Non-theistic religions such as Naturalistic Pantheism or some forms of Buddhism are not in conflict with science and can be helpful for those who wish to satisfy what William James would call the "oceanic feeling."

Naturalistic Pantheism always seemed to me to be a clear and logical philosophy that goes hand in hand with Secular Humanism, but Buddhism seems to have a lot of self-help type "paths" and steps and other such unnecessary mumbo jumbo.

Nevertheless, Buddhism is an ancient and peaceful tradition that is not in conflict with science and should not be minimized nor overlooked.

I'm all for the promotion of critical thinking and skepticism. I'm for criticizing religious policy that is just plain stupid. Frankly I don't care what your ancient manuscripts say about homosexuality, abortion, birth control, women, race, holy days, numerology, etc. etc. etc.

But on the other hand, I believe we agnostic, atheistic, irrelegious, secular, humanistic people* need to avoid forcing anyone to our way of thinking. If we forcably convert, we're no better than the religious. Let others figure it out for themselves.

* Recently I was gratified to learn that secularists, free thinkers, agnostics, atheists, non-religious, compose just slightly over 1 billion people on this planet:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Maybe history *is* on our side.

I agree with Mr.Farlops we cant and shouldnt convert forcibly anyone. However as I see it, we dont need to fight anyone, the ancient religions will fade as dust in the wind in front of the tech they will use in their daily lives and the upgrades they will desire for themselves and their kids.

There is really nothing that can stop a singularity. especially since the most advanced humans leave given beliefs and revelation behind them.

there is no battle here, just a win win state coming upon us all.

Cy,

What's the matter with diversity of opinion? I agree there is a lot of nonsense. I agree Mr. Bush believes some incredibly stupid things and managed to convince a slight majority of people to believe some incredibly stupid things too but, that's a price I'm currently willing to pay to preserve diversity of opinion.

Assuming that humans will continue to use force to ensure adherence to laws: I think that it's appropriate and justified for Transhumanists to demand separation of church and state.

We can allow people to believe and theorize about life as they wish but policies should only be based on science. Also, we have to think about the frailty of human facilities : it's easy to brainwash people.

Given that there is no free will - maintaining memetic integrity is important for our progress as a species. The 'power to believe' is an illusion.

To best deal with irrational theories, I think individuals should be encouraged to test their theories about reality on an individual basis - as soon as religious converts see their beliefs in light of social motivational factors - they become less certain about their 'self-evident truths.'

I am not willing to pay that price and do everything I can to promote rational thought.  However, we don't have to "force" anyone.  Communists do that, and it didn't work out for them.  I don't see how we need to force anyone though.  We don't need to engage in brainwashing since our position is that of reason.  We don't need to frighten anyone with the threat of going to Hell, because belief in such a place meets no logical criteria

my last comment was in response to Mr Farlops

Ab wrote, "We can allow people to believe and theorize about life as they wish but policies should only be based on science."

I am one of science's biggest fans but, even I admit that it currently has limitations. It can tell us a lot about how things in the universe work. It can tell us something about why things are the way they are. But it's not very good at giving us personal or social meanings. This is one of the reasons why nonsense like astrology, crystal healing, past life regressions, feng shui etc. etc. persist.

Science can tell us how to build better airplanes and tell us why the sun is yellowish but it doesn't say much about whether it matters, cosmically speaking, if we get up and go to work in the morning. (To paraphrase the late, great, Douglas Adams.)

Science can guide policy. It can tell us what causes global warming and provide us with ways to fix it. It can give us good estimates on how much it will cost to build a hydroelectric dam and give us good predictions on what that dam might do to the local communities and environment if it's built but, can it tell us why that dam should or shouldn't be built?

I don't think it can yet. What's more valuable to us? Science doesn't really help much on questions of value. What's important to you? What should be important to society? On these questions science is mostly mum.

