Religious freedom, what's that?

Mon, 2013-12-09 20:52

#2

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

You do end up seeing those

You do end up seeing those groups and individuals--they just aren't mentioned because the books are written for and by Firewall operatives, and, as such, there's a systemic bias towards showcasing the sorts of organized religions that lend themselves to abuse and control, and the books are written as adventure guides for RPGs, not a phone book listing of the population of the entire setting. Just like a cop's day-to-day interactions are going to be with the criminal set, not the law-abiding set, Firewall's primary concerns are going to be those individuals and movements that are potential x-risks, either intrinsically, or because they're primed for being repurposed as such. This is in addition to high level overviews of habitats with thousands or millions of people, so there's a large loss of detail. Take Extropia for example; there are five pages in Rimward describing a habitat of 10 million people. That's 2 million people per page! :) And, speaking as someone raised Jewish: There would totally be a rabbi (possibly with smicha) on Extropia! :D Given Jewish social customs, there's a need there for administering to the religious, social and customary needs of any Jews in residence. It would either be a primary job, or in the off-hours from whatever primary employment he has--and given historical influences of community financial support of their rabbanim, a contract level basis for rulings and issues would slide right into the Extropian environment. I could totally see a beth din (Jewish court) composed of poseks (Rabbis who have the status and respect to act as binding deciders in Jewish law) working as one of the independent Extropian law firms (TransHalakah, maybe?)

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Mon, 2013-12-09 21:17

#3

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

what bibliophile20 said

what bibliophile20 said and also there are references to benign religious people in the book (just not many and they are short) on extropia the legal provider open sharia shows no sign of control and is taken seriously. there are a handful of catholic priests not associated with the Jovians on a scum barge. one of the martial nomadic clans is a tight nit religious community. and those are just the 3 that come to mind immediately. i am pretty shore there where a couple of others as well. while the small religious group in a larger habitat may be seen as eccentric they aren't necessarily marginalized from the wider community. the population as a whole doesn't have a religion to hate them for not beveling. the fall seemed to make humanity more accepting of variation that dose not constitute a threat (probably by showing us some real threats.

Mon, 2013-12-09 22:08

#4

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Good point

bibliophile20 wrote:
You do end up seeing those groups and individuals--they just aren't mentioned because the books are written for and by Firewall operatives, and, as such, there's a systemic bias towards showcasing the sorts of organized religions that lend themselves to abuse and control, and the books are written as adventure guides for RPGs, not a phone book listing of the population of the entire setting. Just like a cop's day-to-day interactions are going to be with the criminal set, not the law-abiding set, Firewall's primary concerns are going to be those individuals and movements that are potential x-risks, either intrinsically, or because they're primed for being repurposed as such. This is in addition to high level overviews of habitats with thousands or millions of people, so there's a large loss of detail. Take Extropia for example; there are five pages in Rimward describing a habitat of 10 million people. That's 2 million people per page! :) And, speaking as someone raised Jewish: There would totally be a rabbi (possibly with smicha) on Extropia! :D Given Jewish social customs, there's a need there for administering to the religious, social and customary needs of any Jews in residence. It would either be a primary job, or in the off-hours from whatever primary employment he has--and given historical influences of community financial support of their rabbanim, a contract level basis for rulings and issues would slide right into the Extropian environment. I could totally see a beth din (Jewish court) composed of poseks (Rabbis who have the status and respect to act as binding deciders in Jewish law) working as one of the independent Extropian law firms (TransHalakah, maybe?)

I see where you're getting at. I guess the books aren't like D&D guides where they are written to explain nearly everything. Firewall wants it's operatives to know pertinent information. Very interesting, and if you'll forgive me, humorous to imagine, insight into how a theoretical Jewish community would work in my favorite habitat.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Mon, 2013-12-09 22:10

#5

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Thanks

thezombiekat wrote:
what bibliophile20 said and also there are references to benign religious people in the book (just not many and they are short) on extropia the legal provider open sharia shows no sign of control and is taken seriously. there are a handful of catholic priests not associated with the Jovians on a scum barge. one of the martial nomadic clans is a tight nit religious community. and those are just the 3 that come to mind immediately. i am pretty shore there where a couple of others as well. while the small religious group in a larger habitat may be seen as eccentric they aren't necessarily marginalized from the wider community. the population as a whole doesn't have a religion to hate them for not beveling. the fall seemed to make humanity more accepting of variation that dose not constitute a threat (probably by showing us some real threats.

Interesting, I guess I must have overlooked those. I could actually use those in a campaign perhaps. Thank you again.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2013-12-10 00:03

#6

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Steel Accord wrote:I see

Steel Accord wrote:
I see where you're getting at. I guess the books aren't like D&D guides where they are written to explain nearly everything. Firewall wants it's operatives to know pertinent information. Very interesting, and if you'll forgive me, humorous to imagine, insight into how a theoretical Jewish community would work in my favorite habitat.

No problem and glad to be of service. BTW, if you have any other questions about Jews IN SPACE! (hehehehe), feel free to ask me. I'm not an expert by any stretch of imagination, but I'd like to make use of those years of Jewish religious school for something (although, to be fair, some of the crew over at Spacebattles keeps poking me for similar expertise, so it's not like it goes completely to waste. Latest question from them was, "vat-grown ham. Is it kosher?")

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Tue, 2013-12-10 03:49

#7

Smokeskin

I think there's also the

I think there's also the issue that religious people will generally believe in souls and that gives them problems with egocasting and resleeving, and that acted as a filter during the fall. There's also a strong negative correlation between intelligence and degree of religious belief, and the people in EP are very smart.

Tue, 2013-12-10 08:45

#8

Leodiensian Leodiensian's picture

Quote:One of the things I

Quote:
One of the things I love about this setting is how "for" it is on freedom of expression. Different factions may agree on the specifics, censoring "illicit" materials, IP rights, open source, etc., but overall, almost everyone agrees that people have the right to their opinions. However, there is one issue that doesn't seem to fall under such; and that is the freedom to practice organized religion.... It seems a little like how Andrew Ryan chose to ban Bibles from Rapture, after promising his people need not "fear the censor." It's like, "believe and say whatever you want! Wait, you didn't tell me you were religious, better keep that to yourself."

When talking about religion in Eclipse Phase I like to put it like this: "We're still not sure about God - but we're pretty certain about the Devil. We met him in the Fall." I think a lot of this confusion comes from your conception of religion as being a necessarily organized thing, which isn't the form it largely takes in the future. Religion exists, even organized religion in places, but for the most part religious infrastructure is a rarity. That is not the same as saying religious thought, spiritualism, metaphysics etc are entirely dead. Remember, transhumanity has undergone a radical social shift and in their new realities the same tribal social models we've been using on Earth just don't make as much sense - but again, that's a social model we currently have connected to religion, not religious belief as a whole. Religion in the transhuman future exists more as a personal thing than a social grouping. You are free to believe whatever you want in most parts of space - there might be a few exceptions where habs might be so monoculture as to effectively have 'state religions' that I'm forgetting, not counting Those Wacky Jovians of course. But for the most part, the major political blocs of transhumanity are secular and pluralist in their governing - so long as you're not violating civil laws to do so, you're fine to worship whatever you want in private. Most habs were founded by mixes of cultures and ethnic groups, which then got another mixing when infugees flooded in. Whatever religions they brought with them had to be capable of living in close conditions with others. In other words, a live and let live attitude surrounding religious matters is very important. You can even be religious in anarchist space, or a Scum barge - just don't start expecting people to live by YOUR religion or get pissy when they don't. Next, the big social trend both in real life and EP timelines for the last few hundred years has been technology empowering the individual more and more to the point where social institutions such as religion or the state are less necessary, relevant or desirable. What need is religion (as we know it in the early 21st century) going to be providing to people who have their souls on backup, and machines that can turn water into wine with the right blueprint? Largely philosophical and ethical ones, guidelines and meditation - religion as therapy. It's an issue that religions are facing TODAY - a set of ancient books that are losing touch with the realities of the world.

