Religion in future conworlds

[malloc]

Perhaps this just reflects my unfamiliarity with the setting, but how much would religion even matter in such a technologically advanced society? Surely science would have made some massive headway in resolving questions like the origin of the universe and the nature of consciousness that render our current debates over the soul and such obsolete.

[malloc]

I think Mark can go into detail on religion in the overall setting if he wants, but of the many planets of the Incatena, he presents Maraille as one where the original colonizers thought it would be cool to arrange for all but one island on the planet to live a pre-industrial lifestyle. The upshot is that one small island on the planet is inhabited by people with 50th century technology who handle relations with other planets, and the continents are inhabited by people who largely are unaware that technology more advanced than what was available in 1400 exists. (The other 49 or so planets are living the high life that you seem to be expecting.)

Thanks for the explanation. I must stress that I was not trying to start an argument over religion, just asking a question and I appreciate that you answered without jumping down my throat.

[keenir]

Perhaps this just reflects my unfamiliarity with the setting, but how much would religion even matter in such a technologically advanced society? Surely science would have made some massive headway in resolving questions like the origin of the universe and the nature of consciousness that render our current debates over the soul and such obsolete.

I believe the classic(al) answer is "The Bible tells us not how the heavens go, but rather how to go to Heaven."

and as for souls...look how many places the soul was thought to be located, or how many parts it was composed of. (Ancient Egypt had the ka and the ba, which were not interchangeable).....and none of that even touches on just what the soul is or is composed of.

[Raphael]

Perhaps this just reflects my unfamiliarity with the setting, but how much would religion even matter in such a technologically advanced society? Surely science would have made some massive headway in resolving questions like the origin of the universe and the nature of consciousness that render our current debates over the soul and such obsolete.

Just because there are other answers available for the questions that religion has traditionally tried to answer, it doesn't mean that people will choose to accept those other answers over the ones provided by religion. Think of our own time, for instance.

[WeepingElf]

Perhaps this just reflects my unfamiliarity with the setting, but how much would religion even matter in such a technologically advanced society? Surely science would have made some massive headway in resolving questions like the origin of the universe and the nature of consciousness that render our current debates over the soul and such obsolete.

Just because there are other answers available for the questions that religion has traditionally tried to answer, it doesn't mean that people will choose to accept those other answers over the ones provided by religion. Think of our own time, for instance.

And then there are questions science has no answer for, and perhaps never will, such as the fate after death or the meaning of life. Or why there is a universe at all and not just nothing. And to find answers to these questions, people, even many scientists, turn towards religion. Many scientists find their personal relationship to God through the study of nature. As Werner Heisenberg once put it, "The first draught from the chalice of science makes you an atheist; but deep within the chalice, God awaits you."

[malloc]

Dear Rationality, give me the strength not to get dragged into an online religious argument. Must. Not. Take. The bait.

[Travis B.]

Perhaps this just reflects my unfamiliarity with the setting, but how much would religion even matter in such a technologically advanced society? Surely science would have made some massive headway in resolving questions like the origin of the universe and the nature of consciousness that render our current debates over the soul and such obsolete.

Just because there are other answers available for the questions that religion has traditionally tried to answer, it doesn't mean that people will choose to accept those other answers over the ones provided by religion. Think of our own time, for instance.

And then there are questions science has no answer for, and perhaps never will, such as the fate after death or the meaning of life. Or why there is a universe at all and not just nothing. And to find answers to these questions, people, even many scientists, turn towards religion. Many scientists find their personal relationship to God through the study of nature. As Werner Heisenberg once put it, "The first draught from the chalice of science makes you an atheist; but deep within the chalice, God awaits you."

My answer is simply that "not all things can be known or have reasons" and to accept just that.

[WeepingElf]

Just because there are other answers available for the questions that religion has traditionally tried to answer, it doesn't mean that people will choose to accept those other answers over the ones provided by religion. Think of our own time, for instance.

And then there are questions science has no answer for, and perhaps never will, such as the fate after death or the meaning of life. Or why there is a universe at all and not just nothing. And to find answers to these questions, people, even many scientists, turn towards religion. Many scientists find their personal relationship to God through the study of nature. As Werner Heisenberg once put it, "The first draught from the chalice of science makes you an atheist; but deep within the chalice, God awaits you."

My answer is simply that "not all things can be known or have reasons" and to accept just that.

Yes - but many people are not content with that

[Travis B.]