Maybe one day this will change, perhaps even soon or unexpectedly. Perhaps one day there will be a rigorous, experimentally verifiable, social theory on which to build a perfect community. At that point all the social sciences will be like physics and mathematics, there will be demonstrably wrong social propositions and demonstrably right social propositions.

Unfortunately recent history has shown that we've often jumped the gun on building scientifically founded utopias:

Nazism, communism, social darwinism, Libertarianism (By that I mean the US political party. Really, how much does science support this particular ideology. Not much more than any other political ideology.), that stuff found in the *Bell Curve*, some of the more ridiculous things spouted by people claming to be evolutionary psychologists and on and on it goes. And a lot of people have died because of it.

Maybe one day we'll get it right. Maybe one day there will be a reliable, rigorous form of true social engineering but, until, you may understand my skepticism.  I really don't want transhumanism to turn into one of these failed messianic attempts that kill a lot people.

Believe me, Bush and his ilk scoff at science. They use it as a political weapon. They censor it when they don't like what it implies and, they promote their own form of Lysenkoism to support stupid policy. They promise us missions to Mars but then never really fund them. They buy off religious radicals with appointments like Kass. The list goes on and on. They've callously and cynically baited and switched on science policy for the last six years.

But I'm getting way off the point here.

The point is I don't want transhumanism to be guilty of the same thing.

Yes, be vocal. Yes, debate cogently and fairly. Yes, work to promote our ideas. But leave people free to figure it out for themselves.

Even in the United States, church attendence isn't growing at shocking rates. Elsewhere in the post-industrial world it has been slowly declining for many years. As education and standards of living improve in poor countries the religious radicals there will also diminish and moderate.

I think time is on our side.

So do I.

Science can verify or disprove the theories that we base our values on but you're right that it is a process of discovery rather than a set of values.

To eliminate religious policies we'll need to provide an effective alternative. I'd like to see the Abolitionist prime directive put to the test.

We still need to create a symbolic interpretation of reality in order to function given our design but I believe that philosophical assumptions about reality will no longer be necessary when happiness is assured biologically.

A consensus can be found by agreeing to base policy only on known good information. Given that all religious theories are equally invalidated - we can't show preference for one over another.

Our minds create theories whether we try to or not. It's the job of science to sort through these theories before we assume they are correct and act stupidly.

I know I'm preaching to the converted here...

The inherent drive for optimal happiness is biologically encoded, therefore we don't need to argue about the purpose of life - it's already predetermined.

"I am not willing to pay that price and do everything I can to promote rational thought.  However, we don't have to "force" anyone."

Humans do have to force each other into submission - it's our design. I have not seen otherwise...

We don't have to brainwash the masses, but force will be needed to remove irrational leaders from power and ensure that policy is not corrupted by religious theories.

Going back to Cybert's original point -

How are we defining religion? How are we defining Mysticism? There are a lot of different beliefs contained within those two words. Not all of them are antagonistic to science and transhumanistic values.

We might want to be a bit more specific before we start fighting and shunning.

Sorry Cybert, that doesn't really help.

Are you saying that, other than the politics, mysticism and religion are the same?

Would you call something like Hinduism mystical or religious?

What makes you so sure that all religion and mysticism are anti-science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

we should start a forum topic

Abolitionist wrote, "To eliminate religious policies we'll need to provide an effective alternative. I'd like to see the Abolitionist prime directive put to the test."

Just so long as participation in this grand experiment is voluntary, sounds fine. Form a commune; see if it works. I'm all for seeing someone give it a try. If it's an attractive society, you'll have no trouble finding immigrants for it. But if dissidents remain and refuse to participate, their wishes and rights must be respected--leave them alone.

Abolitionist wrote, "We still need to create a symbolic interpretation of reality in order to function given our design but I believe that philosophical assumptions about reality will no longer be necessary when happiness is assured biologically."

I apologize but I don't share this enthusiasm. I don't think it will be nearly that simple.

Abolitionist wrote, "A consensus can be found by agreeing to base policy only on known good information."

