The Grundist Manifesto

As much as I’d rather we live in a world where claims are based on observable reality and people feel fulfilled without the need for a higher power, humanity just isn’t there yet. In the midterm, I propose a stopgap religion that isn’t entrenched in an out-dated culture and is far more likely to be true than any of the crap we have now. I call it “Grundism.”

Before I get into my narcissistically named faith, first let me expand on why it is better than any of our Abrahamic options. Judisim, Islam and Christianity are all based on the Torah and assorted sequels written when slavery, racism  and sexism were the order of the day. We’ve had civil rights and enlightenments since then, so the bigotry of yesteryear need no longer apply. It was also a time of mysticism and superstition where stories were used to fill in the considerable gaps of human knowledge. Starting fresh, Grundism isn’t forced to either deny reality or convert failed “truths” from holy books into allegories. In short, my religion can take into account current science and make new speculations. While these speculations may be debunked in the future, I hope that by then religion will be universally denied and we can proceed to mankind’s destiny among the stars.

Okay, so what is Grundism?

Grundism is based on the simulation hypothesis. According to the S.H., we are artificial intelligence living out our “lives” within a Matrix-like program--however, the A.I. bit is an important distinction from the movie. We are not humans in pods feeding power to the machines, we are the machines. More specifically, we are computer programs. This seems like a crazy idea, but I submit that it is far less nuts than the ideas sold in church and I’ll tell you why. We can and do already simulate a bunch of stuff in order to learn, teach and play. If you don’t think World of Warcraft is an achievement, then consider that we can model the physical laws as accurately as human senses can perceive--albeit on very small scales. With Moores Law still in affect and quantum computing on the horizon, it’s conceivable that we will be able to simulate four dimensional space over long distances in the relatively near future. If a simulation indistinguishable from reality is possible, then A.I. as a function of a simulated human brain should also be possible. And if it is possible, then it will happen--our ability to find innovative uses for new technology has been true since the discovery of fire. In fact, as tech progresses and these simulations become easier to run, it will happen exponentially often. The point is, if this is possible, we have to assume that we are currently in a simulation. For every one physical universe, there could be trillions of digital universes. Odds are, we aren’t in the real one.

In Grundism, the Simulator (capital “S”) of our universe is, for all intents and purposes, God. He is the entity running the computer that runs us. Other sects of Grundism may break off defining the Simulator as the company that originally wrote the software, the hardware on which the software runs or the computer that simulates the universe in which our personal Simulator lives. Hopefully, Grundism doesn’t splinter too thinly, because I’m counting on church donations to put my kids through college.

The Simulator is the creator of our universe whether or not He or She first developed the software. He or She initialized the relevant program and that’s all that matters to me. And yes, the Simulator can be man or woman or transsexual or asexual or alien or whatever. There is no way for us to supersede what the software allows us to perceive. This is a philosophical quandary similar to the “brain in a vat” problem and something we all have to deal with whether you subscribe to Grundism or not.

Many of the hallmarks of religion apply to Grundism. One could pray to the Simulator and He or She may “hear” the prayer by means of a Google-like alert that monitors more than the Internet, but also every living thing’s words and thoughts. This would be far too much data for the Simulator to parse in real-time, but He or She is likely only looking for searchable keywords. Once heard, any prayer could be answered if it pleases the Simulator or serves the simulation. A “miracle” from our perspective could easily be accomplished with a new line of code.

Already believe in Noah’s flood, Moses’ sea parting and Jesus’ rise from the dead? That’s fine. These “miracles” could also be accounted for by one-time code executions. Hell, you could even say Jesus was the simulator entering His simulation to experience it first hand via a virtual reality interface. Grundism makes what was supernatural, natural--just digital. Belief in the Bible isn’t warranted, simulation or not, but I’m assuming the only people who have a need to adopt a new faith are those who already have one, so I welcome, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Scientologists, Wiccans, whatevers--Grundism is for you!

Grundism Features

• Grundism solves evil! There is no “problem of evil” in Grundism. No one is saying the Simulator is benevolent. He is probably a scientist learning from the introduction of variables that, in His or Her mind, are neither good nor evil. Or he could be a bastard, there’s no telling.
• Grundism is compatible with any moral code! There is no baggage in Grundism. There is no guilt or shame associated with original sin. You can act however you like without regret. However, your actions have consequences within our world that may affect the continuned execution of your program and/or that of others. If you must believe morality is God-given, you can keep on believing this as a moral if/then statement...but I don’t feel like I have parameters on my life.
• Grundism's gods have gods! Grundism is not, strictly speaking, monotheistic. Our universe may be created and/or guided by one Simulator or many, but either way there are other Simulators running other universes.
• Grundism says you may not cease to be! Grundism allows for an afterlife, but doesn’t guarentee it. Unlike in Christian Apologetics, Grundists don’t presume to know anything about God's (the Simulator’s) motives. After we stop perceiving our time of earth, we may start perceiving another realm...or our program may no longer serve a purpose.

