The “what might have been” question prompted me to say, “well that’s what science fiction does; start with a counterfactual and see where it goes.” And then (still talking out loud to my inner self) and so fantasy is starting with different premises but coming to the same old conclusion. And then I said, well, it can’t be that cut and dried. Especially now — since nearly all new science fiction is about oppression and identity politics: same old, same old. Anyway, nice find on a “counterfactual” that actually happened. You could use it as the basis for a SF novel.
Interesting, could definitely make for a good SF novel. The larger project I'm working on now isn't a novel but the basic idea is similar (imagining a world based on ancient philosophical/spiritual ideas) - stay tuned...
I’m particularly interested in the question posed in #3–my opinion however is that it has less to do with what makes a successful society and more to do with what sorts of ideas people want to buy in to. People simply don’t want to believe they don’t have free will. If a missionary from this religion came to your home, whatever the prominent beliefs of your home happened to be, you aren’t going to be too stoked to convert. But when a Christian missionary comes to your home—well hey, this stuff sounds pretty good. This is why I think Christianity took over—not because of societal natural selection but because of ideological desirability. Everlasting in life in heaven, and all you have to do is accept Jesus as your savior (Pascal’s wager may not function well as an argument for the existence of god but I’m sure it did loads of work for missionaries). Ostensibly unambiguous moral code and guide for living, etc etc.
I might push back on the people don't want to believe they don't have free will. I mean lots of people today believe they don't have free will and there is a certain freedom in the belief, especially if you come from a more oppressively rigid society where it seems like every action is judged/condemned as sinful or bad karma.
Obviously I agree that everlasting life and bliss is an easy selling point but I'm not sure it gets you all the way there. I think to some degree we can lay the success of christianity at the fact that it's just a good story and people want believe in and participate in good stories (dramatic, inspiring, exciting, etc.). We don't know the full extent of Ajivikism's "story" but it seems like it's much more like - there was this sage and he lived and came up with all of these ideas which can be explained with certain observations and reasoning. Doesn't seem as sexy as Jesus' story, which was rooted in the larger judeo-christian mythos which also contains a bunch of cool stories.
I still put a good amount of credence on the "societal organization hypothesis" or whatever you want to call it but it's definitely an open question. One way of looking at it is how much religious spread is due preaching/non-coercive adoption vs. coercive adoption (though coercive adoption isn't evidence on its own necessarily but its at least consistent with the idea that some religions allow for greater social organization/material success).
Sure there are lots of people who don't believe in free will, but I think it's safe to say they're the minority. I've encountered many more people, online and in real life, who maintain belief in free will (even acknowledging that it doesn't really make any sense) than I have people who bite the rational bullet.
definitely fair; I would probably agree that it will never become super popular but its still a relatively new position and its not inconceivable that it could stake out a larger position in the culture in coming centuries.
The “what might have been” question prompted me to say, “well that’s what science fiction does; start with a counterfactual and see where it goes.” And then (still talking out loud to my inner self) and so fantasy is starting with different premises but coming to the same old conclusion. And then I said, well, it can’t be that cut and dried. Especially now — since nearly all new science fiction is about oppression and identity politics: same old, same old. Anyway, nice find on a “counterfactual” that actually happened. You could use it as the basis for a SF novel.
Interesting, could definitely make for a good SF novel. The larger project I'm working on now isn't a novel but the basic idea is similar (imagining a world based on ancient philosophical/spiritual ideas) - stay tuned...
that’s good to hear! I’m sure you have plenty of inspiration. Still, you might check out Zelazny’s Lord of Light, a masterfull work in that vein.
ohhhh looks cool, thanks for the rec
Does that mean that spiritual leaders have to be taken with a load of shit?
I’m particularly interested in the question posed in #3–my opinion however is that it has less to do with what makes a successful society and more to do with what sorts of ideas people want to buy in to. People simply don’t want to believe they don’t have free will. If a missionary from this religion came to your home, whatever the prominent beliefs of your home happened to be, you aren’t going to be too stoked to convert. But when a Christian missionary comes to your home—well hey, this stuff sounds pretty good. This is why I think Christianity took over—not because of societal natural selection but because of ideological desirability. Everlasting in life in heaven, and all you have to do is accept Jesus as your savior (Pascal’s wager may not function well as an argument for the existence of god but I’m sure it did loads of work for missionaries). Ostensibly unambiguous moral code and guide for living, etc etc.
I might push back on the people don't want to believe they don't have free will. I mean lots of people today believe they don't have free will and there is a certain freedom in the belief, especially if you come from a more oppressively rigid society where it seems like every action is judged/condemned as sinful or bad karma.
Obviously I agree that everlasting life and bliss is an easy selling point but I'm not sure it gets you all the way there. I think to some degree we can lay the success of christianity at the fact that it's just a good story and people want believe in and participate in good stories (dramatic, inspiring, exciting, etc.). We don't know the full extent of Ajivikism's "story" but it seems like it's much more like - there was this sage and he lived and came up with all of these ideas which can be explained with certain observations and reasoning. Doesn't seem as sexy as Jesus' story, which was rooted in the larger judeo-christian mythos which also contains a bunch of cool stories.
I still put a good amount of credence on the "societal organization hypothesis" or whatever you want to call it but it's definitely an open question. One way of looking at it is how much religious spread is due preaching/non-coercive adoption vs. coercive adoption (though coercive adoption isn't evidence on its own necessarily but its at least consistent with the idea that some religions allow for greater social organization/material success).
Sure there are lots of people who don't believe in free will, but I think it's safe to say they're the minority. I've encountered many more people, online and in real life, who maintain belief in free will (even acknowledging that it doesn't really make any sense) than I have people who bite the rational bullet.
definitely fair; I would probably agree that it will never become super popular but its still a relatively new position and its not inconceivable that it could stake out a larger position in the culture in coming centuries.