0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by DavidMadsen · 2023-08-31T05:32:20.760Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Instead of argue with religious people the existence of heaven, it is much more effective to persuade them that the soul is a superfluous concept and that only the brain is needed to explain what they are experiencing
Replies from: Dagon, Richard_Kennaway, tensor-white↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2023-08-31T15:06:28.606Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hoho, try that on with John C. Wright and see how far you get!
↑ comment by Tensor White (tensor-white) · 2023-08-31T16:46:50.744Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am a Christian. If you don't have a soul, then I can simply dismiss any persuasion you attempt on me. I don't owe "highly-specified arrangements of matter" anything. Also, it's weird why you would be motivated to promalgate your ideas. Do you owe arrangements of matter anything? No. When I used to think like you, I knew I didn't owe material-onlyism anything. My secular beliefs didn't make me more correct (or less wrong) than those with non-secular beliefs, even if my secular beliefs were true! Every belief is equal in the eyes of atoms.
Moreover, there are some bullets you, a material-onlyist, have to bite. For ex, that a star trek teletransporter teleports you, not merely a clone of you, since there is nothing materially different between the two instances of you. In the absence of any non-material distinction of identity, then two materially identical systems have the exact same identity. The clone of you is you, not a clone of you.
Here's an easier one: if you ever say the phrase "your brain" or "my brain", then you are revealing your inherent belief that you aren't actually your brain, or that your brain isn't actually you.
But you brought up Heaven specifically, so I should address your dismissal of it, or more generally the afterlife. Do you reject the soundness of the infohazard called Roko's Basilisk? If not, then Heaven shouldn't be so absurd/superfluous to you. How about this: you didn't exist prior to your conception, right? Yet your nonexistence wasn't sufficient to permanently keep you from existing. Nor will your future nonexistence be sufficient to keep you from ever existing again. Even with your current memories, etc. The question then becomes, given the highly specific material structure of your body, what method will rediscover that exact structure first? Will it be an naturalistic/unmotivated method (eg, boltzmann brain, infinite universe, etc) or will it be an artificial/motivated method (eg, God resurrecting you, Bostrom's ancestor simulations, Roko's Basilisk, future humans combining 200lbs of atoms into every possible configuration until they happen to get to your exact configuration, etc). Keep in mind that you aren't just one exact material configuration, but every distinct material configuration you've ever been and ever will be, so repeating any one of those conformal states is sufficient to resurrect you. Again, materially speaking.
As I've said before, a Rationalist will eventually become a Christian. First it's empiricism and expected utility maximization, then it's acausal trading and anthropic measure pumping and updateless decision theory, then it's Christianity.
I am a Rationalist. I am a Christian.