A big problem I have with religion is that not all religions can be right, and why should any particular one be right, and even if one is right how do we know which one? The obvious conclusion is that we have to assume that none of them are right, or even if one is, we have no way of knowing which. And when combined with, say, Pascal's wager, in that case, why Catholicism, if not the various other forms of Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Jainism, or Sikhism, or Daoism, or Shintoism, or for that matter classical Greek religion, or classical Roman religion, or Norse (or other historical Germanic) religion, or ancient Egyptian religion, or Sumerian religion, or historical Baltic religion, or historical Finnic religion, or historical Slavic religion, or countless other traditional beliefs, and so on?

[zompist]

A big problem I have with religion is that not all religions can be right, and why should any particular one be right, and even if one is right how do we know which one? The obvious conclusion is that we have to assume that none of them are right, or even if one is, we have no way of knowing which. And when combined with, say, Pascal's wager, in that case, why Catholicism, if not the various other forms of Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Jainism, or Sikhism, or Daoism, or Shintoism, or for that matter classical Greek religion, or classical Roman religion, or Norse (or other historical Germanic) religion, or ancient Egyptian religion, or Sumerian religion, or historical Baltic religion, or historical Finnic religion, or historical Slavic religion, or countless other traditional beliefs, and so on?

Most of these religions have no deep interest in being "right." That is, what you're atheist about is Christianity in particular. Which is fine, but "Christianity" is not the same as "religion."

Or to put it another way, which philosophy is right, and why should any particular one be right? Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Epicureans, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, Sufism, Buddhism, the Lokayata, Confucius, Laozi, Mozi, the Legalists, the Daoists, Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Locke, Marx, Nietzsche, Derrida, Arendt, Beauvoir?

[malloc]

Most of these religions have no deep interest in being "right." That is, what you're atheist about is Christianity in particular. Which is fine, but "Christianity" is not the same as "religion."

Sure but most religions make claims about reality that in principle we can evaluate as right or wrong. Some of these are quite easy to prove wrong like the Genesis flood story or attributing economic recession to pixies. Others admittedly are rather hard to test with current technology like concepts of the soul and afterlife. If we catch a particular religion making claims about the world that are demonstrably false, ought we continue to lend it legitimacy?

Speaking for myself at least, I am atheist to the extent that I reject all claims about the divine as unsupported by evidence and indeed ill-defined. That includes not only the God of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions but also the gods of Hinduism, the ancient Greeks, the Norse, and so forth, to say nothing of all the spirits and angels and demons that people have imagined throughout history.

Or to put it another way, which philosophy is right, and why should any particular one be right? Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Epicureans, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, Sufism, Buddhism, the Lokayata, Confucius, Laozi, Mozi, the Legalists, the Daoists, Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Locke, Marx, Nietzsche, Derrida, Arendt, Beauvoir?

That seems an odd way to frame the issue. I think that many philosophical movements have advanced our understanding of the world in important ways, making them right about specific issues, even if they got other stuff wrong or never address it in the first place. For comparison, we can acknowledge the contributions Newton made to our understanding of gravity even though Einstein's relativity ultimately superseded his theories. An important difference is that scientists and indeed the philosophers worth taking seriously are not claiming divine authority for their claims but rather backing them up with evidence and sound reasoning.

[I promised myself not to get sucked into another argument over religion but I cannot help but take the bait. Might as well enjoy the nostalgia of relitigating this old topic.]

[zompist]

Or to put it another way, which philosophy is right, and why should any particular one be right? Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Epicureans, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, Sufism, Buddhism, the Lokayata, Confucius, Laozi, Mozi, the Legalists, the Daoists, Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Locke, Marx, Nietzsche, Derrida, Arendt, Beauvoir?

That seems an odd way to frame the issue. I think that many philosophical movements have advanced our understanding of the world in important ways, making them right about specific issues, even if they got other stuff wrong or never address it in the first place.

What makes religion different from philosophy? Recall that philosophers make plenty of unsupported claims and that religions need not say anything about gods. Why does a single false claim in a religion invalidate that entire religion, while a philosopher or a scientist is allowed to make mistakes? While you're at it, which parts of the Dao De Jing are "religion" and which parts of "philosophy" and how do you know?

[malloc]

What makes religion different from philosophy? Recall that philosophers make plenty of unsupported claims and that religions need not say anything about gods...While you're at it, which parts of the Dao De Jing are "religion" and which parts of "philosophy" and how do you know?

That is quite a complicated question and one that even experts would find difficult to answer definitively. My personal view is that philosophy, at its best anyway, rests on critically examining ideas and drawing logical conclusions whereas religion rests on tradition and mystical experience. Admittedly that answer feels gerrymandered to present philosophy in a positive light while disfavoring religion.

