Is There an Artificial God? (1998)

http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

by bigblind • 10 years ago

54 89 10 years ago

stcredzero4• 10 years ago

When an entity's power level gets cranked up to god-level, is there a meaningful distinction between "supernatural" and "artificial" in this case?

Udo8• 10 years ago

That's essentially the old "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" saying that was coined by Clarke back in the day.

The interesting part of this comes into play when we're talking about a hypothetical super-advanced life form essentially posing as a supernatural being for the purpose of deceiving creatures of lesser means. It's not actually supernatural activity though, because there are still natural laws governing the advanced being's existence.

I would imagine, out there in the vast universe this kind of scam is probably taking place somewhere as we speak, and to those most likely unlucky subjects this distinction between "actually supernatural" and "magic trick" is probably entirely irrelevant.

It seems to me that over the course of known human culture, there have actually been several pantheons whose members could be considered non-supernatural in this sense. Essentially this is true whenever we're talking about hero-type deities as opposed to creator-type deities. In principle creator-type deities are still compatible with a hypothetical simulation scenario in which they also choose to take part personally.

Needless to say though, we don't appear to be living in such a universe. As far as we can tell, there is no global artificial god, and no artificial god who is local to us. But there might be many local ones elsewhere.

PhasmaFelis2• 10 years ago

It's not actually supernatural activity though, because there are still natural laws governing the advanced being's existence.

I would say that "supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean unbound by laws. It just means that the laws in question are not yet well-understood.

chris_wot• 10 years ago

I'm going to choose to be literal. Artificial is defined as "being made by humans". God is defined as "the one supreme being, the maker and creator of the universe".

The only way you could have an artificial deity is if human-kind were gods themselves.

P.S. thinking of these things in terms of video game powerups is something I find sort of amusing. I can only imagine what Chun-Li vs Jesus would look like.

dghughes• 10 years ago

Let there be light!

http://multivax.com/last_question.html

roywiggins2• 10 years ago

A supernatural God is inherently morally good if you subscribe to a monotheistic religion. A sufficiently advanced "mechanical God" may or may not be moral at all.

In practice it might be impossible to tell the difference.

Udo8• 10 years ago

In practice it might be impossible to tell the difference.

I agree there is no perceivable difference. As far as I'm aware, the "goodness" of those deities is imbued to them by definition, not because their actions are objectively ethical or even moral by today's standards.

If an artificial (whatever that may mean) being someday chooses to present themselves as that sort of deity, it could exploit this exact same mental vulnerability in humans. It's the ultimate might-makes-right assertion. The only difference would be this being actually exists outside of people's imagination.

stcredzero4• 10 years ago

A supernatural God is inherently morally good if you subscribe to a monotheistic religion.

Somewhere on the internet, is a religion that asserts the only true god is in it for the lulz.

mratzloff2• 10 years ago

This has nothing to do with the posted article. Did you read it?

Udo8• 10 years ago

Why not discuss something tangentially related if people feel like it? Is it necessary to play did-you-even-read-the-article gotcha?

mratzloff2• 10 years ago

This was an excellent speech that was perfect reading for a Sunday afternoon. Thanks for posting!

Put simply, the argument is that religion may be a kind of emergent evolutionary phenomena that has a collective value that we may not yet completely understand, but that nevertheless fills some vital role in a way superior to any of our conscious attempts. Basically, despite the universe emerging from bottom-up processes rather than top-down, there may still be a legitimate coordinating role at the top that we subconsciously fill with our artificial gods.

It's a longish piece of writing, but I highly recommend reading the full text.

Razengan• 10 years ago

Reposting a comment from a similar discussion here...

Religion might just be the precursor to Science; a sapient species trying to make sense of their world and consciousness, plugging the holes in their understanding with whatever means currently at their disposal.

Unless they're born with complete and accurate knowledge about everything in the universe, I think all intelligent life out there is going to have a religion or some form of superstition at some point in their civilization.

Hive-mind intelligences or strictly hierarchical biologies (e.g. queens/workers/drones) may not need concepts like morals or Law or guidance for social conduct, but they may still invent stopgap explanations on their way to understanding mortality and the weather and stars and such.

EDIT: "Religion" in this sense need not necessarily involve the concept of deities either. There are major religions in our own world that do not place a focus on higher beings.

zbyte643• 10 years ago

This is my personal belief as well. The evolution of monotheism appears to be a boon for scientific thought: it sets up the idea that the rules are the same everywhere.

erikpukinskis• 10 years ago

The problem with Science is it has nothing to offer you when you're fucked.

