefited from a religious base who has been taught to raise their ire against any ideas outside of those values of greed and dominance. They somehow believe these are god given rights and has reached a level where jingoism from the likes of Limbaugh has built a strong wall of protection around those who work against the very interests of those who most strongly support them.

 

This is the danger. Rational thought is dangerous to those in power and its a bit messy in a democracy but that's exactly what it needs; vast resources of competing ideas and compromise from everyone who understand their own self interest rather than supporting the interests of those who control the message via wrapping it in the myth.

[chefranden]

1. I agree we humans are not entirely rational. Yet rationality is what I equate to progress. I don't think it's a valid goal to attempt or even hope for turning society into a bunch of Spocks but what I'm suggesting is giving people tools of rationality to work with.

 

Americans graduate with a very poor understanding of logical fallacy and the scientific method. As a result a vast majority live in a fantasy world where the stars guide their destiny and imaginary beings watch over them.

 

Societies with lessor levels of education are even more steeped in fantasy life. Americans at least are very good at understanding rational thought where the rubber meets the road. Farmers don't do rain dances, they understand the basics of chemistry and engineering and they act accordingly and so they don't resort to mythology to help them do their jobs in the most efficient way possible based on current scientific progress.

 

2. Nevertheless, in areas where issues are more abstract, such as global threats, large numbers of voters believe in god's will and adopt principles not unlike manifest destiny and none of this is good for the country and it's even worse for the world. Europeans OTH have developed a more rational baseline of reason over the past 50-60 years and scratch their heads in wonder as Americans still look to religion as they evaluate and support their government.

 

Note: I'm not believing "yet" that this idea of an artificial god is a good one. I'm just trying to explore it by having you or anyone who wants to poke holes in it.

 

1. It is not that we are not entirely rational. We are almost entirely irrational. This is even more the case as groups get larger. Our logical faculty serves as a second opinion usually after the fact. We can train it to be a second opinion before the fact, but it isn't easy. Nearly everyone is trained in reading. A good many of those trained never get good at it, and of those that get good at it few actually read for anything beyond entertainment or work. It think that training in critical thinking would suffer in the same way.

 

On the other hand religion requires no training. Children learn it rather like they learn language. The Sunday School is a rather recent practice in the annuls of religion and it is not really necessary for the child to pick up the faith of it's environment.

 

It's not that I'm against training in critical thinking. It is only that I doubt it will ever be the solution for better behavior -- especially the behavior of the collective.

 

Since people as a collective are more easily persuaded through the religious faculty than through the logical faculty, why not use it in the service of better social behavior? MLK and Gandhi used it in this way. MLK achieved better social justice via religion, and he was killed as he was trying to use it to achieve better economic justice. It seems to me that this could be the most rational way to proceed towards progress.

 

Rational people have left the field open to the nut balls. I'm not sure that this is a good game plan.

 

2. Yes. This is part of my point. People don't handle the abstract via through rational thinking. This is just a biological fact of our collective behavior. We easily see the wisdom in finding out what nature is doing in the case of disease and then working with it to bring about a cure. Why not use the same wisdom for social ills.

 

I haven't lived in Europe, so I don't have a sense of what you are driving at. However, it does seem to me that Europe has participated in cutting the goose open. That is their rational base line didn't help much in this case.

 

More to follow when I have time.

[Vigile]

I don't think anyone will stop the goose from getting cut open Chef. We have to just do our best to nip these things in the bud as they come along and now and again they are going to burn us. Humanity is messy and so is life. If anything, I would argue that a common myth would make these things more likely as it would allow those in power to use the myth for cover ups. We need independent minded people who question and protest, not people who are led by jingoism and shallow rationale.

 

Using myth won't make the world better IMO and the more predominant one myth becomes the more dangerous it is due to the fact that it can be abused by those who control the message; not to mention the tyranny it creates against those on the outside.

 

I couldn't find the exact quote, but this is what I found regarding what Madison had to say on the subject:

 

Where, as in the case of competing religious sects, a partial end is sought to the detriment of other sects, the fragmentation of interests will preclude any action.

