= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Morendil comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1329)
On the contrary; many people consider the issue settled because all major scientific debates in history, bar none, have ended up weighing against the notion of a personal God who takes an interest in and intervenes in human affairs.
(It is, rather, the persistence of the myth, and its influence on public affairs, that seems to demand scientific scrutiny!)
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that scientific studies are necessary to resolve the theism/atheism question?
Yes. They are a) necessary and b) already done. (The "question" I have in mind is a specific one, that of a personal God who, etc. as stated above.)
Prior to, say, the invention of writing, it would perhaps have been legitimate to consider the existence of a personal God (or gods) an open question, susceptible of being settled by investigation. In fact under a hypothesis like Julian Jaynes' humans about 3000 years ago might have had overwhelming evidence that Gods existed... yet they'd still have been mistaken about that.
Discovering this hypothesis makes reading this thread worthwhile. I'm shocked I hadn't heard of it before. Maybe the coolest, most bizarre yet plausible idea I have heard in the last two years. Just hearing it (not even believing it) modifies my worldview. Have you or anyone else read the book? Recommended?
I've read the book, which was mentioned favorably in Dennett's Consciousness Explained and forms part of the backstory to Stephenson's Snow Crash. Curiosity compelled me to look further.
My level of understanding of the book's thesis is mostly level-0, i.e. there is a "bicamerality" password but I'd have to reread the book to reacquaint myself with its precise predictions, and I'd be hard pressed to reconstruct the theory myself.
I do have a few pieces of understanding which seem level-2-ish; for instance, the hypothesis accounts for the feeling that a lot of my thinking is internal soliloquy. Also, the idea that consciousness, like love, could in large part be a "memetic" and collective construct (I use the term "meme" evocatively rather than rigorously) somehow appeals to me.
I'd recommend you read it if only for the pleasure of having one more person to discuss it with. I may have to reread it in that case.
Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the first such scientific study? Thanks in advance.
It would be futile to try and pinpoint the first chronologically, but for the one that most pointedly refuted a previously established truth, namely that "God made Man in His image", I'd start with Darwin's Origin of Species.
Though, actually, Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea is probably a better starting point, for being a gloss on Darwin.
You should know, before you ask your next pseudo-Socratic question: given that you seem intent on sticking to that style of "argumentation", I'm going to take your advice and not engage you anymore.