Tue, 2013-12-10 09:27

#9

Smokeskin

Leodiensian wrote:What need

Leodiensian wrote:
What need is religion (as we know it in the early 21st century) going to be providing to people who have their souls on backup, and machines that can turn water into wine with the right blueprint? Largely philosophical and ethical ones, guidelines and meditation - religion as therapy. It's an issue that religions are facing TODAY - a set of ancient books that are losing touch with the realities of the world.

I don't think that religion's role is to fill any need for philosophical or ethical guidance. That's not why people turn to religion, and anyone seeking answers to such questions would be terribly dissappointed if they though religion would provide any answers to such questions. People are largely raised to believe, and a few lonely people find religion because it gives them a community to be a part of. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

Tue, 2013-12-10 21:15

#10

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Heaven

Smokeskin wrote:
I think there's also the issue that religious people will generally believe in souls and that gives them problems with egocasting and resleeving, and that acted as a filter during the fall. There's also a strong negative correlation between intelligence and degree of religious belief, and the people in EP are very smart.

On the contrary, I have no problem with the conception of the soul's endurance beyond resleeving. If there's no verifiable way to confirm it goes to heaven upon death, that being an act of faith. Who's to say it doesn't migrate with the ego? Maybe the ego IS the soul! Secondly, I understand that the people who created this game are intelligent, I admire them for creating such a unique and complex game based around an area of science that I am a fervent supporter of. That being said, I refuse to believe that intelligence is inversely proportional for a propensity to believe in a greater Intelligence; and I'm not the only one who says so. Just ask Keplar, Descartes, and Einstein for that matter.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2013-12-10 21:48

#11

Songtress

Wow Religion in RP, this is

Wow Religion in RP, this is an interesting discussion: My 2 cents: I'd say that religion in EP is probably more diverse , I mean Shintoism and Buddhism probably survived 9somewhat though perhaps altered a I think most of the religions perhaps exist , but perhaps not in any way WE would easily recognize them. The Jovian Junta probably has all manner of religions (from Christianity to Paganism)... but I suppect that most people are less 'religious' and more 'conciously secular.' ( i.e. that whole 'Happy Holidays' vibe... of We can talk about it, but it doesn't mean we have to agree.)

Tue, 2013-12-10 21:49

#12

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

What Smokeskin was saying is

What Smokeskin was saying is not "The smarter you are, the less religious you are" but instead was saying "it has been shown, statistically, that the probability of a given person identifying as atheist or as agnostic increases with the degree of education they have received and how great their own native intellect is". It's not a strict inversely proportionate relationship, but instead a matter of probability--the more you've been taught to think, the less chance you're actively religious. But just a matter of probability--you could be uneducated and an atheist, or possessing multiple doctorates and a staunch theist. I can't really say more without personal bias intruding; I'm personally a [url=http://boingboing.net/2013/09/25/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnostics.html]gno... atheist[/url], was until a few years ago a agnostic atheist, and was raised in a very religious community. So my own viewpoints on believing in a "greater intelligence" are rather biased. I will say this, though, based on my experience in discussing the topic: your own viewpoints in what the soul are definitely non-standard in religious thought, as you equate the concept of the "soul" with the mind. Typically, in most Judeo-Christian thought, the soul is tied to the body and released with death.

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Tue, 2013-12-10 22:03

#13

Leodiensian Leodiensian's picture

Steel Accord wrote:That being

Steel Accord wrote:
That being said, I refuse to believe that intelligence is inversely proportional for a propensity to believe in a greater Intelligence; and I'm not the only one who says so. Just ask Keplar, Descartes, and Einstein for that matter.

Well, I'm afraid the evidence is against you on that part. There have been plenty of studies about the connection between religious belief and IQ and for the most part the relationships suggested have been negative correlations. Miron Zuckerman's 2013 meta-analysis of studies correlating IQ and religiosity found 53 of the 63 studies showed statistically significant correlation between lower IQs and religiosity (http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full ^ http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/new-meta-analysis-checks-the-corr...) while only 10 had results suggesting higher IQs. Some show atheists as having an average IQ of six points higher than the average theist. Other studies suggest it has more to do with cognitive style, with the inverse relationship being between rational, analytical thought with religious beliefs. Others look at the relationship between education and religion, suggesting that while high levels of education increases religious attendance at individual levels in early life (since many educational institutions force students to religious practice) it also decreases religious belief in adult life. That said, there is a difference between what they were testing for as religion (self-identity as belonging to a certain religious group) and what you've moved the goalposts to as "accepting the possibility of a higher intelligence". It's just that in general higher-IQ people tend to be less likely to adhere to established social norms or cliques - they are less likely to identify as members of religious social group and therefore may self-select OUT of those studies involving religious self-identity as a factor.

Tue, 2013-12-10 22:12

#14

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Both of you are missing some points.

Smokeskin wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
What need is religion (as we know it in the early 21st century) going to be providing to people who have their souls on backup, and machines that can turn water into wine with the right blueprint? Largely philosophical and ethical ones, guidelines and meditation - religion as therapy. It's an issue that religions are facing TODAY - a set of ancient books that are losing touch with the realities of the world.
I don't think that religion's role is to fill any need for philosophical or ethical guidance. That's not why people turn to religion, and anyone seeking answers to such questions would be terribly dissappointed if they though religion would provide any answers to such questions. People are largely raised to believe, and a few lonely people find religion because it gives them a community to be a part of. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

First of all, just because people could walk on water doesn't mean anything Jesus or the Bhudda said was wrong. Jesus in particular didn't use his miracles as some proof of divinity to lord over his disciples, but a form of advertisement. "Enjoy that wine my friends, now that I have your attention though, perhaps you would like to hear my stance on how to treat your fellow man." As our world changes, I don't see the Bible becoming less relevant. I go to Church and the Priests take a passage from the Bible and always find some wise way to connect it back to the human condition that still reigns to this day. I can only assume clergy in other faiths are doing similarly. Now, notice I used the word "human condition." When technology like this is created, when the Singularity is achieved, maybe we will understand what Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, and countless others were saying and much more; but the future of EP is no such future. As such, religion would still be just as relevant because there are countless new questions to ask just as the old ones have been answered or been made irrelevant. The only human dilemmas I've seen conquered in this setting are death and the nation-state. (Albeit those are big ones.) Even in the books though, I can see religious connections. The Surya being named for a Hindu deity, the Ultimates taking their leader from a Gnostic figure for God/the Devil (depending on your interpretation), or even the dozens of names taken from mythology. (Furies, Muses, etc.) Even if you want to say that modern religions will join the discredited mythos, the very fact that these names and comparisons are used rather than post-Singularity or at least scientific nomenclature shows that religious symbology will always hold an indelibly powerful place in the human psyche. Secondly, yes, religion has been used as a social mechanism, but it has also been highly and deeply personalized experience. (As perviously mentioned.) Not always as a form of soul searching, but also as a sort of ethical code. Religion can be compared to any memeplex that people incorporate into their belief systems that requires a certain degree of faith in the idea that life in and of the universe was intelligently designed. Maybe some just aren't creative in the symbols they choose to slap unto concepts like redemption, sin, or the Apex of existence, so they choose to follow or tweak an existing one. In any case, I've no problem if people aren't religious where I am, I merely ask that they try to understand that it's much more nuanced and complex than they may initially think.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2013-12-10 22:21

