Well, it's explicitly addressed in the article: > When an argument for higher purpose is put this way — that is, when it doesn’t involve the phrase “higher pur

Well, it's explicitly addressed in the article: > When an argument for higher purpose is put this way — that is, when it doesn’t involve the phrase “higher purpose” and, further, is cast more as a technological scenario than a metaphysical one — it is considered intellectually respectable. I don’t mean there aren’t plenty of people who dismiss it. I’m talking about how people dismiss it. [...] > If you walked up to the same people who gave Bostrom a respectful hearing and told them there is a transcendent God, many would dismiss the idea out of hand. So here you have it, people like the message better when it's told through a story they already know.