Religious people like to say that religion provides an objective basis for morality and values and such, whereas without religion these can’t be anything more than just opinion. Of course, even if this claim were true, it would prove nothing about the existence of God or about the goodness (in any sense that is meaningful to human beings) of any values that God might prescribe. It’s no argument to say that something must be true because it would be bad if it weren’t.
joe, the theological view I am expounding is just good-old fashioned Calvinism. It's as American as witch-burning. For more on different views of free-will and what science says about them, read Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen's "For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything".
joe, libertarian free will is logically incoherent regardless of what you believe about God, and plenty of people realize this and don't consider life meaningless.
"Parents and teachers have limited ability to make children "truly understand", God does not"
I think that is precisely the point. Notice that I draw a distinction between truly understanding and the transfer of knowledge/facts from parent/teacher to child.
"If he did not know what was going to happen, he was not truly omniscient and if he could not bring about his desired state of affairs, he was not truly omnipotent."
I see that I am getting schooled here by using terms that lay-people toss around without much thought to their implications.
So, I believe you are saying that if god is truly omnipotent and omniscient, then when he created the universe, he must have known every result of his actions or else he is not truly omnipotent....good point. I guess I don't believe that if there is a god, he is either omniscient or omnipotent, nor do I think that any religion truly does either.
If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then we must live in a completely deterministic world for how could he be otherwise. If that is the case, then humans do not have free-will or the power to make any decisions. However, there also many implications to this view including the pointlessness of heaven and hell. If god controls everything, then there is no point to either punish or reward someone in the afterlife since all of one's actions while alive were determined by god himself. Say goodbye to any point in talking about good and evil, morality, or responsibility and accountability for one's actions... doesn't life necessarily become completely meaningless?
joe, God knew in advance what would result from the initial conditions of his creating the universe. By virtue of his role in creating the universe He MUST "control everything". Everything that happened must have been acceptable to him. If he did not know what was going to happen, he was not truly omniscient and if he could not bring about his desired state of affairs, he was not truly omnipotent. Parents and teachers have limited ability to make children "truly understand" (although I think much of that talk is just bull among educators to avoid accountability, which is discussed in depth at this blog), GOD DOES NOT. If God wanted us to "truly understand" then we WOULD. I once believed in a somewhat inactive God, but that conception MADE NO SENSE.
I think you missed the point of the analogy... maybe god, like good parents, knows the best way for people to learn certain lessons about life. Having the knowledge would not necessarily mean that we would understand. I would say this is analogous to students being able to memorize formulae and methods from textbooks, but not really understanding the material. Perhaps an omniscient god knows the best way for us to understand.
Clearly, we have some, if not complete control of our lives. Thus, if there is a god, even if he is omnipotent and omniscient, he is allowing us to make at least some decisions.
"He created the conditions that caused people to not believe in him."
Sure, if you want to believe that he is omnipotent and uses this power to control absolutely everything, then sure, I will go along with your above statement. However, I think that is a point on which I can agree to disagree with you. I don't think that an omnipotent god would necessarily use his omnipotence to control everything. What would be the point?
Parents are not omnipotent and omniscient. God (assuming He actually exists) is. God was able to foresee whether or not we would believe in him. He created the conditions that caused people to not believe in him. The obvious conclusion would be that God doesn't actually want many people to believe in him at all, or some of our assumptions (God's existence, omnipotence or omniscience) are wrong.
Why would it be natural to conclude that god would use his powers to force people to believe something? There is a big difference between expressing your views for the sake of teaching and imposing your opinions on someone. Parents understand that no matter how much guidance they try to give their kids, that there are some things that kids just have to learn on their own if they are going to truly learn and understand.
joe, if God is omnipotent and truly desired for people to believe something, shouldn't his will have already been done? That seems to be what others have been getting at above.
"You know, it really is sad how religious people don't ask the most basic questions about religion."
You know what I find more upsetting? Not only do they not ask the most basic questions, but most probably don't think that they should. Too busy trying to spread the answers they think they already have. Not intelligent enough to see through the veil that has been pulled over their eyes.... or perhaps they simply don't want to because of the way their religion makes them feel.