Why does a single false claim in a religion invalidate that entire religion, while a philosopher or a scientist is allowed to make mistakes?

Religions claim much higher levels of authority than science or philosophy. Having erected their worldview on taller foundations, they have all the further to fall. Strictly speaking I would not claim that one mistake completely invalidates a religion. One could theoretically be mistaken about angels yet correct about the soul or something. Nonetheless if you make sweeping claims about the will of God and the fundamental nature of existence, any mistakes you make will weigh down your credibility considerably.

Scientists and philosophers are allowed to make mistakes because they aren't claiming such transcendental authority and because there are mechanisms to correct their mistakes. Our understanding of gravity, for instance, has undergone many revisions over the millennia in response to new evidence. Newton made important advances in gravity yet his theory had major holes that subsequent theories like relativity emerged to address. Science in the aggregate brings us closer to truth even if individual scientists stumble.

Putting the issue in more concrete terms: Daoist alchemists spent centuries trying to create elixirs of immortality without success. Scientists created multiple viable COVID vaccines in the space of one year.

[keenir]

Dear Rationality, give me the strength not to get dragged into an online religious argument. Must. Not. Take. The bait.

I'll just sit over here while you pray to Rationality.

What makes religion different from philosophy? Recall that philosophers make plenty of unsupported claims and that religions need not say anything about gods...While you're at it, which parts of the Dao De Jing are "religion" and which parts of "philosophy" and how do you know?

That is quite a complicated question and one that even experts would find difficult to answer definitively. My personal view is that philosophy, at its best anyway, rests on critically examining ideas and drawing logical conclusions whereas religion rests on tradition and mystical experience.

um...which part of Stoicism - at its core, not the later developments - is about examining ideas? I thought its core was about avoiding physical pain and finding good things.

Scientists and philosophers are allowed to make mistakes because they aren't claiming such transcendental authority and because there are mechanisms to correct their mistakes. Our understanding of gravity, for instance, has undergone many revisions over the millennia in response to new evidence. Newton made important advances in gravity yet his theory had major holes that subsequent theories like relativity emerged to address

.

If I recall correctly, Newton used the work he developed in Principia Mathematica to prove that God is about to send a second Great Flood.

Putting the issue in more concrete terms: Daoist alchemists spent centuries trying to create elixirs of immortality without success. Scientists created multiple viable COVID vaccines in the space of one year.

Thats true...but you see how long you last when we put mercury in your COVID vaccine.

[zompist]

What makes religion different from philosophy? Recall that philosophers make plenty of unsupported claims and that religions need not say anything about gods...While you're at it, which parts of the Dao De Jing are "religion" and which parts of "philosophy" and how do you know?

That is quite a complicated question and one that even experts would find difficult to answer definitively. My personal view is that philosophy, at its best anyway, rests on critically examining ideas and drawing logical conclusions whereas religion rests on tradition and mystical experience. Admittedly that answer feels gerrymandered to present philosophy in a positive light while disfavoring religion.

You'll really need to read my upcoming book.

Religions claim much higher levels of authority than science or philosophy.

Sez who?

I could make a good case for the reverse. Many religions make no doctrinal claims at all, just statements of good practice; whereas many philosophers claim to be explicating how the universe works.

[keenir]

Religions claim much higher levels of authority than science or philosophy.

Sez who?

I could make a good case for the reverse. Many religions make no doctrinal claims at all, just statements of good practice; whereas many philosophers claim to be explicating how the universe works.

I think we might have to/want to split the hair of "authority"...after all, as many say "There Is No Pope Of Science". Maybe Malloc intended Religions claim much higher levels of truth / absolute truth, than do science or philosophy ?

[malloc]

I could make a good case for the reverse. Many religions make no doctrinal claims at all, just statements of good practice; whereas many philosophers claim to be explicating how the universe works.

Then it sounds like we are talking about rather distinct concepts under the rubric of religion. I've been talking about gods and spirits while you're focused on the practices of religion like kashrut and such. I would have to question whether there really are any religions devoid of doctrine and focused entirely on practice, though. That would make any sufficiently elaborate set of collective habits a religion. Veganism constitutes a set of practices comparable in elaboration and restriction to kashrut but anthropologists don't consider it a religion.

[Travis B.]

A big problem I have with religion is that not all religions can be right, and why should any particular one be right, and even if one is right how do we know which one? The obvious conclusion is that we have to assume that none of them are right, or even if one is, we have no way of knowing which. And when combined with, say, Pascal's wager, in that case, why Catholicism, if not the various other forms of Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Jainism, or Sikhism, or Daoism, or Shintoism, or for that matter classical Greek religion, or classical Roman religion, or Norse (or other historical Germanic) religion, or ancient Egyptian religion, or Sumerian religion, or historical Baltic religion, or historical Finnic religion, or historical Slavic religion, or countless other traditional beliefs, and so on?

