No, it’s just that we’ve rejected the concept of “God” as wrong, i.e. not in accordance with reality. Some ancient questions really are solved, and this is one of them. Calling reality “God” doesn’t make it God, any more than calling a dog’s tail a leg makes it a leg. The dog won’t start walking on it.
The disagreement here seems to be purely over definitions? The way I use “God” to mean “reality” is the same way Scott Alexander uses “Moloch” to mean “coordination failure” or how both Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander have used “God” to mean “evolution.”
The claimed evolution of ideas of God towards “reality” is the evolution of those ideas towards “actually, there’s no such thing.”
That’s essentially the meaning I’m trying to get across in God Is Great, just using an unusual definition of ‘God’ to make the point more palatable to a theistic audience. The reality we have uncovered by rationality and the scientific method is all there is.
Besides, you made a brand new account for that posting, acted plaintively injured when it got a poor reception, and then suggested we’re not as open-minded as we might like to think. I’ve seen the pattern before on LessWrong. It was trolling then. Why should I not think that it is trolling now?
You seem to consider me an outsider troll. I meant God Is Great as a ringing endorsement of the LessWrong community and worldview, admittedly presented in a heterodox fashion. I consider myself a part of this community and only wish the best for it. I meant this post as an earnest request for feedback, and to kick-start a discussion about what I think might be a blind-spot in LW’s understanding of religion and theism. I’m just trying to explore a good faith disagreement. I regret that it ended up sounding so hostile and confrontational.
The disagreement here seems to be purely over definitions? The way I use “God” to mean “reality” is the same way Scott Alexander uses “Moloch” to mean “coordination failure” or how both Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander have used “God” to mean “evolution.”
Umm, ok? Using misleading terms and then complaining that you don’t generate good discussion seems unlikely to succeed here.
I don’t know, but a straightforward propositional post (using more standard terms, or using a lot of non-poetic words to define rather than describe your points) might get some good traction. Or you might just be confused and such a post is impossible because you’re motte-and-bailey-ing “god”, where you want it to mean “reality” when defending, but want it to mean more when people aren’t paying attention.
The disagreement here seems to be purely over definitions? The way I use “God” to mean “reality” is the same way Scott Alexander uses “Moloch” to mean “coordination failure” or how both Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander have used “God” to mean “evolution.”
That’s essentially the meaning I’m trying to get across in God Is Great, just using an unusual definition of ‘God’ to make the point more palatable to a theistic audience. The reality we have uncovered by rationality and the scientific method is all there is.
You seem to consider me an outsider troll. I meant God Is Great as a ringing endorsement of the LessWrong community and worldview, admittedly presented in a heterodox fashion. I consider myself a part of this community and only wish the best for it. I meant this post as an earnest request for feedback, and to kick-start a discussion about what I think might be a blind-spot in LW’s understanding of religion and theism. I’m just trying to explore a good faith disagreement. I regret that it ended up sounding so hostile and confrontational.
Umm, ok? Using misleading terms and then complaining that you don’t generate good discussion seems unlikely to succeed here.
I don’t know, but a straightforward propositional post (using more standard terms, or using a lot of non-poetic words to define rather than describe your points) might get some good traction. Or you might just be confused and such a post is impossible because you’re motte-and-bailey-ing “god”, where you want it to mean “reality” when defending, but want it to mean more when people aren’t paying attention.