These acts are only horrible because Christianity isn't true.
Is that so?
Would real-life Christians who sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that Christianity is true agree that such acts are not horrible at all and, in fact, desirable and highly moral?
Therefore the antidote for these horrors is not, "don't swallow the bullet", it's "don't believe stuff without good evidence".
So once you think you have good evidence, all the horrors stop being horrors and become justified?
Would real-life Christians who sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that Christianity is true agree that such acts are not horrible at all and, in fact, desirable and highly moral?
Yes? Of course? With the caveats that the concept of 'Christianity' is the medieval one you mentioned above, that these Christians really have no doubts about their beliefs, and that they swallow the bullet.
So once you think you have good evidence, all the horrors stop being horrors and become justified?
Are you trolling? Is the notion that the morality of actions is dependent on reality really that surprising to you?
Yes, I do. Well, since I'm not actually religious, my understanding is hypothetical. But yes, this is precisely the point I'm making.
Well, my point is that stating all the horrible things that Christians should do to (hypothetically) save people from eternal torment is not a good argument against 'hard-core' utilitarianism. These acts are only horrible because Christianity isn't true. Therefore the antidote for these horrors is not, "don't swallow the bullet", it's "don't believe stuff without good evidence".
Are you saying that, if you came across strong evidence that the Christian Heaven and Hell are real, you wouldn't do absolutely anything necessary to get yourself and the people you care about to Heaven?
Yes, I'm saying that.
I'm not sure you're realizing all the consequences of taking that position VERY seriously. For example, you would want to kidnap children to baptize them. That's just as an intermediate step, of course -- you would want to convert or kill all non-Christians, as soon as possible, because even if their souls are already lost, they are leading their children astray, children whose souls could possibly be saved if they are removed from their heathen/Muslim/Jewish/etc. parents.
Yes, I acknowledge all of that. Do you understand the consequence of not doing those things, if Christianity is true?
Eternal torment, for everyone you failed to convert.
Eternal. Torment.
I'm passing on hard-core utilitarianism, basically. Specifically, I'm passing on on simple functions to be maxmised with everything else considered an acceptable sacrifice if it leads to an uptick in the One True Goal. Even more specifically, I'm passing on using guilt to manipulate people into doing things you want them to do, all in the service of One True Goal.
The parallel should be obvious: if you believe in eternal (!) salvation and torment, absolutely anything on Earth can be sacrificed for a minute increase in the chance of salvation.
The parallel should be obvious: if you believe in eternal (!) salvation and torment, absolutely anything on Earth can be sacrificed for a minute increase in the chance of salvation.
... yes? What's wrong with that? Are you saying that, if you came across strong evidence that the Christian Heaven and Hell are real, you wouldn't do absolutely anything necessary to get yourself and the people you care about to Heaven?
The medieval Christians you describe didn't fail morally because they were hard-core utilitarians, they failed because they believed Christianity was true!
Do you think Salon would publish a piece about how to check on what you read?
Do you already have something written on the subject? I'd like to read it.
The Northern Caves, probably. (I like Floornight by the same author better.)
Ohh, Floornight is pretty awesome (so far). Thanks!
[Survey Taken Thread]
By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.
Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.
Heh. Damn, beat me to it.
I find this interesting because Tim doesn't seem to come from the LW-sphere, but still clicked on arguments that I typically associate with LW-type people. That may say more about what I'm exposed to than anything else, though.
He doesn't come from the LW-sphere but he's obviously read a lot of LW or LW-affiliated stuff. I mean, he's written a pair of articles about the existential risk of AGI...
Here's some arguments against AI x-risk positions from an expert source rather than the popular media:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/superintelligence-fears-promises-and-potentials
http://time.com/3641921/dont-fear-artificial-intelligence/
In any case I think you have unnecessarily limited yourself to considering viewpoints expressed in media that tend to act as echo chambers. It's not very interesting or relevant what a bunch of talking heads say with respect to a technical question.
The Time article doesn't say anything interesting.
Goertzel's article (the first link you posted) is worth reading, although about half of it doesn't actually argue against AI risk, and the part that does seems obviously flawed to me. Even so, if more LessWrongers take the time to read the article I would enjoy talking about the details, particularly about his conception of AI architectures that aren't goal-driven.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Why don't you go ask some.
Huh? The "concept" of Christianity hasn't changed since the Middle Ages. The relevant part is that you either get saved and achieve eternal life or you are doomed to eternal torment. Of course I don't mean people like Unitarian Universalists, but rather "standard" Christians who believe in heaven and hell.
Morality certainly depends on the perception of reality, but the point here is different. We are talking here about what you can, should, or must sacrifice to get closer to the One True Goal (which in Christianity is salvation). Your answer is "everything". Why? Because the One True Goal justifies everything including things people call "horrors". Am I reading you wrong?
I mentioned three crucial caveats. I think it would be difficult to find Christians in 2016 who have no doubts and swallow the bullet about the implications of Christianity. It would be a lot easier a few hundred years ago.
What I mean is that the religious beliefs of the majority of people who call themselves Christians have changed a lot since medieval times.
I don't see the relevance of what you call a "One True Goal". I mean, One True Goal as opposed to what? Several Sorta True Goals? Ultimately, no matter what your goals are, you will necessarily be willing to sacrifice things that are less important to you in order to achieve them. Actions are justified as they relate to the accomplishment of a goal, or a set of goals.
If I were convinced that Roger is going to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York, I would feel justified (and obliged) to murder him, because like most of the people I know, I have the goal to prevent millions of innocents from dying. And yet, if I believed that Roger is going to do this on bad or non-existent evidence, the odds are that I would be killing an innocent man for no good reason. There would be nothing wrong with my goal (One True or not), only with my rationality. I don't see any fundamental difference between this scenario and the one we've been discussing.