"Imagine if there was a real God, who confirmed his opinions in clear terms... and the havoc that would wreak on every religion."
Imagine if there was a real god, who has already tried to express to us his opinions, but many rejected him because they didn't agree with his views.
I don't think this would wreak havoc on every religion. Most would probably call the god a false god... claiming that he couldn't possibly be the god in whom they had placed their faith and worshiped.
Just a thought, possibly relevant to Friendly AI, on how we could get an impression of trust on a GodAi-like intelligence:
Have a chain, a hierarchy of AI's, progressively more intelligent, streaching to from human to GodAi. At each level, ask the AI "can the next level of intelligence be completely trusted, and have they answered this very same question, to you, in the affirmative?". As the next level is not sufficiently above them to be sure of deceiving them with confidence, an answer of "yes" from the AI's just above us would confirm (to high probability) a chain of trustworthiness up to GodAi.
An answer of "no" is much less informative, of course, just confirming a slight lack of trust somewhere in the chain.
If we are pretty sure that nowhere is there an overlarge leap of intelligence and power, and that AI's find it hard to deceive intelligences just slightly below themselves (we might build up these assurances, step by step, as the GodAi increases in intelligence), then we may be able to ask more nuanced questions.
Stuart, if GodAi doesn't like you, you were probably disassembled into component atoms fifteen minutes ago. If GodAi wants to deceive you (why?) and doesn't care how, it can just directly rewrite your brain. In some cases, superior info and reasoning makes it very easy to assess benevolence - if you're still alive.
There are many more possibilites that these - GodAi may behave like a scientist, experimenting with the human race. GodAi may be trying to overcome his own dislikes. GodAi may have a constantly shifting moral system along with a general unwillingess to act. He may keep me alive because he believes life is a misery and I deserve to suffer.
The point is that we know nothing about GodAi's motives (execept, if he is an AI, we may have some idea how he was initially designed). Talking about a "caring" or "good" GodAi is moot - we have no clue if he posseses these qualities. Since he is so ultimate, he can hide any moral system - his plan might be "benefit humanity for a thousand years, then torture them." We can argue that's an unlikely moral system, but we have no reasonable probability distribution to be talking about what moral systems GodAi could go for.
just pointing out that if GodAi is "paternalistic" you've got bigger problems than just GodAi's words being optimized to deceive you.Indeed. But there is a reverse pascal's wager here - I have to behave as if I could ignore GodAi's influence. Because if I can, that's the only way to do so (I categorize "I can ignore GodAi's influence by doing something complicated that I could never figure out" as "I can't ignore his influence"). And if I can't, the point is moot whatever I do.
Naturally, all this would also apply to God. You know, it really is sad how religious people don't ask the most basic questions about religion.I think the fact that there is no evidence for God is the saviour of religion. Imagine if there was a real God, who confirmed his opinions in clear terms... and the havoc that would wreak on every religion.
Stuart, if GodAi doesn't like you, you were probably disassembled into component atoms fifteen minutes ago. If GodAi wants to deceive you (why?) and doesn't care how, it can just directly rewrite your brain. In some cases, superior info and reasoning makes it very easy to assess benevolence - if you're still alive.
Not that I'm saying you should trust GodAi, just pointing out that if GodAi is "paternalistic" you've got bigger problems than just GodAi's words being optimized to deceive you.
Naturally, all this would also apply to God. You know, it really is sad how religious people don't ask the most basic questions about religion.
Even if God/the AI is friendly, and has a moral system close to mine, that doesn't mean I should trust him.
For example, he may be paternalistic, and just telling me what would be best for me to hear. This doesn't make it the truth. Since GodAi is so intelligent, he can be paternalistic at a level far beyond my imagining, and hide it from me with total efficiency.
Words like 'good' or 'caring' are also dangerous here - if GodAi is so superior, he can make sure to appear good or caring in my eyes, even if he's not. In fact, GodAi's supreme intelligence is a problem here - I can't trust him at all because of it. Someone of less fabulous intelligence I can trust more, because there is a chance that if he lies, he may get caught out. But GodAi's lies will be perfect.