Grundism Bugs

• Grundism doesn’t account for the ultimate origin of the Simulator. We can’t assume He is eternal like most monotheistic traditions. The best we can do say what science shows us about the origin of this universe is true for the universe of the Simulator. We can only guess as to the ultimate origin, much like an eternal deity is a guess.
• There is probably an upper limit to processing power where either Moore’s Law breaks down or technology stops progressing due to heat death (or some other end) of the physical universe. This means that there isn’t an infinite number of simulated universes, just an awful lot. For this reason I don’t consider infinite regress as a possible “origin” of the Simulator. It also means that simulations within simulations may eventually crash the system.

That’s Grundism as I know it. It will take a while for this post to earn holy book status, but I can wait. If you can think of any reasons why Grundism is not superior to all other religions, please let me know in the comments. If you can’t, it’s only rational to convert or, better still, give atheism a shot.

Going Down the Foxhole

There are about a dozen words and phrases that can weaponize the more “militant” atheist. Using the descriptor “militant” is one of them, another is the similarly war-themed phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Many a blogger has pointed out that this is historically inaccurate. It may even be currently inaccurate, but if there are no atheists in foxholes at the time you are reading this, it probably has more to do with less of an application for foxholes then their tendency to convert the godless.

The people who say “there are no atheists in foxholes” are assuming that religious thought in the face of death is inevitable. I don’t need to cite foxhole atheists to disprove that. If you want to know about atheists who stayed atheists to the grave, just Google them. They are many. Think Christopher Hitchens’ new book, Mortality, is about taking up Catholicism? Not so much.

There is always a problem with using words like “all” and “none” when referring to a group of people as numerous as atheists, which is what this sentence essentially does. (Ironically, there is also a problem using words like “always.”) Humans are a diverse bunch and very little applies to the entirety of any sect. It would be more accurate to say that “there are fewer atheists in foxholes.” This may be an accurate statement, I don’t know. I’d point out that if it is accurate, there could be other reasons than religious conversion as to why there are fewer atheists in foxholes. The godless might just trend pacifist or not like guns. After all, it’s the God-fearing Republicans who are typically for capital punishment, the NRA, and military spending. I just don’t know. I’d have to see some stats. Do they do surveys in foxholes? Didn’t think so.

If I were to tweak the statement even more, could there be any truth to it? Are there are fewer atheists facing eminent demise? It depends. It’s my experience that adults who embrace a label as politically loaded as “atheist” have thought about the decision for a long time. They have thought about death and have come to the conclusion that nothing awaits us once the body and brain are kaput. Ruling out hell is actually quite comforting and makes death nothing to fear. If by atheist the question refers to more than those who self-identify and includes the nonbeliever-by-default, then, yes, those people may make a last minute appeal to their vague idea of a deity. I imagine that happens on deathbeds and foxholes around the world, but, again, I don't know.

Okay, let’s recap. People who use the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” are either stupid or lying. They are stupid for accepting and perpetrating a wild exaggeration that is based on someone’s anecdotal evidence that may or may not hold a kernel of truth; or they are lying to brand atheism as a cheap convenience to stifle the truth that atheism as a worldview is more valid then one based on mythology. I could just as easily say that "there are no theists outside of foxholes"--which holds as much metaphorical truth as the reverse and paints believers in a far worse hypocritical light. However, I won't say that, because I'm not stupid or a liar.

Grundy Disagrees! #1

I think of Deity Shmeity as the home of Grundy, me, but what kind of internet citizen would I be if I never left the house? Taking my opinions on the road sometimes clash with fellow bloggers...and by sometimes I mean often. So, as an argumentative travel log, I introduce Grundy Disagrees! If you, kind readers, find value in my comments outside to DS proper, let me know. Grundy Disagrees! may become a regular thing.

Over at A-Unicornist, Mike D wrote a post pimping a comment about the Fine-Tuning Argument for God. I felt that the comment, which said that the unlikelihood of our universe being life-friendly is more meaningful without a deity than with, totally missed the point of the argument. Fine-tuning isn't about meaning, it's about probability. I'm on record as saying it is one of the very few, if not only, arguments for God that at least has the potential to be compelling. As usual, any comment not toeing the extreme atheist line drew comments painting me as an apologist. This urks me, but the other comments from Mike and Tony where mostly correct, yet still missed what I was initially trying to say.

Speaking of apologists, I found a duzy in Luke Nix. To his credit, he was perfectly nice throughout to exchange. If he believes I'm destined for hell, he didn't rub my face in it. However, I found his reasoning somewhat circular and very confusing. While the initial post was about the atheist question of "who created God," the comments went somewhere else entirely. He talked of logic like many theists talk of morality and claimed that the law of non-contradiction proves existence outside of our universe among other things.

