emotionless AIs

Brent Allsop (allsop@swttools.fc.hp.com)
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:51:45 -0600

Okanna Borra <okannaborra@geocities.com> commented:

> This is really easy to understand, I can summarize in four words...
> Science is our greatest method for finding truth, but religion
> generates meaning.

This isn't the way I see it at all. Science is a rational
method of finding truth, meaning, and anything else of value.
Religion is simply something that comes into play when there isn't yet
enough scientific or rational information or data to convince everyone
such that they all have the same view. When everyone disagrees,
because of lack of reliable scientific evidence, we fall back on
religion. When there is finally enough reliable or rational evidence
to convince everyone, then it becomes science. And this includes the
realm of "meaning". I find infinitely more good and hopeful "meaning"
in science than in any nebulous, unreproducible, ununderstandable,
contradictory religion I know of. For example, the "meaning of life"
is very different and contradictory in all of the religions of the
world. That is why it is religion, because no one can agree on which
religious views are mistaken and which are closer to reality. Only
rational means such as science can reliably show us which "meanings of
life" are mistaken or misguided and which are true, good, hopeful and
worth having faith in and striving for.

> I'm telling you that Science will lead you to the top of the
> mountain but when you get there you'll have no idea what your
> looking at unless you embrace your soul and take a little religion
> along too.

As long as there is "religion", or people are disagreeing
about what is right and what is wrong, we will not yet be "at the top
of the mountain" or know for sure any true meanin. Only when all
religion is eliminated and everything has become science,
i.e. everyone can finally agree and reliably understand why, will we
have finally discovered all meaning and truth.

Brent Allsop