= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Coscott comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (261)
Hmm, that is a distinction that is pretty clear cut. However most people who believe in god believe that all people have ontologically basic souls. Therefore, since they think ontologically basic is nothing particularly special, I do not think that they would consider that a particularly important part of the definition of a god.
If you read the survey questions God get's defined as an ontologically basic entity for the sake of the survey.
Oh. I was looking at the excel data and missed that. Oops. Maybe this means a lot more people agree with me than I thought.
They might think that being ontologically basic is a necessary condition for being a god, but not a sufficient condition. Then simulators are not gods, but souls are not gods either because they do not satisfy other possible necessary conditions: e,g, having created the universe, or being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (or at least being much more powerful, knowing and good than a human), etc.
Or perhaps, they believe being ontologically basic is necessary and sufficient for being a god, but interpret this not just as not being composed of material parts, but in the stronger sense of not being dependent on anything else for existing (which souls do not satisfy because they are created by God, and simulators don't because they have evolved or have been simulated in turn). (ETA: this last possibility probably applies to some theists but not the atheists you are talking about.)
What is your response to the argument I gave below?
They are indeed logically distinct questions. However, up to a few years ago all or almost all people who said yes to 1 also said yes to 2. The word "theism" was coined with these people in mind and is strongly associated with yes to 2 and with the rest of the religious memeset.
Thus, it is not surprising that many people who only accept (or find likely) 1 but not 2 would reject this label for fear of false associations. Since people accepting both 1 and 2 (religionists) tend to differ philosophically very much in other things from those accepting 1 but not 2 (simulationists), it seems better to use a new technical term (e.g. "creatorism") for plain yes to 1, instead of using a historical term like "theism" that obscures this difference.
Yes. I disagree with them.
(Eliminating the supernatural aspect explains the human mind, and explains away God.)
Disagree with simulatarians about whether or not we are simulated?
Disagree with theists that people have ontologically basic souls; further disagree with the claim that the 'ontologically basic' / 'supernatural' aspect of a god is unimportant to its definition.
(What theists think is not relevant to a question about the beliefs of people who not self-identify as theists.)
I feel like there are two independent questions:
1) Does there exist a creator with a mind?
2) Are minds ontologically basic?
I think that accurately factors beliefs into 2 different questions, since there are (I think) very few people who believe that god has an an ontologically basic mind yet we do not.
I do not think it is justified to combine these questions together, since there are people who say yes to 1 but not 2, and many many people who say yes to 2 but not 1.