The religious fundamentalist (even Islamic) rivals of transhumanism and cosmism don't bother me as much as atheist rivals of these ideas. And communist atheist anti-transhumanists and anti-cosmists like those in Communist regimes or even post-Soviet Societies, as they have become irrelevant, but the kind of Western mainstream atheists are the ones I am concerned about the most as they have influence in academia and media and professional field
The religious fundamentalist (even Islamic) rivals of transhumanism and cosmism don't bother me as much as atheist rivals of these ideas. And communist atheist anti-transhumanists and anti-cosmists like those in Communist regimes or even post-Soviet Societies, as they have become irrelevant, but the kind of Western mainstream atheists are the ones I am concerned about the most as they have influence in academia and media and professional field
“Cultural” fashions come and go. And many self-proclaimed atheists are really deeply religious persons inside (e.g. Arthur Clarke and even Carl Sagan), only they don’t want to admit it. I have no problems with them, provided they don’t fall into intolerant militant atheism. Live and let live.
I was talking about those like Dawkins and Hitchens. Mortalistic worldview of Sean Carroll annoys me but as he doesn't show the same hostility, I am williing to tolerate it
In one of his books, Carroll states that believers are not his enemies. Dawkins, now, is a very interesting case. He is open to the idea that there could be God-like beings in the universe (beings so much more advanced and powerful than us that we could only call them Gods). He is also open to the idea that there could be God-like beings *beyond* the universe, and they could have created our universe (simulation hypothesis). See Chapter 9 (Little green Gods) of "Tales of the Turing Church."
However, Dawkins insists that these God-like beings are natural gods, lowercase gods, not God. In "Believing in Dawkins: The New Spiritual Atheism," Eric Steinhart says:
"Dawkins uses the simulation hypothesis to distinguish between things that are gods and things that are merely godlike. If we are living in a simulation, then it was created by some superhuman agents. They would be superhuman but not supernatural. Dawkins thinks our universe is probably filled with superhuman alien civilizations. He thinks they would deserve to be called godlike. Nevertheless, he says they would not be gods. Dawkins writes that the difference between gods and godlike aliens lies in their histories. If something is a god, then it is superhuman but it did not evolve. If something is godlike, then it is superhuman and it did evolve. Godlike beings include the omega points of Kurzweil and Tipler. If they exist at all, they emerged through long processes of gradual evolution - so they are not gods."
To me, what the gods can do is more important than how they became gods. So, since they can do all the things that Gods can do, I just call them Gods. To me Dawkins gods ARE Gods, and I find Dawkins' atheism indistinguishable from my religion. The picture of God that I sketched in this podcast episode is different from the simulation hypothesis, but doesn't contradict the idea that God is a natural god.
To me, "supernatural" is a contradiction in terms, because if you define nature as all that exists, then everything is natural and there's no supernatural. So of course God is natural, but we must extend our picture of nature. In an extended picture of nature, there's plenty of room for God. So I essentially agree with Dawkins, AND I believe in God!
The religious fundamentalist (even Islamic) rivals of transhumanism and cosmism don't bother me as much as atheist rivals of these ideas. And communist atheist anti-transhumanists and anti-cosmists like those in Communist regimes or even post-Soviet Societies, as they have become irrelevant, but the kind of Western mainstream atheists are the ones I am concerned about the most as they have influence in academia and media and professional field
The religious fundamentalist (even Islamic) rivals of transhumanism and cosmism don't bother me as much as atheist rivals of these ideas. And communist atheist anti-transhumanists and anti-cosmists like those in Communist regimes or even post-Soviet Societies, as they have become irrelevant, but the kind of Western mainstream atheists are the ones I am concerned about the most as they have influence in academia and media and professional field
“Cultural” fashions come and go. And many self-proclaimed atheists are really deeply religious persons inside (e.g. Arthur Clarke and even Carl Sagan), only they don’t want to admit it. I have no problems with them, provided they don’t fall into intolerant militant atheism. Live and let live.
I was talking about those like Dawkins and Hitchens. Mortalistic worldview of Sean Carroll annoys me but as he doesn't show the same hostility, I am williing to tolerate it
In one of his books, Carroll states that believers are not his enemies. Dawkins, now, is a very interesting case. He is open to the idea that there could be God-like beings in the universe (beings so much more advanced and powerful than us that we could only call them Gods). He is also open to the idea that there could be God-like beings *beyond* the universe, and they could have created our universe (simulation hypothesis). See Chapter 9 (Little green Gods) of "Tales of the Turing Church."
However, Dawkins insists that these God-like beings are natural gods, lowercase gods, not God. In "Believing in Dawkins: The New Spiritual Atheism," Eric Steinhart says:
"Dawkins uses the simulation hypothesis to distinguish between things that are gods and things that are merely godlike. If we are living in a simulation, then it was created by some superhuman agents. They would be superhuman but not supernatural. Dawkins thinks our universe is probably filled with superhuman alien civilizations. He thinks they would deserve to be called godlike. Nevertheless, he says they would not be gods. Dawkins writes that the difference between gods and godlike aliens lies in their histories. If something is a god, then it is superhuman but it did not evolve. If something is godlike, then it is superhuman and it did evolve. Godlike beings include the omega points of Kurzweil and Tipler. If they exist at all, they emerged through long processes of gradual evolution - so they are not gods."
To me, what the gods can do is more important than how they became gods. So, since they can do all the things that Gods can do, I just call them Gods. To me Dawkins gods ARE Gods, and I find Dawkins' atheism indistinguishable from my religion. The picture of God that I sketched in this podcast episode is different from the simulation hypothesis, but doesn't contradict the idea that God is a natural god.
To me, "supernatural" is a contradiction in terms, because if you define nature as all that exists, then everything is natural and there's no supernatural. So of course God is natural, but we must extend our picture of nature. In an extended picture of nature, there's plenty of room for God. So I essentially agree with Dawkins, AND I believe in God!