#15

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Identifying as "religious"

Leodiensian wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
That being said, I refuse to believe that intelligence is inversely proportional for a propensity to believe in a greater Intelligence; and I'm not the only one who says so. Just ask Keplar, Descartes, and Einstein for that matter.
Well, I'm afraid the evidence is against you on that part. There have been plenty of studies about the connection between religious belief and IQ and for the most part the relationships suggested have been negative correlations. Miron Zuckerman's 2013 meta-analysis of studies correlating IQ and religiosity found 53 of the 63 studies showed statistically significant correlation between lower IQs and religiosity (http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full ^ http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/new-meta-analysis-checks-the-corr...) while only 10 had results suggesting higher IQs. Some show atheists as having an average IQ of six points higher than the average theist. Other studies suggest it has more to do with cognitive style, with the inverse relationship being between rational, analytical thought with religious beliefs. Others look at the relationship between education and religion, suggesting that while high levels of education increases religious attendance at individual levels in early life (since many educational institutions force students to religious practice) it also decreases religious belief in adult life. That said, there is a difference between what they were testing for as religion (self-identity as belonging to a certain religious group) and what you've moved the goalposts to as "accepting the possibility of a higher intelligence". It's just that in general higher-IQ people tend to be less likely to adhere to established social norms or cliques - they are less likely to identify as members of religious social group and therefore may self-select OUT of those studies involving religious self-identity as a factor.

Well you actually raise a good point on that one. It could be a modern meme that identifying as a follower of an established doctrine limits your intellectual credibility if not your logic. You are correct though, I define religion very broadly, and that's purposeful. I was raised Catholic, but went to a High School where I was exposed to numerous faiths and lack of them as well. In my later years, I'm even entertaining notions of Gnostic origin so I more or less identify with that as well. One thing that Gnosticism and life experience have both taught me though is that almost every religion in the world agree on very basic points (basically amounting to "there is a reason we are here and don't be a dick to others!") and all the myriad pantheons and sacraments are only so much wallpaper.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2013-12-10 22:30

#16

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Soul = Mind

bibliophile20 wrote:
What Smokeskin was saying is not "The smarter you are, the less religious you are" but instead was saying "it has been shown, statistically, that the probability of a given person identifying as atheist or as agnostic increases with the degree of education they have received and how great their own native intellect is". It's not a strict inversely proportionate relationship, but instead a matter of probability--the more you've been taught to think, the less chance you're actively religious. But just a matter of probability--you could be uneducated and an atheist, or possessing multiple doctorates and a staunch theist. I can't really say more without personal bias intruding; I'm personally a [url=http://boingboing.net/2013/09/25/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnostics.html]gno... atheist[/url], was until a few years ago a agnostic atheist, and was raised in a very religious community. So my own viewpoints on believing in a "greater intelligence" are rather biased. I will say this, though, based on my experience in discussing the topic: your own viewpoints in what the soul are definitely non-standard in religious thought, as you equate the concept of the "soul" with the mind. Typically, in most Judeo-Christian thought, the soul is tied to the body and released with death.

Well I don't necessarily believe that. I'm not a priest, nor studied in the theoretical science of backups beyond an H+ magazine subscription. I honestly don't know, I only entertain the thought that it could be so. To say with any amount of authority that our souls are linked to our bodies, I think is arrogant. How the Hell do WE know? How CAN we know? Until the heat death of the universe and perhaps beyond. As I said, maybe we will discover these truths one day when we make Krypton and the Timelords look like a game of the Sims, but until then, I'm happy to let these questions be pondered by people more learned than I, while I focus on the questions I can answer. Well maybe my parents and the Priests I've been brought up with maybe are non-standard themselves, but I've never really got the notion that the soul was intrinsic to the body. I've been raised with the idea that the soul is "you" and that the body is merely what you live through and in, an instrument of the soul's will. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." -Master Yoda

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2013-12-11 03:19

#17

Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
What need is religion (as we know it in the early 21st century) going to be providing to people who have their souls on backup, and machines that can turn water into wine with the right blueprint? Largely philosophical and ethical ones, guidelines and meditation - religion as therapy. It's an issue that religions are facing TODAY - a set of ancient books that are losing touch with the realities of the world.
I don't think that religion's role is to fill any need for philosophical or ethical guidance. That's not why people turn to religion, and anyone seeking answers to such questions would be terribly dissappointed if they though religion would provide any answers to such questions. People are largely raised to believe, and a few lonely people find religion because it gives them a community to be a part of. That's pretty much it, isn't it?
First of all, just because people could walk on water doesn't mean anything Jesus or the Bhudda said was wrong. Jesus in particular didn't use his miracles as some proof of divinity to lord over his disciples, but a form of advertisement. "Enjoy that wine my friends, now that I have your attention though, perhaps you would like to hear my stance on how to treat your fellow man." As our world changes, I don't see the Bible becoming less relevant. I go to Church and the Priests take a passage from the Bible and always find some wise way to connect it back to the human condition that still reigns to this day. I can only assume clergy in other faiths are doing similarly. Now, notice I used the word "human condition." When technology like this is created, when the Singularity is achieved, maybe we will understand what Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, and countless others were saying and much more; but the future of EP is no such future. As such, religion would still be just as relevant because there are countless new questions to ask just as the old ones have been answered or been made irrelevant. [...] Secondly, yes, religion has been used as a social mechanism, but it has also been highly and deeply personalized experience. (As perviously mentioned.) Not always as a form of soul searching, but also as a sort of ethical code.

And that's where the problem comes in - when you start treating it like an ethical code. If you find inspiration in something Jesus said, fine. But when you start treating EVERYTHING he said like a code that must be followed, we get problems. And we have problems with religion. Even many highly developed western nations have huge problems with religion, where they try to control people's lives and deny them their rights, take for example denying the right to abortion, denying gay equal rights, blocking stem cell research, blocking condom distribution programs in Africa, blocking the teaching of evolution (I noticed even you spoke of intelligent design, shutter). You are very welcome to enter ethical discussions even if you're religious, and you're very welcome to quote Jesus - he did say many good things. But you should be prepared to dismiss the stupid things he said too, dismiss his teachings, dismiss the bible, because there are so many horrible things in there.

Wed, 2013-12-11 03:23

#18

Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:

Steel Accord wrote:
To say with any amount of authority that our souls are linked to our bodies, I think is arrogant. How the Hell do WE know? How CAN we know? [...] I've been raised with the idea that the soul is "you" and that the body is merely what you live through and in, an instrument of the soul's will.

So their opinion is arrogant, but yours is... what exactly? Informed? Why do you even think you have a soul? Such a thing has never been observed or even hinted at by the tiniest shred of evidence as far as I know. Aside from you being raised with the idea of course.

Wed, 2013-12-11 08:39

#19

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

bibliophile20 wrote:Latest

bibliophile20 wrote:
Latest question from them was, "vat-grown ham. Is it kosher?")

you don't need to go to future tech for that type of question. kangaroo is it kosher? it chews its cud but dose not have cloven hoofs. when i looked up the list of rules the "do eat" and "don't eat" list appear to include all animals present in the middle east/north Africa/ south west Europe inhabited by the Jews at the time. of cause i never studied the religion even though my father was raised Jewish he was not practicing in my lifetime.

Wed, 2013-12-11 08:57

#20

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Mine

Smokeskin wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
To say with any amount of authority that our souls are linked to our bodies, I think is arrogant. How the Hell do WE know? How CAN we know? [...] I've been raised with the idea that the soul is "you" and that the body is merely what you live through and in, an instrument of the soul's will.
So their opinion is arrogant, but yours is... what exactly? Informed? Why do you even think you have a soul? Such a thing has never been observed or even hinted at by the tiniest shred of evidence as far as I know. Aside from you being raised with the idea of course.

