> From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The evidence in favor of an external god of any traditional form is, > frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse. This doesn't > mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably) don't exist in > the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of the software > of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in a muted form > in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective adults when > they are infants. > > To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same reasons that > they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they could speak > clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts from one to > another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was later buried > under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned language, one > learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied back into the > original belief, because what was learned didn't match closely enough to > the original model of what was happening. Analogously, when one is an > infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the all powerful > protector. Pieces of this image become detached memories within the > mind, and are not refuted when a more accurate and developed model of > the actual parents is created. These hidden memories are the basis > around which the idea of a god is created. > > Naturally, this is just my model of what is happening. Other > possibilities exist. But if I am to consider them seriously, they need > to match the way the world operates as I understand it. They don't need > to predict the same mechanism, but they need to predict the same events. > > E.g., I consider Big Bang cosmology a failed explanation. It's got too > many ad hoc pieces. But it successfully explains most things that are > observed, and is consistent with relativity and quantum theory. > (Naturally, as they were used in developing it...but nevertheless > important.) And relativity and quantum theory themselves are failures, > because both are needed to explain that which is observable, but they > contradict each other in certain details. But they are successful > failures! Similar commentary applies to string theory, but with > differences. (Too many ad hoc parameters!) > > Any god that is proposed must be shown to be consistent with the > observed phenomena. The Deists managed to come up with one that would do > the job, but he never became very popular. Few others have even tried, > except with absurdly evident special pleading. Generally I'd be more > willing to accept "Chariots of the Gods" as a true account. > > And as for moral principles... I've READ the Bible. The basic moral > principle that it pushes is "We are the chosen people. Kill the > stranger, steal his property, and enslave his servants!" It requires > selective reading to come up with anything else, though I admit that > other messages are also in there, if you read selectively. Especially > during the periods when the Jews were in one captivity or another. > (I.e., if you are weak, preach mercy, but if you are strong show none.) > During the later times the Jews were generally under the thumb of one > foreign power or another, so they started preaching mercy. >
One of the things about gods is that they are representations for what the believers don't know and understand. Gods change over time as our knowledge changes over time. That is ONE of the properties of them. The move from polytheistic to monotheistic beliefs is a way to centralize these unknowns for efficiency. You could build AGI and label the unknowns with gods. You honestly could. Magic happens here and combinatorial explosion regions could be labeled as gods. Most people on this email list would frown at doing that but I say it is totally possible and might be a very extremely efficient way of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues. And I'm sure some on this list have already thought about doing that. John ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=74607326-c9be15