Most of these religions have no deep interest in being "right." That is, what you're atheist about is Christianity in particular. Which is fine, but "Christianity" is not the same as "religion."

I get that classical religions often engaged in things such as interpretatio graeca and ancient peoples often identified pantheons with peoples, identified other people's gods with their own gods, and saw them as intercompatible. You still see this today with things such as the multitude of Hindu sects and how Buddhism coexists with Daoism, Shintoism, and Chinese folk religion. You also see things such as how Jews make no claim to Judaism being universal in any fashion. Yet at the same time, all of these make claims about the world and the universe which are at some level or another incompatible, so they can't all be "right", even if some of these coexist. Yes, the adherents of many of these religions may (or may have) not cared about being "right", but one still has to choose beliefs to believe in if one does not have any religious beliefs, and why certain beliefs and not other ones? And yes, one may believe in certain beliefs because they are traditionally associated with one's ethnoreligious group, but that is still a choice.

[zompist]

Most of these religions have no deep interest in being "right." That is, what you're atheist about is Christianity in particular. Which is fine, but "Christianity" is not the same as "religion."

I get that classical religions often engaged in things such as interpretatio graeca and ancient peoples often identified pantheons with peoples, identified other people's gods with their own gods, and saw them as intercompatible. You still see this today with things such as the multitude of Hindu sects and how Buddhism coexists with Daoism, Shintoism, and Chinese folk religion. You also see things such as how Jews make no claim to Judaism being universal in any fashion. Yet at the same time, all of these make claims about the world and the universe which are at some level or another incompatible, so they can't all be "right", even if some of these coexist.

The same can be said about philosophies, or politics, or fandoms. Are the Cubs more worthy of support than the Mets, is Chicago pizza better than New York pizza? Are you quite sure that a preference for Odin over Zeus, or Shiva over Vishnu, is more of a "claim about the world" than these?

You rightly note that religions are not viewed as separate things in East Asia. It'd be more accurate though to say that ordinary people think and act that way... if you're an actual Buddhist priest you are not likely to also be a Daoist priest.

Disagreements may be important (i.e. different from convictions about pizza) without really being resolvable. Centrists, liberals, progressives, and communists "can't all be 'right'", and yet all might agree on electing Kamala Harris.

one still has to choose beliefs to believe in if one does not have any religious beliefs,

This strikes me as another "atheist-reacting-to-Christianity" belief. Because Christianity is a proselytizing religion which puts great emphasis on conversion and changing people's beliefs, so do Christian-derived atheisms. Both Christians and atheists are apt to go on and on about how they became such through some personal process.

But surely only a fraction of people are, so to speak, in the market for a new belief system. In fact one of the advantages of a belief system (I'm borrowing this idea from Marvin Minsky) is that it settles such futile questions, freeing a person up to do something more useful.

And yes, one may believe in certain beliefs because they are traditionally associated with one's ethnoreligious group, but that is still a choice.

Not as interesting a one as is often thought, though. Many people are atheists because their parents or other influences are. And many are atheists because of a very predictable reaction against those people being Christians!

[bradrn]

I could make a good case for the reverse. Many religions make no doctrinal claims at all, just statements of good practice; whereas many philosophers claim to be explicating how the universe works.

Then it sounds like we are talking about rather distinct concepts under the rubric of religion. I've been talking about gods and spirits while you're focused on the practices of religion like kashrut and such. I would have to question whether there really are any religions devoid of doctrine and focused entirely on practice, though. That would make any sufficiently elaborate set of collective habits a religion. Veganism constitutes a set of practices comparable in elaboration and restriction to kashrut but anthropologists don't consider it a religion.

I think the root of the problem here is our insistence on using the word ‘religion’. Simply by using this word we imply that there is a clear distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘non-religion’. That works well enough for Christianity (especially Protestantism), and to some extent for Islam and Judaism, but the further out you go, the fuzzier the distinction gets.

Consider: is Confucianism a ‘religion’? On the one hand, it endorses the existence of gods, the necessity of sacrificing to them, and so on. On the other, the bulk of Confucianism is taken up by concerns about matters like, for instance, how to run a country well, which Western traditions would identify as ‘philosophy’ rather than ‘religion’.

For these reasons I don’t feel particularly comfortable with the word ‘religion’. If we try to give it any firm definition we end up drawing arbitrary lines between similar things, so we might as well not bother trying.