If you have a chance, please check out the comments of these posts and let me know either here or there if I made good points or where I went wrong. If I'm missing something, I really want to know.

BTW, I recommend A-Unicornist and hope to have Mike D as an interview sometime soon.

Extraordinary Evidence

Recently, I've seem some atheists post this flowchart as an indictment on theists' ability to discuss religion. You need not look far to see where most theists fail in this chart. In fact, it needs not "flow" anywhere. The first statement is: Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

Religious faith, by definition, makes the answer to this question no. If you have doubt, then you don't have faith. How different are atheists? We hang our worldview on critical thinking and the lack of compelling evidence and leave faith out in the cold. I am very certain that atheism is currently the wisest position. Still, we should ask ourselves what kind of evidence would be needed to change this.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ~ Marcello Truzzi

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ~ Carl Sagan

The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness. ~ Pierre-Simon Laplace

In my recent interview series, you may have noticed that I'm consistently asking the question "Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god?" The answers can be paraphrased as "barely." A believer might think that Jesus returning would immediately bring all the infidels into the Christian fold. Not so much. The general consensus is that, atheists would remain skeptical. This new Jesus would be subjected to the scientific questions posed to all supposed evidence. Is he authentic? Are his miracles more than tricks and illusions? Does he provide some wisdom that could only come from God? Some of us go so far to posit he could be the product of other worldly technology. 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Nevertheless, I would at least consider a magical Jesus in the real world is authentic, but it wouldn't get me speaking in tongues as fast as some other extremely unlikely scenarios. Below is a chart of events that would make a believer out of me. I used Dawkin's Scale of belief to show what degree of belief I would hold for each event. This is an approximation because each event could be more or less convincing depending on the circumstances. Of course, combining events would also hasten my conversion. For example, a previously dead religious figure performing a large-scale miracle with witnesses might seal the religious deal.

What The Hell Am I?

Do you believe in God? It should be a binary, yes or no answer. It is a very simple, yet very big question and the answer defines you in an important way. How you view the world and live your life is likely contingent on your answer.

But there’s a problem. I don’t know if it’s the shifting political correctness of our culture, or just opposing viewpoints projecting their beliefs onto others, but the question has become muddled. Let me help you answer once and for all, are you an atheist, theist, agnostic...what?

This handy question tree should allow even the most inept call centers to ascertain your position. It’s important to note that “Do you believe in God?” is an opinion question. Whether your answer is yes or no, you need not worry about showing your work. You are essentially guessing. Evidence and arguments built on sound reasoning could provide for an educated guess, but a guess none-the-less. People who have dwelled on the topic of theology all their life and those who have just been introduced to the concept of God have equal rights to their opinion. However, if you have no opinion at all, you are an apatheist. This means you don’t care about one of the biggest questions humanity has ever posed and likely live your life as an atheist by default.

From your yes or no response, we come to a question of knowledge. Are you sure that God does or does not exist? Are you 100% positive? This is a hard position to defend no matter which side of the issue you’re on. Generally, theists claim gnostism because their belief system requires absolute faith for the eventual reward. It is my opinion that if you claim certain knowledge, you are mistaken. We are all agnostic, even if we are right, because the question of God as he is typically defined, is unknowable.

Famous agnostic atheist, Richard Dawkins, has his own scale of belief. 1 is a gnostic theist. 2 and 3 are different levels of agnostic theism. 5 and 6 are both agnostic atheists. 7 is the gnostic atheist. The new bit is number 4, the pure agnostic. This is someone who thinks it is just as likely that a higher power exists as not. I’m not sure how you come to such an exact conclusion, but I accept that some might be able to nail down their own belief better than I.

The final way to look at belief is a sliding scale of probability. There are few black and whites in the universe, so the possibility of a creator should allow for shades of grey as well. If you think that it is more than 50% likely that God is up there, you are a theist. Less? You’re an atheist. Exactly halfsies on the issue? That makes you the elusive pure agnostic. Measuring your belief isn’t an exact science, so we are guesstimating here.

Note: Each of these questions and scales may be applied to a vague concept of god or specific definitions of the deity such as Yahweh, Vishnu, Zeus...whoever. For instance, I’m 85% sure that there is no intelligent creator of the universe, but 99.9% sure that Zeus is imaginary. (I just can’t commit to that last 0.1%) While I don’t think one can be gnostic of the concept of god, you can be gnostic of specific Gods if you can prove or disprove their existence.

Some choose to not answer the question of belief for the vague concept of god. If this choice isn’t made out of apathy, they are likely ignostic--thinking a clearer definition is necessary to confess belief.