5 ms·

I guess part of it is what to do with a religious claim. If you say: "God created us all", that's fair, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to go from there.

I guess part of it is what to do with a religious claim. If you say: "God created us all", that's fair, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to go from there. I can either agree with you or disagree, but I can't really discuss it.

phkahler 10y ago
And yet this article points out that these other notions are equivalent to saying god made it. It's OK for elon musk to think we are a simulation created by someone, but not on to say "religion". I found Musk's idea equally stupid for that very reason. May as well say the universe is on a turtles back. But what's that turtle standing on? It's turtles all the way down.
- projektir 10y ago
  God and simulation to me are fundamentally different, but that may be because I dabbled in religion a lot. The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting. Why wouldn't someone be able to create a simulation like ours at some point? I am not following why Musk's belief is stupid? Yeah, obviously there's another layer above, and this doesn't explain that much, but I don't understand the stupid part. God is something else. For one, not all gods in religions are the same. The Christian God is not a mere simulator. He's everything that ever was (i.e., final level), he's super powerful, and, most importantly, as far as Christianity is concerned everything that God does is right.
  - milesf 10y ago
    Uh, yeah, that's a pretty good summary: God is, by definition in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, the standard of good.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    To me, they're the same because both can't be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. I find Musk's statement stupid because he just didn't say it's possible. He said it was probable.
    - projektir 10y ago
      That does not make statements the same. That's not what "same" means. Simulation could be said to be probable. I recall reading a piece of math done on the subject and it seemed a lot more probable than the alternative. Contrary to the God idea, where the probability seems impossible to measure. This seems like the wrong place to use "stupid", and terms like that mostly exist as a shaming tool rather than for truth exploration, so I tend to be suspicious of anyone using them, especially if they claim to be informed enough to know better than to use them.
      - woofyman 10y ago
        You really believe it's probable that we live in a simulation based on a math paper? That math paper is itself simulated as is your reading and understanding of it.
  - placebo 10y ago
    >The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting Well, it might not be interesting in terms of answering what I consider to be the truly fundamental questions (the answers for which I'd also argue are outside the realm of thought), but it definitely is interesting in terms of what can be accomplished or understood within the realm of thought, just as many other things are.
milesf 10y ago
Every community I have been a part of (church, family, techs, software development, Ruby Programming, etc) have been multifaceted. I will only talk about my camp, Evangelical Christians, because that's what I know. When I was a new Christian back in 1990 I was a bit baffled by the anti-intellectualism I witness among my friends at a local Pentecostal church. I found a sufficient answer in the book "Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It". So I think it's fair to say many people have had the experience of talking to people of faith who know what they believe, but they don't know why they believe it. I'll give you that. But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits.
- beefok 10y ago
  "But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits." The key here is that they started off as Christian seminaries. Are they any longer? Perhaps this same reasoning led them to stop being Christian seminaries in the first place.
  - milesf 10y ago
    (facepalm) Did you even bother to search their websites? http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home
- projektir 10y ago
  My theory on why certain kinds of people believe in things like religion has to do with different styles of information collection and perceiving the world. Religion is often adapted, or rejected, on moral grounds, rather than strict evidence grounds, because it's a lot more relevant to life on Earth than it is to who created the world at the end of the day. Given that, it's not too surprising that religion can affect things without being true. The moral parts of religion are a lot more interesting and influential than the creationist parts, but the creationist parts make it sound true. But what are the arguments for the creationist parts? The Bible simply says, in the beginning there was this and that. Most arguments after that are more about the fact that Jesus existed and made miracles, and therefore he had unusual powers, and if he had unusual powers, perhaps what he said was true. I've never seen any from the ground up evidence about creation itself. Intelligent design to me is a counterargument more than an argument, and, apart from that, I haven't heard much at all.

phkahler 10y ago

And yet this article points out that these other notions are equivalent to saying god made it. It's OK for elon musk to think we are a simulation created by someone, but not on to say "religion". I found Musk's idea equally stupid for that very reason. May as well say the universe is on a turtles back. But what's that turtle standing on? It's turtles all the way down.

projektir 10y ago
God and simulation to me are fundamentally different, but that may be because I dabbled in religion a lot. The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting. Why wouldn't someone be able to create a simulation like ours at some point? I am not following why Musk's belief is stupid? Yeah, obviously there's another layer above, and this doesn't explain that much, but I don't understand the stupid part. God is something else. For one, not all gods in religions are the same. The Christian God is not a mere simulator. He's everything that ever was (i.e., final level), he's super powerful, and, most importantly, as far as Christianity is concerned everything that God does is right.
- milesf 10y ago
  Uh, yeah, that's a pretty good summary: God is, by definition in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, the standard of good.
- woofyman 10y ago
  To me, they're the same because both can't be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. I find Musk's statement stupid because he just didn't say it's possible. He said it was probable.
  - projektir 10y ago
    That does not make statements the same. That's not what "same" means. Simulation could be said to be probable. I recall reading a piece of math done on the subject and it seemed a lot more probable than the alternative. Contrary to the God idea, where the probability seems impossible to measure. This seems like the wrong place to use "stupid", and terms like that mostly exist as a shaming tool rather than for truth exploration, so I tend to be suspicious of anyone using them, especially if they claim to be informed enough to know better than to use them.
    - woofyman 10y ago
      You really believe it's probable that we live in a simulation based on a math paper? That math paper is itself simulated as is your reading and understanding of it.
- placebo 10y ago
  >The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting Well, it might not be interesting in terms of answering what I consider to be the truly fundamental questions (the answers for which I'd also argue are outside the realm of thought), but it definitely is interesting in terms of what can be accomplished or understood within the realm of thought, just as many other things are.

milesf 10y ago

Every community I have been a part of (church, family, techs, software development, Ruby Programming, etc) have been multifaceted. I will only talk about my camp, Evangelical Christians, because that's what I know. When I was a new Christian back in 1990 I was a bit baffled by the anti-intellectualism I witness among my friends at a local Pentecostal church. I found a sufficient answer in the book "Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It". So I think it's fair to say many people have had the experience of talking to people of faith who know what they believe, but they don't know why they believe it. I'll give you that. But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits.

beefok 10y ago
"But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits." The key here is that they started off as Christian seminaries. Are they any longer? Perhaps this same reasoning led them to stop being Christian seminaries in the first place.
- milesf 10y ago
  (facepalm) Did you even bother to search their websites? http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home
projektir 10y ago
My theory on why certain kinds of people believe in things like religion has to do with different styles of information collection and perceiving the world. Religion is often adapted, or rejected, on moral grounds, rather than strict evidence grounds, because it's a lot more relevant to life on Earth than it is to who created the world at the end of the day. Given that, it's not too surprising that religion can affect things without being true. The moral parts of religion are a lot more interesting and influential than the creationist parts, but the creationist parts make it sound true. But what are the arguments for the creationist parts? The Bible simply says, in the beginning there was this and that. Most arguments after that are more about the fact that Jesus existed and made miracles, and therefore he had unusual powers, and if he had unusual powers, perhaps what he said was true. I've never seen any from the ground up evidence about creation itself. Intelligent design to me is a counterargument more than an argument, and, apart from that, I haven't heard much at all.