My opinion is just that, mine. Yes, souls have never been proven to exist, but that's where the faith portion comes in. I believe in the soul, and I believe there is a greater power at work in existence whatever you wish to call it. I've had plenty of time and reasons to abandon my upbringing teachings, but they speak to a part of my mind that I find is helpful in my life and thus far hasn't stopped me from studying and appreciating other avenues of thought. So if it helps, and isn't a hinderance, then I see no reason to change my opinion on the subject.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2013-12-11 09:10

#21

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Misconception

Smokeskin wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
What need is religion (as we know it in the early 21st century) going to be providing to people who have their souls on backup, and machines that can turn water into wine with the right blueprint? Largely philosophical and ethical ones, guidelines and meditation - religion as therapy. It's an issue that religions are facing TODAY - a set of ancient books that are losing touch with the realities of the world.
I don't think that religion's role is to fill any need for philosophical or ethical guidance. That's not why people turn to religion, and anyone seeking answers to such questions would be terribly dissappointed if they though religion would provide any answers to such questions. People are largely raised to believe, and a few lonely people find religion because it gives them a community to be a part of. That's pretty much it, isn't it?
First of all, just because people could walk on water doesn't mean anything Jesus or the Bhudda said was wrong. Jesus in particular didn't use his miracles as some proof of divinity to lord over his disciples, but a form of advertisement. "Enjoy that wine my friends, now that I have your attention though, perhaps you would like to hear my stance on how to treat your fellow man." As our world changes, I don't see the Bible becoming less relevant. I go to Church and the Priests take a passage from the Bible and always find some wise way to connect it back to the human condition that still reigns to this day. I can only assume clergy in other faiths are doing similarly. Now, notice I used the word "human condition." When technology like this is created, when the Singularity is achieved, maybe we will understand what Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, and countless others were saying and much more; but the future of EP is no such future. As such, religion would still be just as relevant because there are countless new questions to ask just as the old ones have been answered or been made irrelevant. [...] Secondly, yes, religion has been used as a social mechanism, but it has also been highly and deeply personalized experience. (As perviously mentioned.) Not always as a form of soul searching, but also as a sort of ethical code.
And that's where the problem comes in - when you start treating it like an ethical code. If you find inspiration in something Jesus said, fine. But when you start treating EVERYTHING he said like a code that must be followed, we get problems. And we have problems with religion. Even many highly developed western nations have huge problems with religion, where they try to control people's lives and deny them their rights, take for example denying the right to abortion, denying gay equal rights, blocking stem cell research, blocking condom distribution programs in Africa, blocking the teaching of evolution (I noticed even you spoke of intelligent design, shutter). You are very welcome to enter ethical discussions even if you're religious, and you're very welcome to quote Jesus - he did say many good things. But you should be prepared to dismiss the stupid things he said too, dismiss his teachings, dismiss the bible, because there are so many horrible things in there.

I believe you are assuming a great deal about me and what my beliefs are, understandable given how comparatively little information I've given though. Firstly, most Catholics fully embrace the theory of evolution. Pope John Paul II just recently said it is "compatible with Christian Faith." I think Creationism is just as ridiculous as you may think so. "God reached down and ZAP there was everything there ever will be!" How insulting to the vastness and greatness of creation. Secondly, yes, I am pro-life, but my faith is just one reason for that. Mostly it actually comes from my father being a doctor and him giving me VERY in depth descriptions on how abortions are done. Forgive me if vivisecting fetuses makes me cringe. (Shutter) Let's not turn this into an abortion thread though. Your pro-choice, I'm pro-life, we both have our reasons, and let's leave it at that. Thirdly, there ARE portions of the Bible that I disagree with. That's not "against the rules" or "FORBIDDEN" (or whatever) in Catholicism. Quite conversely, my priests and parents have often told me to question the Bible and Jesus' words. "Blind faith isn't real faith" they would say. Protestantism, speaking just in general terms, is strictly about the Bible. They treat that Book and all it's Scripture like the laws of f*cking physics! Catholics are more about the big questions and the Bible being something to be respected and consulted, but not it's word alone being Sacrosanct.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2013-12-11 09:23

#22

Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
To say with any amount of authority that our souls are linked to our bodies, I think is arrogant. How the Hell do WE know? How CAN we know? [...] I've been raised with the idea that the soul is "you" and that the body is merely what you live through and in, an instrument of the soul's will.
So their opinion is arrogant, but yours is... what exactly? Informed? Why do you even think you have a soul? Such a thing has never been observed or even hinted at by the tiniest shred of evidence as far as I know. Aside from you being raised with the idea of course.
My opinion is just that, mine. Yes, souls have never been proven to exist, but that's where the faith portion comes in. I believe in the soul, and I believe there is a greater power at work in existence whatever you wish to call it. I've had plenty of time and reasons to abandon my upbringing teachings, but they speak to a part of my mind that I find is helpful in my life and thus far hasn't stopped me from studying and appreciating other avenues of thought. So if it helps, and isn't a hinderance, then I see no reason to change my opinion on the subject.

But why do you think someone else's opinion (which is on as unsure a footing as your own) on the matter is arrogant?

Wed, 2013-12-11 09:41

#23

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Inconsistency

Smokeskin wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
To say with any amount of authority that our souls are linked to our bodies, I think is arrogant. How the Hell do WE know? How CAN we know? [...] I've been raised with the idea that the soul is "you" and that the body is merely what you live through and in, an instrument of the soul's will.
So their opinion is arrogant, but yours is... what exactly? Informed? Why do you even think you have a soul? Such a thing has never been observed or even hinted at by the tiniest shred of evidence as far as I know. Aside from you being raised with the idea of course.
My opinion is just that, mine. Yes, souls have never been proven to exist, but that's where the faith portion comes in. I believe in the soul, and I believe there is a greater power at work in existence whatever you wish to call it. I've had plenty of time and reasons to abandon my upbringing teachings, but they speak to a part of my mind that I find is helpful in my life and thus far hasn't stopped me from studying and appreciating other avenues of thought. So if it helps, and isn't a hinderance, then I see no reason to change my opinion on the subject.
But why do you think someone else's opinion (which is on as unsure a footing as your own) on the matter is arrogant?

Mostly because it's forcing a human limitation upon an, as of yet, incomprehensible being. I mean, what if God is in fact, not unlike a Seed A.I.? "Blasphemy!" Why? Does that make all of this, all of life, all of you and me, any less His creation? What if the Universe as a whole is like a computer, created for a specific purpose and we are part of realizing that purpose? What if that purpose is Singularity? Anywho, I think we are getting off topic. I proposed this thread as an address of an in-setting issue. Else wise, I'm sure there are threads on the subject of religion in general probably in the "off-topic" portion.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2013-12-11 09:49

#24

Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
And that's where the problem comes in - when you start treating it like an ethical code. If you find inspiration in something Jesus said, fine. But when you start treating EVERYTHING he said like a code that must be followed, we get problems. And we have problems with religion. Even many highly developed western nations have huge problems with religion, where they try to control people's lives and deny them their rights, take for example denying the right to abortion, denying gay equal rights, blocking stem cell research, blocking condom distribution programs in Africa, blocking the teaching of evolution (I noticed even you spoke of intelligent design, shutter). You are very welcome to enter ethical discussions even if you're religious, and you're very welcome to quote Jesus - he did say many good things. But you should be prepared to dismiss the stupid things he said too, dismiss his teachings, dismiss the bible, because there are so many horrible things in there.
I believe you are assuming a great deal about me and what my beliefs are, understandable given how comparatively little information I've given though.