In Eliezer's words, not only does 'superior info and reasoning' not imply 'within my moral frame of reference', but the first actually makes it harder to assess the truth of the second. If GodAi is perfect, we should ignore him entirely.
joe, the theological view I am expounding is just good-old fashioned Calvinism. It's as American as witch-burning. For more on different views of free-will and what science says about them, read Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen's "For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything".
Nick,Could you please expound on your statement "libertarian free will is logically incoherent regardless of what you believe about God"thanks,Joe
joe, libertarian free will is logically incoherent regardless of what you believe about God, and plenty of people realize this and don't consider life meaningless.
"Parents and teachers have limited ability to make children "truly understand", God does not"
I think that is precisely the point. Notice that I draw a distinction between truly understanding and the transfer of knowledge/facts from parent/teacher to child.
"If he did not know what was going to happen, he was not truly omniscient and if he could not bring about his desired state of affairs, he was not truly omnipotent."
I see that I am getting schooled here by using terms that lay-people toss around without much thought to their implications.
So, I believe you are saying that if god is truly omnipotent and omniscient, then when he created the universe, he must have known every result of his actions or else he is not truly omnipotent....good point. I guess I don't believe that if there is a god, he is either omniscient or omnipotent, nor do I think that any religion truly does either.
If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then we must live in a completely deterministic world for how could he be otherwise. If that is the case, then humans do not have free-will or the power to make any decisions. However, there also many implications to this view including the pointlessness of heaven and hell. If god controls everything, then there is no point to either punish or reward someone in the afterlife since all of one's actions while alive were determined by god himself. Say goodbye to any point in talking about good and evil, morality, or responsibility and accountability for one's actions... doesn't life necessarily become completely meaningless?
joe, God knew in advance what would result from the initial conditions of his creating the universe. By virtue of his role in creating the universe He MUST "control everything". Everything that happened must have been acceptable to him. If he did not know what was going to happen, he was not truly omniscient and if he could not bring about his desired state of affairs, he was not truly omnipotent. Parents and teachers have limited ability to make children "truly understand" (although I think much of that talk is just bull among educators to avoid accountability, which is discussed in depth at this blog), GOD DOES NOT. If God wanted us to "truly understand" then we WOULD. I once believed in a somewhat inactive God, but that conception MADE NO SENSE.
I think you missed the point of the analogy... maybe god, like good parents, knows the best way for people to learn certain lessons about life. Having the knowledge would not necessarily mean that we would understand. I would say this is analogous to students being able to memorize formulae and methods from textbooks, but not really understanding the material. Perhaps an omniscient god knows the best way for us to understand.
Clearly, we have some, if not complete control of our lives. Thus, if there is a god, even if he is omnipotent and omniscient, he is allowing us to make at least some decisions.
"He created the conditions that caused people to not believe in him."
Sure, if you want to believe that he is omnipotent and uses this power to control absolutely everything, then sure, I will go along with your above statement. However, I think that is a point on which I can agree to disagree with you. I don't think that an omnipotent god would necessarily use his omnipotence to control everything. What would be the point?
Parents are not omnipotent and omniscient. God (assuming He actually exists) is. God was able to foresee whether or not we would believe in him. He created the conditions that caused people to not believe in him. The obvious conclusion would be that God doesn't actually want many people to believe in him at all, or some of our assumptions (God's existence, omnipotence or omniscience) are wrong.
Why would it be natural to conclude that god would use his powers to force people to believe something? There is a big difference between expressing your views for the sake of teaching and imposing your opinions on someone. Parents understand that no matter how much guidance they try to give their kids, that there are some things that kids just have to learn on their own if they are going to truly learn and understand.
joe, if God is omnipotent and truly desired for people to believe something, shouldn't his will have already been done? That seems to be what others have been getting at above.
"You know, it really is sad how religious people don't ask the most basic questions about religion."
You know what I find more upsetting? Not only do they not ask the most basic questions, but most probably don't think that they should. Too busy trying to spread the answers they think they already have. Not intelligent enough to see through the veil that has been pulled over their eyes.... or perhaps they simply don't want to because of the way their religion makes them feel.
"Imagine if there was a real God, who confirmed his opinions in clear terms... and the havoc that would wreak on every religion."
Imagine if there was a real god, who has already tried to express to us his opinions, but many rejected him because they didn't agree with his views.