But in politics getting any consensus at all is the central problem. You're lucky to even get a slight majority to agree on your definitions of "good information." If it were easily we would have made a lot more progress on dealing with global warming a decade ago. If it were that easy, far fewer people would believe in creationism.

Abolitionist wrote, "The inherent drive for optimal happiness is biologically encoded, therefore we don't need to argue about the purpose of life - it's already predetermined."

Sorry but, I think this is a major misunderstanding and misdefinition of what life is and how evolution works. Life is just a bunch of replicators trying to survive long to replicate again. That's really the only purpose life has. Life has no purpose beyond that. There is no goal. There is no intent or migration to some great synthesis. Life is just one damn thing after

I find this sloppy thinking again and again in transhumanist circles. I think that people who say that life is somehow progessing toward some omega point or singularity don't understand what evolution is. We need to constantly remind ourselves that the goals we want and strive for are entirely artificial and parochial. Our needs and desires are purely and entirely human constructions that have nothing to do with the universe as whole.

Now, having said that, I still support the idea of progress and the reduction of suffering in the world. I want to see a better world. I just think that it's a neverending process without final resolution and, it's entirely a human invention.

Abolitionist wrote, "Humans do have to force each other into submission"

But only occasionally. We have to constantly work to see that force is kept to minimum and that, if it must be used, that we never fall into the trap of the ends justifying the means.

I just read a great quote just a few hours ago that summarizes my approach to this. "Perfection means not perfect actions in a perfect world, but appropriate actions in an imperfect one."

Anyway, I agree with Sideways. Let's try to be clear on definitions of mysticism and religion before we start demanding purges.

Argh! These blog forms need a preview button!

"to survive long to" should read "to survive long enough to"

"Life is just one damn thing after" shoud read "Life is just one damn thing after another."

"the universe as whole." should read "the universe as a whole."

"force is kept to minimum" should read "force is kept to a minimum"

Mr.Farlops wrote: “I find this sloppy thinking again and again in transhumanist circles. I think that people who say that life is somehow progessing toward some omega point or singularity don't understand what evolution is. We need to constantly remind ourselves that the goals we want and strive for are entirely artificial and parochial. Our needs and desires are purely and entirely human constructions that have nothing to do with the universe as whole.”

Well, I both agree and disagree, that life itself is progressing towards an omega point or the like is a conjecture at best if not a wild speculation, thus with that I agree. However to say that because it is all purely and entirely a human construction (which I agree to) means that it has nothing to do with the universe as a whole is again an inference that has no basis. We are part and parcel of this universe and it may very well be that what we are is a bifurcation point in the evolution of life in the universe and by that we are ourselves responsible for a possible singularity of universal proportions.

Just a thought. At any rate That’s an interesting topic.

Tygerx,

Technical culture, human or otherwise, may ultimately have cosmic effects as a supercivilization turns the galaxies and superclusters into suburbs and parking lots. Given enough time and enough space, eventually something like this will probably happen.

It may even be that supercivilizations are somehow a vector for cosmogensis--that tool using life is means for universes to reproduce or perpetuate themselves. But that merely assigns supercivilizations the same role as generative organelles within a cell.

I hesistate to say that such an occurance was somehow *intended* to happen. In a large enough solution space, we must allow for coincidence. Given enough monkeys and enough time, eventually Shakespeare will be bashed out. At least that's what probability and Poincare's Recurrence Theorem suggests to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem

Mr.Farlops,

Thanks for an interesting reply,

you wrote :"But that merely assigns supercivilizations the same role as generative organelles within a cell."

That I accept, the only difference I would point out is the level of complexity and by consequence the difference in the level of influence of a supercivilization on a galactic scale. What I am pointig at is that a superCiv may get rid of suburbs and parking lots altogether for a designed utopia; note the designed issue which does not carry the limitations of a system having a finite amount of energy and confined to a finite spatial volume as Poincare's theorem suggests. Taking the long view, it may be possible to overcome these limitations and continue to evolve.