In several of the paragraphs above, "you" referred to the general "you", not "you" personally. I hope it was clear that my problem is with people who take their religious texts too literally - you don't sound to be one of those people.

Quote:
Secondly, yes, I am pro-life, but my faith is just one reason for that. Mostly it actually comes from my father being a doctor and him giving me VERY in depth descriptions on how abortions are done. Forgive me if vivisecting fetuses makes me cringe. (Shutter) Let's not turn this into an abortion thread though. Your pro-choice, I'm pro-life, we both have our reasons, and let's leave it at that. Thirdly, there ARE portions of the Bible that I disagree with. That's not "against the rules" or "FORBIDDEN" (or whatever) in Catholicism. Quite conversely, my priests and parents have often told me to question the Bible and Jesus' words. "Blind faith isn't real faith" they would say.

This is sort of my point, actually. You (you you) have an innate sense of morality and ethics (most likely formed from many different influences, like your genes, upbringing, social circle, rational inquiry, etc.), and from that you decide what parts of the bible you agree with and what parts you disagree with. So you're not turning to your religion for an ethical code.

Wed, 2013-12-11 10:39

#25

Leodiensian Leodiensian's picture

Bringing it back to in

Bringing it back to in-setting discussions, has anything been written around the state of Jerusalem or Mecca on Earth? I'm considering writing up a cadre of Reclaimers based around Abrahamic cultures out to reclaim their Holy Lands - or to at least make a holy pilgrimage, perhaps with the belief that doing so will serve to redeem humanity. A forlorn crusade, of course, what with the issues of getting to Earth in the first place.

Wed, 2013-12-11 11:04

#26

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Steel Accord wrote:Secondly,

Steel Accord wrote:
Secondly, yes, I am pro-life, but my faith is just one reason for that. Mostly it actually comes from my father being a doctor and him giving me VERY in depth descriptions on how abortions are done. Forgive me if vivisecting fetuses makes me cringe. (Shutter) Let's not turn this into an abortion thread though. Your pro-choice, I'm pro-life, we both have our reasons, and let's leave it at that.

interesting, i had a similar discussion with a friend on the actions taken by young women who don't feel they can get a safe medical abortion. i decided i could not in good conchence drive anybody to that. don't get me wrong, i would prefer see the fetus live, my personal spiritual beliefs place a premium on human life, but the suffering and permanent physical damage done in desperation is too great

Wed, 2013-12-11 11:57

#27

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

thezombiekat wrote

thezombiekat wrote:
bibliophile20 wrote:
Latest question from them was, "vat-grown ham. Is it kosher?")
you don't need to go to future tech for that type of question. kangaroo is it kosher? it chews its cud but dose not have cloven hoofs. when i looked up the list of rules the "do eat" and "don't eat" list appear to include all animals present in the middle east/north Africa/ south west Europe inhabited by the Jews at the time. of cause i never studied the religion even though my father was raised Jewish he was not practicing in my lifetime.

Actually, it is an interesting legal question in Jewish law and would depend on a number of factors, all of which have interesting historical and legal precedents and issues: how the meat is grown in the vat, the origin of any stem cells that the meat is grown from, and what the phenotype of the animal thus grown would appear as. Is the genome of the meat neogenetic or spliced together from several sources or essentially pure from the original source animal? If, for example, the meat is being generated by taking a single cell from a living animal and forcing that to grow in a vat as a mass of cultured undifferentiated tissue, then the source animal must have been kosher and must have been slaughtered in the proper manner. Alternatively, if the genome is essentially neogenetic, and is just designed to give a certain set of tastes, textures and densities, but cannot be an ambulatory animal, just a mass of tissue in a vat, then, by Jewish law, it's not actually in the class of "animal". It's actually closer to "vegetable" or "fungus", and would be treated as such by those individuals who agreed with the rabbis' ruling (there would always be those who are extreme biocons in this area and insist on real meat from real animals). The fun thing about singularities is that they put the lie to the old religious saw "There's nothing new under the sun." Jewish law assumes that that statement is true and tries to shoehorn everything into past rulings made over the last few millennia. Sometimes the logical threads get severely twisted and absurd in how to fit in something new and unforeseen into existing rulings. For example, in my discussions regarding this topic with my family and their friends during my Thanksgiving visit, we realized that the best ruling regarding the possibility of any vat grown meat, not just pork, was to bring in the rules regarding the production of cheese, and the source of the rennets. Rennets can be made from animal sources or from vegetable or chemical sources. Even though they're a minute percentage of the total mass of the end product, and would therefore normally be disregarded in the question as a mere contaminant and therefore not relevant to the question of kashrut, rennets are what makes cheese cheese--it is the chemical that makes the dairy product curdle and becomes cheese curds in the first place. So, since it is a key part of the production cycle, rennets from animal sources make cheese not kosher. Therefore, we stretched that logic to fit in the case of vat-grown meat: if the source cell, which would normally be so minute a percentage of the end mass as to be unnoticable, is from an non-kosher source, then the vat grown meat is not kosher. But, on the other hand, if the source cell is not animal at all, but completely neogenetic, just taking details from animal sources, but could never be a viable animal itself, then it is more along the lines of a chemical process or a plant, and can therefore, with some gritting of teeth, be placed in the category of "plant". And answering these sorts of questions would be the sort of thing that occupies the time of a legal group of Rabbis on Extropia. :) (And, btw, regarding kangaroos? They would not be kosher--however, buffalo, giraffe and deer all are kosher, as they fulfill the requirements of cloven hooves and chew the cud, although given the requirements of butchering that fulfills the requirements for kosher--a single smooth cut between two particular neck vertebrae that severs the nerves, arteries, veins and leaves the airway and esophagus intact, it'd be rather tricky to do with wild-caught animals, or knowing where exactly on that long neck to cut on a giraffe).

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Wed, 2013-12-11 12:06

#28

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Dude!

Leodiensian wrote:
Bringing it back to in-setting discussions, has anything been written around the state of Jerusalem or Mecca on Earth? I'm considering writing up a cadre of Reclaimers based around Abrahamic cultures out to reclaim their Holy Lands - or to at least make a holy pilgrimage, perhaps with the belief that doing so will serve to redeem humanity. A forlorn crusade, of course, what with the issues of getting to Earth in the first place.

That sounds badass! Especially if you used TITAN and Exsurgent threats as stand ins for Biblical enemies and obstacles!

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2013-12-11 13:09

#29

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

We may actually be in agreement there.

Smokeskin wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
And that's where the problem comes in - when you start treating it like an ethical code. If you find inspiration in something Jesus said, fine. But when you start treating EVERYTHING he said like a code that must be followed, we get problems. And we have problems with religion. Even many highly developed western nations have huge problems with religion, where they try to control people's lives and deny them their rights, take for example denying the right to abortion, denying gay equal rights, blocking stem cell research, blocking condom distribution programs in Africa, blocking the teaching of evolution (I noticed even you spoke of intelligent design, shutter). You are very welcome to enter ethical discussions even if you're religious, and you're very welcome to quote Jesus - he did say many good things. But you should be prepared to dismiss the stupid things he said too, dismiss his teachings, dismiss the bible, because there are so many horrible things in there.
I believe you are assuming a great deal about me and what my beliefs are, understandable given how comparatively little information I've given though.
In several of the paragraphs above, "you" referred to the general "you", not "you" personally. I hope it was clear that my problem is with people who take their religious texts too literally - you don't sound to be one of those people.
Quote:
Secondly, yes, I am pro-life, but my faith is just one reason for that. Mostly it actually comes from my father being a doctor and him giving me VERY in depth descriptions on how abortions are done. Forgive me if vivisecting fetuses makes me cringe. (Shutter) Let's not turn this into an abortion thread though. Your pro-choice, I'm pro-life, we both have our reasons, and let's leave it at that. Thirdly, there ARE portions of the Bible that I disagree with. That's not "against the rules" or "FORBIDDEN" (or whatever) in Catholicism. Quite conversely, my priests and parents have often told me to question the Bible and Jesus' words. "Blind faith isn't real faith" they would say.
This is sort of my point, actually. You (you you) have an innate sense of morality and ethics (most likely formed from many different influences, like your genes, upbringing, social circle, rational inquiry, etc.), and from that you decide what parts of the bible you agree with and what parts you disagree with. So you're not turning to your religion for an ethical code.

