‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Religious scholars met with Anthropic

160 points · 416 comments · bookofjoe

  1. tzury · · focus · HN ↗
    The contradiction screams to the skies (is that where God lives?). See, the entire premise of religion relies on a metaphysics that claims a soul: a metaphysical entity that is "attached" to our physical body and gives us our consciousness, desires, pleasures, agony and so on. In addition to that, religion claims that morality and the rules written in the scriptures were handed down to us from a metaphysical God.

    Now, assuming your silicon-based model is conscious, the bundle of soul-spirit-consciousness falls apart at that very moment.

    In general, religion, which is based on fabricated stories, is the last resort, if ever, for seeking morality.

    1. monideas · · focus · HN ↗
      Existence demands a metaphysical explanation. If you’re not a particularly thoughtful person then you’re not going to care.

      “Religion” just means “set of beliefs”. Every person has some set of beliefs.

      If you’re an athiest tech worker living in a major city, you still have a religion, it’s just a random mishmash of various things (like Marvel movies and Huberman podcasts) rather than based on something more intentional.

      1. growfeather · · focus · HN ↗
        The word you’re looking for is “ideology”. All religions are ideologies, and atheism is an ideology, but to call atheism a religion betrays a lack of understanding of words.

        Heavy ideologues, of any type, are exceptionally dangerous.

        1. monideas · · focus · HN ↗
          Having made this argument to various people IRL, both terms “ideology” and “religion” are equivalent rhetorically. It depends on what these words mean precisely to a given person in particular but they are equivalent/interchangeable for the purpose of this argument broadly speaking in terms of the rhetorical core.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.