I don't think this would wreak havoc on every religion. Most would probably call the god a false god... claiming that he couldn't possibly be the god in whom they had placed their faith and worshiped.
Boy, this got out of my depth in a hurry!
Just a thought, possibly relevant to Friendly AI, on how we could get an impression of trust on a GodAi-like intelligence:
Have a chain, a hierarchy of AI's, progressively more intelligent, streaching to from human to GodAi. At each level, ask the AI "can the next level of intelligence be completely trusted, and have they answered this very same question, to you, in the affirmative?". As the next level is not sufficiently above them to be sure of deceiving them with confidence, an answer of "yes" from the AI's just above us would confirm (to high probability) a chain of trustworthiness up to GodAi.
An answer of "no" is much less informative, of course, just confirming a slight lack of trust somewhere in the chain.
If we are pretty sure that nowhere is there an overlarge leap of intelligence and power, and that AI's find it hard to deceive intelligences just slightly below themselves (we might build up these assurances, step by step, as the GodAi increases in intelligence), then we may be able to ask more nuanced questions.
Stuart, if GodAi doesn't like you, you were probably disassembled into component atoms fifteen minutes ago. If GodAi wants to deceive you (why?) and doesn't care how, it can just directly rewrite your brain. In some cases, superior info and reasoning makes it very easy to assess benevolence - if you're still alive.
There are many more possibilites that these - GodAi may behave like a scientist, experimenting with the human race. GodAi may be trying to overcome his own dislikes. GodAi may have a constantly shifting moral system along with a general unwillingess to act. He may keep me alive because he believes life is a misery and I deserve to suffer.
The point is that we know nothing about GodAi's motives (execept, if he is an AI, we may have some idea how he was initially designed). Talking about a "caring" or "good" GodAi is moot - we have no clue if he posseses these qualities. Since he is so ultimate, he can hide any moral system - his plan might be "benefit humanity for a thousand years, then torture them." We can argue that's an unlikely moral system, but we have no reasonable probability distribution to be talking about what moral systems GodAi could go for.
just pointing out that if GodAi is "paternalistic" you've got bigger problems than just GodAi's words being optimized to deceive you.Indeed. But there is a reverse pascal's wager here - I have to behave as if I could ignore GodAi's influence. Because if I can, that's the only way to do so (I categorize "I can ignore GodAi's influence by doing something complicated that I could never figure out" as "I can't ignore his influence"). And if I can't, the point is moot whatever I do.
Naturally, all this would also apply to God. You know, it really is sad how religious people don't ask the most basic questions about religion.I think the fact that there is no evidence for God is the saviour of religion. Imagine if there was a real God, who confirmed his opinions in clear terms... and the havoc that would wreak on every religion.
Stuart, if GodAi doesn't like you, you were probably disassembled into component atoms fifteen minutes ago. If GodAi wants to deceive you (why?) and doesn't care how, it can just directly rewrite your brain. In some cases, superior info and reasoning makes it very easy to assess benevolence - if you're still alive.
Not that I'm saying you should trust GodAi, just pointing out that if GodAi is "paternalistic" you've got bigger problems than just GodAi's words being optimized to deceive you.
Naturally, all this would also apply to God. You know, it really is sad how religious people don't ask the most basic questions about religion.
Even if God/the AI is friendly, and has a moral system close to mine, that doesn't mean I should trust him.
For example, he may be paternalistic, and just telling me what would be best for me to hear. This doesn't make it the truth. Since GodAi is so intelligent, he can be paternalistic at a level far beyond my imagining, and hide it from me with total efficiency.
Words like 'good' or 'caring' are also dangerous here - if GodAi is so superior, he can make sure to appear good or caring in my eyes, even if he's not. In fact, GodAi's supreme intelligence is a problem here - I can't trust him at all because of it. Someone of less fabulous intelligence I can trust more, because there is a chance that if he lies, he may get caught out. But GodAi's lies will be perfect.
In Eliezer's words, not only does 'superior info and reasoning' not imply 'within my moral frame of reference', but the first actually makes it harder to assess the truth of the second. If GodAi is perfect, we should ignore him entirely.