Joseph has been asking about other goal-seeking entity attractors, so . . . .
Interlude 2. The God Attractor How many of y'all are willing to recognize/agree that the vast majority of humans in Western Civilization are currently spread around the basin of yet another *very* powerful ethical attractor -- the belief in a God that cares how we behave and acts as a morality enforcer? If you believe that moral/ethical behavior in others is in your self-interest, then the belief in God is a great way to initiate, explain, and reinforce that behavior. If you can't see Friendliness (i.e. that moral/ethical behavior is *always* in your self-interest) or if you don't believe that others are intelligent enough to see Friendliness, then the belief in God and spreading the belief in God is probably the best way to promote moral/ethical behavior in others. For many individuals, the attractor-hood of the God-belief (fear of punishment/anticipation of reward) is the only thing that drags them up the slope to ethical behavior. And if you wonder why some people don't trust atheists to be moral, you only have to realize that some people can only see the God-attractor and the slope below it sliding down into immoral/unethical behavior. Religious belief (the God Attractor) is NOT internally INconsistent (a double negative), so it CANNOT be disproved. In fact, in a way, the Friendliness attractor is almost/simply an adult's (more intelligent entity's) version of the God Attractor. Instead of a God who cares how we behave and rewards us or punishes us based upon how we behave, the world itself is such that if we act in a Friendly manner we are more likely to get what we want rather than if we act in an UnFriendly manner. The God Attractor offers a bit more of a guarantee and makes it easy to create "Proclamations From On High" that tell us what to do even when it is not obvious (or WRONG) -- but it can also (obviously) lead to religious wars as people have no way to come to agreement on "What God Wants" (or worse yet, "Who God Favors") when disagreements arise. Looking at things this way, I'm beginning to agree with the point that Richard Dawkins is headed in the wrong direction when he tries to make others deny God. That doesn't seem to be necessary (i.e. Friendly). Maybe there's an easier, gentler process to achieve the same results. For example, if we were to redefine God (solely for ourselves) as the potential collection of Friendly entities (which is eventually every entity), then we are no longer atheists (assuming that we were in the first place -- my apologies to those who were not). Then, since we actually know what Friendliness is, we can actually say that we not only believe in God but that we also have a pretty good chance of deriving, with explanation, what he/she/it/they "want(s)". And, as Michael Dowd points out in his book "Thank GOD For EVOLUTION!", the religious (night) language *is* as accurate for our view as it is for a traditional Judeo-Christian view. <Side Note: Thank GOD For EVOLUTION! is as important as Robert Wright's The Moral Animal. If you've missed either, RUN out and get it> There has often been speculation in science fiction as to whether or not alien species would have a belief in a God or not. The Attractor Theory strongly indicates that the answer would be yes in a good percentage of cases. But it also indicates that the God Attractor is but a rational step on a society's growth to adulthood -- as I believe that it is for humanity. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
