Re: Boy Genius or Craft Idiot?

From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 21:14:33 MDT

  • Next message: Doug Skrecky: "could lowering IGF-1 postpone "aging"?"

    From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@yahoo.com>
    >
    > [I'm] drawing a contrast between what seems
    > to be a need for you to attack religiosity when overtly expressed as
    > such (even to the point of dissing a 13 year old kid, which I think was
    > excessive, and which you seem to be backing off a bit, good for you!),

    What is all this "attack religiosity" business? I mean, religiosity is not
    above reproach, is it? Maybe I don't mince words (and I like to have fun
    with words - hmmm, I think that was the name of one of my primers from
    childhood, Fun With Words), but, Mike, I'm really a sweetie. Carl Sagan was
    (had to be) much more diplomatic when he wrote about the issues we've been
    discussing on this thread, and I've admired his clarity and integrity for a
    long time (maybe you'll find his thoughts regarding religiosity more
    palatable, and not as churlish as mine?):

    http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htm

    > yet you have been silent on the writing of Nick Bostrom, whose
    > simulation arguments MANDATE that there be a system operator, i.e. a
    > 'God' to have created this universe if it is indeed a simulation. I'll
    > note that you failed to respond to this point in my post. Please do
    > respond now.

    I am much more pedestrian than Nick Bostrom. I am also at a complete loss
    to understand what he means by a "system operator" (i.e., a "God"). I
    MANDATE that there be proof (or rhyme or reason), and if and when there is
    incontrovertible evidence ... I'll skip my skiff and join you all on the the
    God Ship Lollipop.

    > > As I've not had any trouble shedding religiosity at a very early
    > > age (and I'm no genius), I was wondering what
    > > people thought. I've learned some things here (I usually do), and
    > > appreciate the input from all the posters.

    > I'll note that you failed to respond to my earlier post making just
    > that contrast, that Mr Smith IS a supergenius and you are not, so IMHO
    > it's a bit arrogant for you to think that it was to be assumed that you
    > automatically knew more than him, in calling him arrogant for thinking
    > that there is a God.

    That's not what I meant. I don't think intelligence has much to do with
    whether a person comes up with the observation: "There's no reason to think
    there's a supernatural creator (not to mention: 'Which one?')," v. "Why,
    yes, of course there is a supernatural creator." I've read about many
    humans' almost palpable desire to believe in a divine force (due to
    something dubbed "the religion gene"). Whatever it is - whatever makes
    group A different from group B - this interests me, and remains a mystery to
    me. I'm very practical - maybe I don't have a very fantastical mind. Ever
    since reading Russian fairy tales as a child, I've always liked stories
    (these days, in the form of some fiction, movies and the like), but when it
    comes to day-to-day life, I am very practical - a materialist.

    > As for myself, I'm enough of a genius to say I don't know the answer. I
    > am genius enough to say that the arguments made by Nick Bostrom are
    > persuasive that we likely do live in a simulation. If that is so, then
    > the argument that there is a creator 'God' is implicit. Furthermore,
    > the range of knowledge between what we know and what such a theoretical
    > God must know to have achieved this simulation is so significant that
    > we really are in no position to judge any limits on what is and is not
    > possible for such a God to do within this simulation.

    As a child I remember seeing an episode of The Twilight Zone that first
    introduced me to the idea of living in a simulation - I mean, the screenplay
    was very crude and simple, but I found it intriguing. But unless and until
    there's good reason to believe any of that, I'm of the parsimonious
    principle school (aka Occam's razor).

    > Thus, if the simulation argument holds, then atheism is dead, and
    > religiosity is an acceptable standard for scientific individuals to
    practice.

    There's nothing like scientific proof. And I'll believe it when I see it
    (and - it is hoped - understand it!).

    Olga



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 21:27:38 MDT