When you're fucked, science will just tell you you're fucked.

Religion, on the other hand, will tell you that God is right there with you, and you can just keep going and you'll find a Way.

This is also the reason why I think white atheism is sometimes racist. If you are a white person who has generally had it easier than people of color, then it's really convenient to say "I don't need faith, I am pretty good just letting reality be all there is". If your reality is that your children keep getting shot by police, or if your reality is that your husband was hung for demanding some white customers pay for the goods they bought, then Science is actually not good. Science will tell you it's bad and it's not getting better. But religion will offer you peace.

And then there's the fact that science has historically been conducted by white people for white ends. Which isn't to say black science isn't an (awesome) thing with a (long) history and a promising future. But to say "just throw out your ancient cultural knowledge about how to survive in a hostile world, science has got your back"... coming from a white person to a black person? Easy to say when science has largely been about improving white lives.

The same thing applies to class: atheists with steady employment sometimes think poor people who believe in God are stupid. But unless you grew up poor I don't think that's fair to say. Someone who never thought they had any choice other than crime, someone who ends up hurting people, killing people, driving into situations where their friends get killed..... When you go through that kind of stuff, and you're sitting in prison and you have nothing to do but think back over your life... You see how evil you've been. You see the harm you've caused, over and over. Science will tell you that when you get out you're probably going to end up in the same environment. Science will say you're probably going back to prison. You'll probably hurt more people. That's a dark place to be.

But religion won't say those things. Religion will tell you to forget about what's probably going to happen and instead to look for your path. And religion will tell you that there are forces in the world which are good and which will always be there with you no matter how bad it gets.

Those situations are where religion really shines. And populations who end up in those situations over and over again need something like that. If you came from that background, or any background of tribulation, and you are an atheist, I have total respect for that. I would love to buy you a beer and listen to your thoughts if you're into that kind of thing.

But if you came from a white family, are relatively employable, and generally treated as a citizen in good standing in your country, then I think Atheism for you is a racist, classist, and cruel worldview. I think you should switch to atheism-leaning agnosticism with a willingness to learn about religion with fresh ears.

spriggan3• 10 years ago

If God created us, then who created God?

pmarreck4• 10 years ago

That argument only works in a constant-vector-forward time-dimensional context. ;)

cjjuice10• 10 years ago

Can you elaborate on that? Seems to me there must me a creationary force that is uncreated.

humanrebar12• 10 years ago

The argument is that God exists outside the laws of cause and effect and was never created.

smussmann• 10 years ago

In at least some religions, [part of] the definition of God is that he is the uncaused cause. Thomas Aquinas spends a lot of ink talking about this (there's a more accessible explanation at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm, but I'm pretty sure you can find the originals on the Internet).

zbyte643• 10 years ago

Just because God can't imagine an existence outside herself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. She assumes she is the original cause but is unable to test the hypothesis.

pmarreck4• 10 years ago

While sitting on the fence of this whole question, it simply astounds me that most religious people don't have an answer to this (IMHO) very obvious question/problem with the popular God conception:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Again, not making a criticism, just an observation that I find oft unanswered

cjjuice10• 10 years ago

It is perhaps that hardest objection to overcome. St. Thomas Aquinas gave a good crack at it IMO ( http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm )

Something I find insightful is he argues that, like cold is an absence of heat, evil is simply an absence of good (God, grace, ect.)

jules3• 10 years ago

That doesn't solve the problem since heat and cold don't choose to be present or absent while God does.

humanrebar12• 10 years ago

The problem of evil is difficult to answer in an emotionally satisfying way to someone who is hurting. Why did God let this evil happen?

Dispassionately, though, the broader problem begs the question. If humanity is jut a product of time and chance, then evil is as much an illusion as any gods are.

But, that being said, some theists see evil as the absence of good. Murder, natural disasters, etc. all result when God leaves the world to its own devices.

To some degree a "good" answer to this question is very reliant on emotional and aesthetic components, so it's extremely fair to call it a hard question to answer.

krapp3• 10 years ago

And, other religions might insist that the problem of evil has nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with humanity, and that "God" is beyond good and evil.

Or, in the case of some older religions, they just accept that the gods are spiteful and cruel.

andrewflnr3• 10 years ago

I wouldn't say it's begging the question. Of course evil is an illusion in an atheistic viewpoint. The "problem of evil" is strictly an attempt to show a contradiction in the theist position.