People who take any religious text as literal descriptions of reality are getting a very narrow view of not only the world, but their own faith. "And if you swallow it all . . . it can get you killed." ~Hammer, Hero of Strength (Fable 2)

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2013-12-11 20:32

#30

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

the biggest issue with taking

the biggest issue with taking a holy text as literal description are the internal contradictions. genesis is the most obvious, 2 creation stories. the garden of Eden, and the 7 days. the scope is quite different but the creation of several things is detailed in both with specific orders, these orders do not match.

Thu, 2013-12-12 04:13

#31

Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote

Steel Accord wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
Bringing it back to in-setting discussions, has anything been written around the state of Jerusalem or Mecca on Earth? I'm considering writing up a cadre of Reclaimers based around Abrahamic cultures out to reclaim their Holy Lands - or to at least make a holy pilgrimage, perhaps with the belief that doing so will serve to redeem humanity. A forlorn crusade, of course, what with the issues of getting to Earth in the first place.
That sounds badass! Especially if you used TITAN and Exsurgent threats as stand ins for Biblical enemies and obstacles!

And once the Exsurgents learn that the crusaders hold deep religious beliefs, they begin with psychological warfare tricks, attacking as demons and tricking with false angels.

Thu, 2013-12-12 04:23

#32

Smokeskin

thezombiekat wrote:the

thezombiekat wrote:
the biggest issue with taking a holy text as literal description are the internal contradictions. genesis is the most obvious, 2 creation stories. the garden of Eden, and the 7 days.

No, the biggest issue with taking holy texts as a literal description is the direct and indirect killing, suffering and oppression of people that it leads to.

Thu, 2013-12-12 09:23

#33

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Smokeskin wrote:thezombiekat

Smokeskin wrote:
thezombiekat wrote:
the biggest issue with taking a holy text as literal description are the internal contradictions. genesis is the most obvious, 2 creation stories. the garden of Eden, and the 7 days.
No, the biggest issue with taking holy texts as a literal description is the direct and indirect killing, suffering and oppression of people that it leads to.

perhaps i should have said the most verifiable issue.

Mon, 2013-12-30 16:41

#34

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Ignoring author bias, I'd

Ignoring author bias, I'd argue there are a few major factors at play here: 1) Basically everyone has just undergone a massive, traumatic event. While I expect this to make some people more faithful, for very many, it's absolutely shaken that faith. This is further complicated as the technology that saved most people is the same one that is expressly forbidden by most big religions (I'm speaking here of resleeving). So many people face a choice between "accept my religion is real, but that I perhaps don't have a soul", and "accept my religion is wrong and look for truth elsewhere". 2) Hierarchies are destroyed. Just like there's no more United States or Argentina hanging around, there's also no Southern Baptist Council. The leaders are dead, their files are lost, the organization is wiped off the map. They need to rebuild from the ground up, and that's tough, especially given the more immediate concerns at play. Now that it's rebuilding, we should expect them to be very different animals from what believers left behind. 3) Religion has to address a totally new set of concerns. Christianity is focused on how to protect your soul in the afterlife. But most people expect that they won't die for hundreds of years, while their immediate concerns are things like resleeving, surveillance, and so on. Unfortunately, Jesus did not really talk about the ethics of sousveillance. If religion doesn't address your concerns, you're less likely to continue to be a believer. 4) Despite freedom of speech, there are two areas which are always hot button; religion and politics. If your politics don't match the autonomist habitat you live in, you're probably going to have to find a new place to live. Religion is likely to also be a divisive issue. Unlike politics though, no one goes to war over religion any more. People just drop their religion, shut up about it, or they move somewhere where it's not an interesting subject of discussion.

Wed, 2014-01-01 08:15

#35

otohime1978 otohime1978's picture

nezumi.hebereke wrote

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Ignoring author bias, I'd argue there are a few major factors at play here: 1) Basically everyone has just undergone a massive, traumatic event. While I expect this to make some people more faithful, for very many, it's absolutely shaken that faith. This is further complicated as the technology that saved most people is the same one that is expressly forbidden by most big religions (I'm speaking here of resleeving). So many people face a choice between "accept my religion is real, but that I perhaps don't have a soul", and "accept my religion is wrong and look for truth elsewhere".

You'd be surprised at the mental leaps one can take to ensure that what they do is not in conflict with their faith. Why would someone have to accept that they don't have a soul anymore [b][i]or[/i][/b] accept their religion is wrong? Wouldn't they reason away such inconsistencies? I'd see a Catholic reasoning, "well, I am still here, maybe the soul can return to the body after death? People seem to have souls after being dead in hospitals for extremely long periods of time." Or, "maybe 'I' died, and I am a new soul who has inherited the life of another?" The former is a more likely thought. I just can't see a Catholic remaining on," oh god, I don’t have a soul!" for more than a few days, if not minutes. And even then, the idea of not having a soul is not a major concern to most practitioners in western religion. I mean, there are women who practice Islam. Women don't have souls in that. And, in the book of Timothy, and older Jewish mythology, women do not have souls, but they can become as men and gain them through piety... aside for that, women are soulless, and those who are born with souls are often considered demons and monsters; and are subsequently stoned. Being soulless never stopped anyone from being a Christian. Whoo, piety! You make a good point with your others, though; and we are likely to see a rapid conversion to Buddhism. ...ten dollars says I get angry responses to the whole, "women don't have souls," thing.

—

[size=6][i]...your vision / a homunculus on borrowed time Katya Bio: http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46253#comment-46253

Sat, 2014-01-04 04:02

#36

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Catholic temperment

You actually make a pretty good point. Just speaking as a practicing Catholic, I have given the nature of souls in relation to destructive uploading and resleeving no small amount of contemplation. If I were to have my brain uploaded, would I die and my personal continuity be carried on by an exact copy? Would "I" end up going to heaven (*knock on wood* XD) every time I died? I can't actually name many transhumanists that are also Catholics specifically, but I'd like to think most of us would be willing to at least discuss and entertain these notions as we aren't strictly fundamentalist on a grand scale. Your proposed scenarios of "a returned soul" or "even a new soul" actually intrigue me as a Catholic rather than horrify me, so there is an interesting snapshot of a random practitioner's knee jerk.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-01-04 04:27

#37

Leodiensian Leodiensian's picture

Well, have you read Rimward?

Well, have you read Rimward? There's quite a bit there about how Catholicism influences the Jovian Republic in terms of their public opinions and stance on transhumanity and the nature of the soul. Or at least one interpretation of Catholicism, quite a hardline one at that.

Sat, 2014-01-04 04:36

#38

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Jesus

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Ignoring author bias, I'd argue there are a few major factors at play here:] 3) Religion has to address a totally new set of concerns. Christianity is focused on how to protect your soul in the afterlife. But most people expect that they won't die for hundreds of years, while their immediate concerns are things like resleeving, surveillance, and so on. Unfortunately, Jesus did not really talk about the ethics of sousveillance. If religion doesn't address your concerns, you're less likely to continue to be a believer.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree on that assertion. The famous "Render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar" of Matthew's book could be an example of just that. Jesus asks "Who is inscribed on this coin?" To which they reply, "Ceasar." You know the rest from there. It is important to understand the context here though. Forgive me if I repeat that which you are already acquainted with, but the local Rabbi were sort of putting Jesus on the spot here. There was a rebellion against the Roman occupation of Jerusalem as they didn't think they should pay taxes to a man who claimed divine descendance from a pantheon of "false" gods. If Jesus had said to pay Ceasar's taxes, it would have meant acknowledging the divine right of the Roman Emperor, if He said don't pay the taxes, He was essentially sponsoring the rebellion. Jesus cleverly diffuses the issue by telling them to "render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's; and unto God, that which is God's." Now we can apply "coin" or "tax" to any form of coerced support by which sousveillance would allow some to identify and resist. Jesus' message remains the same. "The material world has it's tyrants and bullies. They will always take what they claim is their's. God's kingdom is the realm of the immaterial. Your prayers, aspirations, and passion. No power could take those from you." Now, you COULD make the argument that Jesus' message, in this case boils down to "haters gonna hate, deal with it!" Of that, I would disagree with Him and say that sousveillance is an empowering tool that could be used to keep policy makers honest. Keep in mind, I'm not a Biblical scholar and their are others that would make a stronger case for the continued relevance of the Gospel, but seeing as their seem to be very few Christians speaking up, I'm the poor man's substitute.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-01-04 04:53

#39

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Yes I have

Leodiensian wrote:
Well, have you read Rimward? There's quite a bit there about how Catholicism influences the Jovian Republic in terms of their public opinions and stance on transhumanity and the nature of the soul. Or at least one interpretation of Catholicism, quite a hardline one at that.

It's just as you say, "quite hardline." Statements and essays I've read from priests and cardinals have been something of a mixed bag when alluding to transhuman technologies such as embryonic genetic modification. They had a (slight) slant against, but nothing quite so draconic as what was depicted. In-character, this would cause me no small amount of duress. Even if I was lucky to have a Mass community within easy ego-casting distance of Extropia, if I ever wanted to visit the Pope, His Holiness would probably excommunicate me.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-01-04 06:26

#40

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Steel Accord wrote:In

Steel Accord wrote:
In-character, this would cause me no small amount of duress. Even if I was lucky to have a Mass community within easy ego-casting distance of Extropia, if I ever wanted to visit the Pope, His Holiness would probably excommunicate me.

Being Excommunicated by His Holiness would put a priest in good company, eh? That's how offshoots get started. The Pope takes enough of a dislike to your tolerating some shit that he will not stand for (or your not tolerating him doing something you think is un-Christian?) Start your own fork religion! :) The trick is figuring out how to nail your manuscript to a door made of metal. AR tagging works, but is easily tampered with. Using a nanohive to inscribe your revisions to canon law into every cubic centimeter of the door is effective, but impossible for folks to notice without drawing attention go it, and paper is, of course, easily taken down and fed into the recycler. I would suggest, then, getting a nanite hive and programming it to inscribe your manifesto in the door and surrounding walls at a font size legible even to an unaugmented flat's naked eye, and to do so in a way that would basically be impossible to repair without literally tearing the walls down and rebuilding them.

—

Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]

Sat, 2014-01-04 06:35

#41

Leodiensian Leodiensian's picture

Why bother with physical

Why bother with physical methods of communication when you can simply become an async and telepathically broadcast your protest into the minds of those around you?

Sat, 2014-01-04 07:33

#42

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Leodiensian wrote:Why bother

Leodiensian wrote:
Why bother with physical methods of communication when you can simply become an async and telepathically broadcast your protest into the minds of those around you?

because i don't want to give my soul to the demon titans. wats Mccloud may be safe, but it wont give you psi-gama, and if you want to broadcast your religion to more people than you are touching right now that's what you will need.

Sat, 2014-01-04 07:47

#43

Smokeskin

Steel Accord wrote:You

Steel Accord wrote:
You actually make a pretty good point. Just speaking as a practicing Catholic, I have given the nature of souls in relation to destructive uploading and resleeving no small amount of contemplation. If I were to have my brain uploaded, would I die and my personal continuity be carried on by an exact copy? Would "I" end up going to heaven (*knock on wood* XD) every time I died?

Uploading is voluntary and that makes it suicide, doesn't it? That's a oneway trip to hell iirc.

Sat, 2014-01-04 09:32

#44

Leodiensian Leodiensian's picture

thezombiekat wrote

thezombiekat wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
Why bother with physical methods of communication when you can simply become an async and telepathically broadcast your protest into the minds of those around you?
because i don't want to give my soul to the demon titans. wats Mccloud may be safe, but it wont give you psi-gama, and if you want to broadcast your religion to more people than you are touching right now that's what you will need.

Wrong, actually - Watts McLeod infection can give you Psi 1 (chi) or Psi 2 (gamma). It can't give you Psi 3 though - that's psi-epsilon, the stuff that involves bending reality over a barrel and giving it a jolly good rogering. And that can't be taken by playable characters.

Sat, 2014-01-04 10:45

#45

otohime1978 otohime1978's picture

One should take note, however

One should take note, however, that the Space Pope and those in the Jovian Junta are also hypocritical. They condemn those who use resleeving, while using such things themselves to remain in power. Not only that, but I was talking about the reasoning of those Catholics and Christians who do end up resleeving. Not an official stance of the church, nor how most think about such things. Really, destructive uploading and resleeving is a form of suicide. You, or at least your soul, are going to hell. Most are going to see you as a soulless demon. Only the most liberal Christians will see you having *any* soul. However, it will be a new one, you will have just inherited the memories of another in their eyes. Realistically, at best, you will be seen as soulless. They may make an exception through piety. But you will need to be baptized again (because you're not saving your birth soul, it is merely the death of your pagan one and gaining a new, Christian one). Don't ever expect to truly fit in ever, however. You will never truly be human in the church.

—

[size=6][i]...your vision / a homunculus on borrowed time Katya Bio: http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46253#comment-46253

Sat, 2014-01-04 10:51

#46

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Maybe

Smokeskin wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
You actually make a pretty good point. Just speaking as a practicing Catholic, I have given the nature of souls in relation to destructive uploading and resleeving no small amount of contemplation. If I were to have my brain uploaded, would I die and my personal continuity be carried on by an exact copy? Would "I" end up going to heaven (*knock on wood* XD) every time I died?
Uploading is voluntary and that makes it suicide, doesn't it? That's a oneway trip to hell iirc.

Maybe . . . but maybe not. I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility. What makes suicide a mortal sin is that you are throwing away the most precious gift of all, your own life. If you're body dies so you could visit a relative in the Inner System, you're not truly giving up on life at all. You've not made a decision to cease existence at all, because "death" doesn't carry the penalties it once did. Now I could just be rationalizing and making excuses, but that's just how I would explain it.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-01-04 10:53

#47

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Question!?

Leodiensian wrote:
thezombiekat wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
Why bother with physical methods of communication when you can simply become an async and telepathically broadcast your protest into the minds of those around you?
because i don't want to give my soul to the demon titans. wats Mccloud may be safe, but it wont give you psi-gama, and if you want to broadcast your religion to more people than you are touching right now that's what you will need.
Wrong, actually - Watts McLeod infection can give you Psi 1 (chi) or Psi 2 (gamma). It can't give you Psi 3 though - that's psi-epsilon, the stuff that involves bending reality over a barrel and giving it a jolly good rogering. And that can't be taken by playable characters.

