I wonder in as far as point 6 is influenced by the American christian culture that atheist are amoral by definition, where in Europe being without faith does not automatical make you amoral.
I also think it is important to read about rescent science with respect to the brain and consciousness. I also think about the books by Frans de Waal, that make you realize we are not that apart as a species from other animals.
I think he meant to give up on seeking biological immortality through science nut instead to take the possibility of their seriously. I personally can't agree with Sop's view at all, but it's his to have.
Death is a subset so I don’t see the lack of consistency. There’s more to theism and faith than just thinking about dying. And I’d say theists don’t spend an awful lot of time contemplating death when there are other things to be done.
I don’t think this blog post was LLM slop, and also I don’t see how those two are inconsistent in this context. The author is talking in the first point specifically about the people who are trying to stop the aging process and extend our current longevity indefinitely. Ie they have a serious goal of trying to make human beings live forever[1]. Personally I find that idea beyond terrifying, but that’s what some people are trying to do. TFA thinks that’s a quest they should abandon.
In the second one the article is talking about rationalists rejecting thought that comes from a faith-based perspective. That’s entirely orthogonal to the prior point but I get that the two seem in conflict in that many systems of faith promise life after death etc. I am personally an atheist, but I find it really sad how it has become intellectually fashionable in certain circles to sneer at people who have faith. Certainly if you are serious about philosophy and ethics it seems to me to be ridiculous to reject the scholarship of people who approach those topics from the point of view of religious faith.
TFA doesn’t approach the main problem that I have with the rationalist movement, which is that they seem to have become exactly what they are supposed to be against: an unthinking, unquestioning “in-group” almost like an intellectual cult. The very name is offensive because it is one of those where the negative connotation is implicit. Like “non-violent communication” implying other styles of communication are violent, people in the in-crowd are “rationalist” (implying everyone else is not rational), they go to the website “lesswrong.org” (because everyone else is more wrong) etc. That seems way too smug by half.
It’s not inconsistent to accept death and also make room for faith.
I’m personally atheistic but acknowledge the power of faith, and make peace with the existence of the unknowable. One can do that and simultaneously conclude that all gods that humans have ever invented are made up. And every system of religion is also made up.
I wonder in as far as point 6 is influenced by the American christian culture that atheist are amoral by definition, where in Europe being without faith does not automatical make you amoral.
I also think it is important to read about rescent science with respect to the brain and consciousness. I also think about the books by Frans de Waal, that make you realize we are not that apart as a species from other animals.
Great great list. Nice write up. Refreshing. Bookmarked. Will share. Cheers to hn for getting this on the list.
To quickly reflect on two items.
(2,3,4) speak to me and I can say my father was a great model of it
Plaudits to OP. Never seen it so well engaged and summarized.
> Reject the idea of eternal life and come to terms with death.
> Drop the atheism and take transcendental faith seriously as a subject matter.
Not even self-consistent then.
Funny how when you know that the cost of generating slop is almost zero, it becomes your default assumption.
I think he meant to give up on seeking biological immortality through science nut instead to take the possibility of their seriously. I personally can't agree with Sop's view at all, but it's his to have.
Death is a subset so I don’t see the lack of consistency. There’s more to theism and faith than just thinking about dying. And I’d say theists don’t spend an awful lot of time contemplating death when there are other things to be done.
I don’t think this blog post was LLM slop, and also I don’t see how those two are inconsistent in this context. The author is talking in the first point specifically about the people who are trying to stop the aging process and extend our current longevity indefinitely. Ie they have a serious goal of trying to make human beings live forever[1]. Personally I find that idea beyond terrifying, but that’s what some people are trying to do. TFA thinks that’s a quest they should abandon.
In the second one the article is talking about rationalists rejecting thought that comes from a faith-based perspective. That’s entirely orthogonal to the prior point but I get that the two seem in conflict in that many systems of faith promise life after death etc. I am personally an atheist, but I find it really sad how it has become intellectually fashionable in certain circles to sneer at people who have faith. Certainly if you are serious about philosophy and ethics it seems to me to be ridiculous to reject the scholarship of people who approach those topics from the point of view of religious faith.
TFA doesn’t approach the main problem that I have with the rationalist movement, which is that they seem to have become exactly what they are supposed to be against: an unthinking, unquestioning “in-group” almost like an intellectual cult. The very name is offensive because it is one of those where the negative connotation is implicit. Like “non-violent communication” implying other styles of communication are violent, people in the in-crowd are “rationalist” (implying everyone else is not rational), they go to the website “lesswrong.org” (because everyone else is more wrong) etc. That seems way too smug by half.
[1] eg https://www.harpercollins.com/products/why-we-die-venki-rama...
It’s not inconsistent to accept death and also make room for faith.
I’m personally atheistic but acknowledge the power of faith, and make peace with the existence of the unknowable. One can do that and simultaneously conclude that all gods that humans have ever invented are made up. And every system of religion is also made up.