 

With this before us we are able to perceive why nonfactious groups are in a far better position to achieve their ends through the system, and why it is that factions face almost insurmountable obstacles. To the extent that proposals do not impair the accepted rights of others, there is every presumption that the independent force will favor them if they are otherwise meritorious. In any event, members of the independent force will be able to do those things good and virtuous representatives should do: act in the true interest of the country. Stated otherwise, when there is no independent force, the possibilities of factious control are greatly increased.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?optio...&Itemid=287

[Vomit Comet]

Some people would define "rational" in economic terms. If you fuck up the land, if you burn out your workers, it's okay, as long as the enterprise (producing rice for a commodity market) is as profitable as possible.

 

Others would define "rational" in terms of how well the "machine" functions. Humanity takes a backseat to the operation, just like with Taylorism.

 

The Nazis came up with the most "rational" possible way to exterminate as many human beings as possible in a very rapid amount of time. They cited Henry Ford as one of their technical inspirations.

 

In short, I reckon that we must flesh out what is meant by "rational."

[chefranden]

1. Evolution isn't the guide for truth or our destiny. It plays a big role to be sure but it is those who use reason over evolutionary emotion that succeed best in life. For example, investors who merely respond to the evolutionary emotions of fear and greed end up getting wagged by the tail as those who employ rationality to the markets and fade the crowds. They can do this because they understand statistics and probabilities where the crowds are left in the dark.

 

Likewise, those who believe in voodoo are in the dark while modern medical technology bypasses human emotion and ignores the natural tendency toward viewing patterns where none exist as they let the data be their guide. The result has been an explosion methods and medicine with statistically verifiable efficacy.

 

2. I do think it's easier to lead society with myths and grandiose ideas than it is with rationality but the results of this easy path are and have been proven to be very dangerous because it leaves the crowds vulnerable to the bad ambitions of those who use those myths for their own agenda. Teaching critical thinking skills and encouraging their use would go a long way toward helping people act in ways that are in their own best interest rather than acting in ways that are in someone else's best interest.

 

3. Case in point, the war on terrorism. People are irrationally giving up their freedom because they don't have the skills to think critically about fear mongering. Were people to simply evaluate statistics and reason that they are far more likely to die in a car accident or from a heart attack than from a terrorist bombing they would be must less likely to allow lawmakers to rip from them their hard fought for freedoms.

 

Sorry for the delay I'm in the process of getting my computer rebuilt. The last rebuild is 3 years old and I was in the dark ages again.

 

1. I think it might be the case that those who use reason more get closer to the top on an individual basis. However, social problems operate on the level of the collective and the group mind cannot be said to be rational. Some individuals like Warren Buffet can use their reason to stay above the market bullshit and ride where the market goes without getting bucked off and trampled, but even he has to go where the market is going.

 

Knowledge of evolution is a guide in that it can show the realities of collective human behavior.

 

Perhaps the problem of religion is that it doesn't have a reality based myth. The market operates largely on the myths laid down by Smith. There is the Unseen Hand for example, though I believe it is referred to as "market forces" these days. What if the market had listened to the prophet Buffet instead of the prophet Greenspan? What if the market had taboos about playing to close to psychological tipping point? That wouldn't ensure that no one would do it, but it might ensure that those who do are not allowed to play anymore let alone be consulted on how to undo the mess. As it is the false prophets are still being consulted.

 

What if religion were given a rational basis? What if religion was about the here and now instead of the hereafter? What if the myths weren't about magic but about reality on the ground. I'm guessing that this is really what the Bali myths are, a means that keeps a sustainable system going in a collective of humans. Someone figured out what worked in that environment and then saw that the system continued via religion. Could religion be the way that humans transmitted sustainable living across generation?

 

I can't help but think that if a nut ball like L. Ron Hubbard can just invent a religion out of the blue that a rational group of people could do the same -- especially if they knew what religion was as a core behavior. What if somebody studied religion like Chomsky has studied language? Maybe someone has, but I haven't heard of it. Anyway, why leave religion to the voodoo guys and Republicans?

 

2. As far as crowds go, I haven't heard of anything outside of myth that actually leads them. I see little evidence that the collective mind is rational and I'm thinking that all the education in the world isn't going to change that. It does leave the crowd vulnerable to the bad ambitions... But maybe that is because the playing field has been ceded to the unscrupulous.

 

3. This is one of the things I'm thinking about. I don't think that the strengthening of a minor faculty of mind is going to overcome the major faculty of mind. First because the logistics of spreading the necessary training are not readily available. Even if the training could be gotten to the masses I doubt it would actually overcome the major emotional faculty in group situations. Religion seems to be the way that we have evolved to handle group think.