As a Christian, my own answer (in short) is that true "good" requires that people can choose to either do good or evil. The only alternative is a pretty clockwork. This requires accepting a broader definition of "good" for you to accept that God is both good and accepts this tradeoff, but it's not a contradiction. It's just an emotionally significant consequence of believing God exists.

zpharer• 10 years ago

I disagree with your second paragraph. I don't see how humanity being a product of time and chance implies that evil is an illusion. For instance, I think the claim "suffering is bad" is true regardless of whether a God or chance created humans.

This is a frequent misconception though. See the Euthyphro dilemma for a rebuttal. TLDR: are things right/wrong because god says so, or does God say so because they are right/wrong. The former implies a completely arbitrary morality. The later implies that morality is independent from God.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#EutPro

at-fates-hands• 10 years ago

There's also the problem of whether Hell is a hot, fiery inferno or a cold insufferable place (Dante v. Milton's Paradise Lost) which is equally confusing/fascinating.

kmm• 10 years ago

I find that the Problem of Evil is troubling in an atheistic worldview as well, as it's hard to avoid ending up in nihilistic absurdism.

To be honest, I don't feel like either side answers the question very well

pmarreck4• 10 years ago

as it's hard to avoid ending up in nihilistic absurdism

A conclusion I consider "false", which is my usual argument against atheism ("if the conclusion is ridiculous, then the premise is false" aka modus tollens)

swsieber• 10 years ago

I think "the popular God conception" isn't quite internally consistent, at least not the Christian view. We throw around words like omnipotent, yet clearly worship a God bound by certain laws. If not, why would He have to sacrifice His son to redeem us, if He had all power?

I do not believe in a omnipotent God, who lives without restriction and can act arbitrarily. I do believe in one that does His best to help His children become like Him.

I think that principle is necessary to believe in order to arrive at a palatable solution to that question/problem. Any more than that and I'd probably qualify as "preaching".

I do think it's a possibility that people never consider though.

discreteevent• 10 years ago

He mentions "The fabric of reality" by David Deutsch. It's a very good book (IMO) and not primarily about multiple universes so don't let that put you off if you think it's rubbish. He does a really good job outlining Popper's theory of science as explanation. Also one thing he notes is that it is really extraordinary that the universe gave rise to something that can understand it. We are the universe looking at itself and understanding it at a more and more fundamental level as time goes on.

mizzao2• 10 years ago

Even as a Christian, I am still open to the possibility that religion may be an artificial construct. One important purpose it may serve is to motivate individuals to advance social welfare (and be happy while doing so) when we would otherwise only have reason to be selfish. (Never mind for now that this presupposes that there is an objective "social good" that exists in the first place).

However, for religion to work, we can't be aware that it is artificial -- otherwise we'd stop following it. So we do have to believe wholeheartedly, aside from occasional philosophizing of existential questions.

Yet, the existence of an unmoved mover is still an alternative explanation. At this point, the line between artificial and supernatural is indeed blurred.

strgrd2• 10 years ago

How can you believe the story and the purpose of something wholeheartedly when its premise is scientifically untrue?

Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite.

There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. The universe is ambivalent to the karmic relations we see from our perspective. Karma can be common sense (you do good, good will follow), but in speaking to the spirit, karma has placated humanity into believing that mother nature or god is at the controls.

It is time to abandon the belief in the soul, the spirit, and eternity, and unless evidence presents itself otherwise, embrace the temporal reality before us.

mizzao2• 10 years ago

I'm a scientist (coincidentally, an empirical one) but I still don't believe that all truth can be discovered scientifically -- that is, through repeatable data collection and experimentation. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God by doing experiments.

Your worldview seems to be pretty close to Scientism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), which I think some would consider a religion in itself.

Sure, the problem of evil is an objection to religion, but follow your premise to its logical conclusion and good/evil doesn't exist at all. There is really no reason to want the world to be a better place, preserve the planet, and so on. Is that really a world you want to live in?

Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite.

Do you think so? At least in the United States, religion is generally seen as the domain of the less educated and impoverished, not the elite. Today, you and I are free to determine our own definitions of morality.

There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded.

Sure there is evidence. It's just historical and relational. It's not something that can be tested through the scientific method.

Is There an Artificial God? (1998)

Related Stories