Re: 'a process of non-thinking called faith'

From: Kevin Osborne (
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 16:13:47 MST

> > Singularitarian goals also require faith, IMO. It's two sides of the
> > same coin - the human coin.
> That's the great thing about a free society; everyone is entitled to
> their own opinion, no matter how wrong.

For my part, I'm a big flip-flopper on issues of faith and the
possiblity of 'higher power'. universal conciousness?
inter-dimensional gaia? unified quantum wave-front? post-singularity
xeno-beings playing god with us? Eh but I know full well I'm just a
stinking carcass waiting to happen. Thing is, I've been so damn lucky
so many times, and seen so many others get hosed, that this faith
business creeps up on me when I least expect it.

- but this is the position I take on religion (and a bunch of other issues):

agressively in oppostion, in order to balance the playing field. I
seem to see science and technology forever being sidelined by
dominating forces: be they politics, religion or business (global
warming is an example of science telling us what we need to know and
it's voice being ignored - however religious folks are firmly on
science's side in this one I think).

my 'aggressive in opposition' approach is like 'affirmative action'
for science; I don't believe equal rights would have gotten anywhere
without militant feminists, and I don't believe technology enthusiasts
will get anywhere without militant rationalists; rational (liberal)
thought is just too wishy-washy. (to qualify the washiness moniker,
compare the mob-chant characteristics of 'respect the cultural
heritage of others in order to foster a mutually harmonious society'
versus 'fuck the niggers')

The idea is that society is dominated by non-rational forces; fear
stoked by a go-with-what-rates media, a go-with-what-polls leadership,
that kind of thing. To get to a halfway-point where both faith and
rationailty are accorded equal measure, we can't promote the equal
measure as the deal we seek; if we do so we'll end up compromising to
halfway between what we want and what we have, which means a quarter
rational versus three-quarters not; still no balance, and a continued
marginalization of critical thinking.

By fighting for 100% rationality, the dickering process should
hopefully playout to 50/50 rationalism/faith, which is OK with me.
People seem to object to 'Darwins Rottweiler' as being too extreme,
but I think 'Fundamentalist Futurists' are exactly what is needed.

Militant rationalism people - Can we get a poster of 'Uncle Eliezer
wants YOU!' pointing at us? :-)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT