Not Great Logic, But Something to Consider

[SGOS]

Much of the series was about ridiculing religion.  They always did it by pointing it out through aliens.  I loved it!

They did ridicule religion, mostly Christianity, but they ridiculed in a way that Christian viewers didn't write in to have the series cancelled.  How did they do that?  I think Christians (the main viewership) simply missed the ridicule (I would prefer to call it the Exposé) because religions are entrenched in seeing all other religions as ridiculous, while they view their own as true.  This is odd since lack of reason (the basis of all religions) is identical.  Only the doctrine changes.  How can one religion view their closest cousins as fools, without being aware of their own foolishness and do it with such convincing sincerity?  The answer must be that they can't identify foolishness.  They can only identify doctrine, which is the least important part of the whole ideology.

Adam took a bite of the apple and saw that he was naked (doctrine).  Allah told Mohammed to rape infidels (doctrine).  Both are logically foolish, but one is viewed as ridiculous, while the other is truth.  So no matter how much of SG1 was a metaphor for Christianity, Christians were unable to see it because it was always presented as "that other religion."

[Baruch]

Perhaps.  The writers may have been closet atheists, rather than explicit anti-polytheists.  Hollyweird is like that.

Most scifi is anti-theist, but in its own way, a materialist version of polytheism (if there is fantasy involved).  Most scifi is science fantasy ... because actual fiction restricted to actual science, would be a documentary.

So how did you like Young Einstein?  Had nothing to do with physics, was entirely creative burlesque.

I took Buckaroo Banzai the same way, only without abusing historical personages.

[Unbeliever]

How can one religion view their closest cousins as fools, without being aware of their own foolishness and do it with such convincing sincerity?

Trying to take the splinter out of their brother's eye while still blinded by the log in their own eye.

[Cavebear]

Trying to take the splinter out of their brothers eye while still blinded by the log in their own eye.

That IS assuming that there is any logic in theistic beliefs.  Nothing angers a theist as much as someone who is ALMOST believing the same thing.  If one doesn't kneel JUST SO, you are more a heretic than another who kneels not at all.

[Unbeliever]

That's kind of like robots who almost look human, but not quite - it's the creep factor.

[Baruch]

That IS assuming that there is any logic in theistic beliefs.  Nothing angers a theist as much as someone who is ALMOST believing the same thing.  If one doesn't kneel JUST SO, you are more a heretic than another who kneels not at all.

All Athenians are polytheists
Socrates is an Athenian
Therefore Socrates is a polytheist

But is that really true?  The first line might be a false axiom.

[Baruch]

That's kind of like robots who almost look human, but not quite - it's the creep factor.

Psychological zombies ... perhaps Chalmers is right?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Most people here agree with Dennett ... because he confirms their conclusions.  Except that is called, rationalization, a fallacy.

[Cavebear]

That's kind of like robots who almost look human, but not quite - it's the creep factor.

I like the idea that you can built a robot as intelligent as you want, so long as it doesn't look human, and the idea that you can build a robot that looks human but it has to be a non-AI.  But then someone will break the rule and then we're all toast.

[Baruch]

I like the idea that you can built a robot as intelligent as you want, so long as it doesn't look human, and the idea that you can build a robot that looks human but it has to be a non-AI.  But then someone will break the rule and then we're all toast.

Then put butter, sugar and cinnamon on your toast (as we did in college).