3 ms·

Yes, the techno-utopians really are all "failed atheists" fled to technology to create "heaven on earth". I am so often profoundly surprised by how these irrel

Yes, the techno-utopians really are all "failed atheists" fled to technology to create "heaven on earth". I am so often profoundly surprised by how these irreligious, anti-religious, fanatics so readily embrace sheer nonsense. I think it shows, in the end, being reconciled to reality as an animal on the earth is something many simply cannot abide. And irreligion is just so often an even greater fervour than heaven appear tomorrow, not after death. That its just around the bend. It's very disappointing. I think culture did, for a moment, put on stage real adults with a mature reconciliation with the nature of life. It seems we're sliding back into something.

TuringTest 4y ago
> I think culture did, for a moment, put on stage real adults with a mature reconciliation with the nature of life. It seems we're sliding back into something. I think that's just human nature. We long for transcendent meaning, and scientific positivism by its very nature cannot possibly provide it, so the scientist mirage that rationality alone with the careful study of nature could build a grown-up atheist discourse quickly fell apart and left us with the "new wave" religions. As a rational atheist, I still have hopes that we can build a spiritual stance based on rationality and scientific advancement, but I believe that the basis for this position to work is eclecticism - i.e. not assuming any religious mental corpus as inherently superior to the others (that implies, not even atheism over all kinds of theism). Recognize that theistic religious believers can be as rational and deep in their mental models as scientific skeptics, even if you don't believe in those teachings yourself. It worked well for the Romans, so I believe this approach is viable. How do you rationally reconcile as valid all those competing theories, when they are logically incompatible with each other, though? My ideal religion would hold narrative, and the emotions it conveys, as the sacred tenet of spiritualism. Think of "Speaker for the Dead" novel by Orson Scott Card; that narration was created from a theistic belief, but it equally resonates with atheists on an emotional level. All humans can identify with the power of a good story, it's hardwired into our brains. A religion that teaches tolerance towards alternate foundational myths, recognizing that everyone will have strong feelings about the stories they grew up with, can generate the empathy necessary for everyone to live with their own beliefs without imposing them on others. The teachings of this religions would be letting everyone believe in the narratives they prefer in those aspects that are indemonstrable by logic and science, thus avoiding religious wars.

TuringTest 4y ago

> I think culture did, for a moment, put on stage real adults with a mature reconciliation with the nature of life. It seems we're sliding back into something. I think that's just human nature. We long for transcendent meaning, and scientific positivism by its very nature cannot possibly provide it, so the scientist mirage that rationality alone with the careful study of nature could build a grown-up atheist discourse quickly fell apart and left us with the "new wave" religions. As a rational atheist, I still have hopes that we can build a spiritual stance based on rationality and scientific advancement, but I believe that the basis for this position to work is eclecticism - i.e. not assuming any religious mental corpus as inherently superior to the others (that implies, not even atheism over all kinds of theism). Recognize that theistic religious believers can be as rational and deep in their mental models as scientific skeptics, even if you don't believe in those teachings yourself. It worked well for the Romans, so I believe this approach is viable. How do you rationally reconcile as valid all those competing theories, when they are logically incompatible with each other, though? My ideal religion would hold narrative, and the emotions it conveys, as the sacred tenet of spiritualism. Think of "Speaker for the Dead" novel by Orson Scott Card; that narration was created from a theistic belief, but it equally resonates with atheists on an emotional level. All humans can identify with the power of a good story, it's hardwired into our brains. A religion that teaches tolerance towards alternate foundational myths, recognizing that everyone will have strong feelings about the stories they grew up with, can generate the empathy necessary for everyone to live with their own beliefs without imposing them on others. The teachings of this religions would be letting everyone believe in the narratives they prefer in those aspects that are indemonstrable by logic and science, thus avoiding religious wars.