PhilGoetz comments on How theism works - Less Wrong

51 Post author: ciphergoth 10 April 2009 04:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 April 2009 07:01:12PM *  1 point [-]

Note that there is a large space of possible materialist theisms (eg The Matrix).

The division of nature into spiritual/physical came much later than the invention of religion. I don't think an ancient Greek could have described his beliefs as supernatural in the way that we understand; the concept of "supernatural" wasn't complete until we had a concept of "the natural" as those things that obeyed the laws of nature.

So, I think saying that "religion has the supernatural at its core" (not that I know what Eliezer means to say, but that's part of what I think he's saying) is a projection of more recent, relatively sophisticated theological ideas onto the entire spectrum of religions.

<EDIT> Heck. I read the link Eliezer gave, and actually that isn't what he's saying, because he's defining "supernatural" in a particular way that probably does include the entire spectrum of existing religions:

By far the best definition I've ever heard of the supernatural is Richard Carrier's: A "supernatural" explanation appeals to ontologically basic mental things, mental entities that cannot be reduced to nonmental entities.

This might not describe Unitarianism. It doesn't describe the Matrix theism, which is part of an underexplored space of "theisms that are not religious". And it may just be historical accident that our theisms are religious, and that our religions are supernatural.

Would you consider someone who believed in an absolute morality, but not in a God or an afterlife or spirits, to be religious, but have no supernatural beliefs? </EDIT>

Comment author: MichaelVassar 12 April 2009 09:10:15PM 1 point [-]

I have heard that Hobbes claimed to be materialistic and a Christian!

Comment author: Oligopsony 18 March 2012 12:47:34PM 1 point [-]

Hobbes definitely believed (or claimed to) in God and a materialist account of human beings. It's less clear that he believed in a materialist account of God Himself. (This belief has shown up in Christianity a number of times; the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. It's probably the most natural reading of the Bible.)

Comment author: MrHen 10 April 2009 07:11:21PM 0 points [-]

The phrase "materialist theism" is interesting. Do you mean materialist religion? If not, do you mind expounding on your terms?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 April 2009 07:16:00PM 1 point [-]

Like The Matrix. The makers of the Matrix are gods to those living in the Matrix. If those in the Matrix were aware of it, they would be theists, but probably not religious.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 April 2009 09:03:03PM 1 point [-]

That's not an actual religion. (EDIT: That is, nobody actually seems to believe in and worship this religion.) And there's a reason for that.

Comment author: MrHen 10 April 2009 11:51:54PM 0 points [-]

What is the reason?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 April 2009 12:05:46AM 1 point [-]

Because unless the Lords of the Matrix are made of spirit-stuff, having them being mere material beings made out of atoms, just like us only they happen to be the ones in charge of the simulation, does not make for very satisfying theology as long as you're going to just make stuff up anyway.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 12 April 2009 09:12:14PM 3 points [-]

It really is my impression that the Norse Aesir were just like that. You know, they have blood, have children, die, need to eat, etc. Despite that, Odin was involved in creating the (our) universe (Midgard).

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 April 2009 09:14:25PM 1 point [-]

But the Aesir had a sacred dimension that the Matrix Lords would not; they had assigned roles in the scheme of things and not just assumed roles in the scheme of things.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 12 April 2009 09:20:24PM 2 points [-]

Doesn't Agent Smith have an assigned role as a coordinator of the immune system? Doesn't something like fate or game theory ordain that some entity with his characteristics fill that role? Hell, the simulated universe in the Matrix was forced by human nature, e.g. "what's right" while the Norse universe could just as easily have been different and will be after Ragnarok. And of course, to determinist, everything MUST happen and to scientists/Humeans everything does happen for a reason, even if the reason is "the quantum coin flip comes up both ways. It inevitably progressed to a world where you saw it come up heads and one where you saw tails and in both of those worlds, to you asking this question and my giving this answer.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 January 2010 02:18:17PM 1 point [-]

If anyone started talking about Agent Smith just filling the ordained and necessary role as the coordinator of the immune system, then they would have invented the Matrix religion. That is, once you have divinely ordained roles, you have a religion, whether or not there's a postulated divinity to do the divine ordaining.

Comment author: Carinthium 14 November 2010 03:35:55AM 0 points [-]

Technically, the Matrix Lords might have been assigned roles to carry out in the program when it was created by it's initial creator and be programmed to carry them out. (Thus somewhat resembling religion)

Comment author: Carinthium 14 November 2010 03:34:59AM 0 points [-]

On the other hand, wouldn't trying to in some way (if possible) please the Lords of the Matrix and secure rewards be highly desirable if possible? In some possible Matrix-like situations, cult-like devotion might actually be rational.

Comment author: AlexU 10 April 2009 09:11:47PM 0 points [-]

You raise an interesting point I've considered before in relation to Bostrom's simulation argument: if we're living in a simulation, wouldn't that effectively make God real? I can't see a way to deny this without some linguistic legerdemain. It seems like one's probability assignment to the proposition "God is real" should be lower-bounded by the proposition "we're living in a simulation."