Just on a side note, how the Hell does that work? Reading minds, eeeeeeeeeeeeh I can let it slide, but reality manipulation? It just seems so out of place in a setting that otherwise uses actual projected technology and science.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-01-04 10:59

#48

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

But I LIKE being Catholic

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
In-character, this would cause me no small amount of duress. Even if I was lucky to have a Mass community within easy ego-casting distance of Extropia, if I ever wanted to visit the Pope, His Holiness would probably excommunicate me.
Being Excommunicated by His Holiness would put a priest in good company, eh? That's how offshoots get started. The Pope takes enough of a dislike to your tolerating some shit that he will not stand for (or your not tolerating him doing something you think is un-Christian?) Start your own fork religion! :) The trick is figuring out how to nail your manuscript to a door made of metal. AR tagging works, but is easily tampered with. Using a nanohive to inscribe your revisions to canon law into every cubic centimeter of the door is effective, but impossible for folks to notice without drawing attention go it, and paper is, of course, easily taken down and fed into the recycler. I would suggest, then, getting a nanite hive and programming it to inscribe your manifesto in the door and surrounding walls at a font size legible even to an unaugmented flat's naked eye, and to do so in a way that would basically be impossible to repair without literally tearing the walls down and rebuilding them.

Chalk it up to Post Fall nostalgia if nothing else, but I was raised Catholic, still believe in it's tenants, and find a sense of home and comfort amongst it's atmosphere and history; warts and all. I'm no Martin Luther, I'm not even a priest. (I'm a hopeless romantic and unwilling to sacrifice the love of a woman for the love of God.) In the event of excommunication, I'm just hoping I would be able to find some isolationist Franciscans or some such that may elect to ignore the Pope's decree and allow me to sit in on their mass. Orrrrrr maybe I'm giving this way too much thought.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-01-04 11:11

#49

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

"New Soul"

otohime1978 wrote:
One should take note, however, that the Space Pope and those in the Jovian Junta are also hypocritical. They condemn those who use resleeving, while using such things themselves to remain in power. Not only that, but I was talking about the reasoning of those Catholics and Christians who do end up resleeving. Not an official stance of the church, nor how most think about such things. Really, destructive uploading and resleeving is a form of suicide. You, or at least your soul, are going to hell. Most are going to see you as a soulless demon. Only the most liberal Christians will see you having *any* soul. However, it will be a new one, you will have just inherited the memories of another in their eyes. Realistically, at best, you will be seen as soulless. They may make an exception through piety. But you will need to be baptized again (because you're not saving your birth soul, it is merely the death of your pagan one and gaining a new, Christian one). Don't ever expect to truly fit in ever, however. You will never truly be human in the church.

That . . . actually raises a pretty novel thought. Rather than dismiss a resleeved person as "souless" why not study and question the mystery of the soul in ways we couldn't before? If you ARE a new soul upon resleeving, doesn't it reflect God's infinite power and compassion that He would give you a new soul? ~~~~~~~~ There's that word again, "human." In this setting, you could probably count the number of egos who are in the body they were originally born in on one hand. What about AGIs or Uplifits that might want to convert? Are they not part of God's creation? Could the TITANS be the AGI Adam and Eve with us as the proverbial devil? And the loss of Earth reflecting banishment from the Garden of Eden? Just tossing out ideas at this point, but I thank you for your patience and attention. This is why I started this thread! For both atheists and the more hardline Judeo-Christians, It just seems like both sides are missing out on so many possibilities for thought exploration! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lastly yeah, they are a bunch of hypocrites. ("I know you've read Dante. Eight Circle for the lot of you!) That's part of the trouble of being Catholic in this setting. The Vatican is probably a smoking crater and no doubt the Church structure was shaken by the Fall. Is the Church as it exists in the Junta the "true" Catholic Church or do we need a St. Peter reboot? If we do, the Jovian church is still widely recognized as the legitimate Christian authority and splitting off or opposing it's credibility would only lead to another great schism. Once again seeprating the reformed Church from the Orthodox one. . . . . Actually . . . . that would make a pretty sweet campaign idea!

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Sat, 2014-01-04 11:12

#50

Leodiensian Leodiensian's picture

Steel Accord wrote

Steel Accord wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
Wrong, actually - Watts McLeod infection can give you Psi 1 (chi) or Psi 2 (gamma). It can't give you Psi 3 though - that's psi-epsilon, the stuff that involves bending reality over a barrel and giving it a jolly good rogering. And that can't be taken by playable characters.
Just on a side note, how the Hell does that work? Reading minds, eeeeeeeeeeeeh I can let it slide, but reality manipulation? It just seems so out of place in a setting that otherwise uses actual projected technology and science.

Sufficiently Advanced Tech, basically. Psi comes from the exsurgent virus, which comes from the ETI, which is billions of years ahead of us scientifically. If you think Eclipse Phase is pure sci fi, you're missing out on a major part of the game, which is the horror aspect. A huge part of horror is the FAILURE of a lot of things associated with science, such as certainty and predictability so when the horror elements come in, things start getting handwavy scientifically. That's why the horror elements of the setting (exsurgency, Pandora gates, the TITANs etc) are so wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey in their scientific approaches. The sample psi-epsilon powers given in the book ARE related to science quite strongly though; the Casimir effect, thermodynamics, electromagnetism etc. The Sufficiently Advanced element of it is essentially the idea that the virus is programmed by a species capable of consciously manipulating those elements, and can give you those effects.

Sat, 2014-01-04 11:29

#51

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Ah, I see

Leodiensian wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Leodiensian wrote:
Wrong, actually - Watts McLeod infection can give you Psi 1 (chi) or Psi 2 (gamma). It can't give you Psi 3 though - that's psi-epsilon, the stuff that involves bending reality over a barrel and giving it a jolly good rogering. And that can't be taken by playable characters.
Just on a side note, how the Hell does that work? Reading minds, eeeeeeeeeeeeh I can let it slide, but reality manipulation? It just seems so out of place in a setting that otherwise uses actual projected technology and science.
Sufficiently Advanced Tech, basically. Psi comes from the exsurgent virus, which comes from the ETI, which is billions of years ahead of us scientifically. If you think Eclipse Phase is pure sci fi, you're missing out on a major part of the game, which is the horror aspect. A huge part of horror is the FAILURE of a lot of things associated with science, such as certainty and predictability so when the horror elements come in, things start getting handwavy scientifically. That's why the horror elements of the setting (exsurgency, Pandora gates, the TITANs etc) are so wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey in their scientific approaches. The sample psi-epsilon powers given in the book ARE related to science quite strongly though; the Casimir effect, thermodynamics, electromagnetism etc. The Sufficiently Advanced element of it is essentially the idea that the virus is programmed by a species capable of consciously manipulating those elements, and can give you those effects.

Sounds like those powers COULD be understood after awhile. I'm not a huge horror fan, which is why I purposefully ignore or tweak some of the background material to something a little less Lovecraftian in it's implication that with all our new power, transhummanity is still nothing when compared to the Powers that Be. Me, I'm more of a Mass Effect guy. Defying seeming inevitability may appear impossible and will be dearly costly, but not only can it be done, we will emerge stronger for it! Just as the gods of Olympus overthrew the Titans, we will not neuter these Yog-Shathoth ripoffs . . . WE WILL END THEM! *Braces against super-structure sized railgun* "Cthulu f'tangh . . . bitch!" BZ-RIIIOOOOOOOOOOM

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Religious freedom, what's that?

Pages