Embarrassingly, Tiddles completed his D.Phil. at my old
college in Oxford in 2002 and I am sorry to say that for an intellectual his
thinking on religion and transhumanism appears jejune and he does not seem to realise
its implications. On the whole I prefer the anarchic yobs and Welsh drunks of
Jesus in the late Sixties and Seventies, whose Junior Common Room once elected
a goldfish as President on the grounds that like other leaders it went round in
circles opening and closing its mouth (an interpreter was appointed to convey
its rulings.) Bawling fools tend not to do much harm; it is the theoretical systematisers
and world-reformers that led to the killing of countless millions in the last
century.
Consider Tiddles’ facile remarks on religion in his 2017
Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/08/virtual-reality-religion-robots-sapiens-book
‘What is a religion if not a big
virtual reality game played by millions of people together? Religions such as
Islam and Christianity invent imaginary laws, such as “don’t eat pork”, “repeat
the same prayers a set number of times each day”, “don’t have sex with somebody
from your own gender” and so forth. These laws exist only in the human
imagination.’
The Abrahamic religions postulate a God who both made the
world out of nothing and set the rules for our behaviour: the Creator and
Law-Giver; but according to Nick Spencer https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-problem-with-yuval-noah-harari/12451764
, Tiddles’ position is that ‘There are no gods, no money, no human rights, and
no laws beyond the “common imagination of human beings.”’
if we accept that moral laws have no basis, then consider
what this implies for a thoroughly consistent rationalist: a world entirely without
moral laws that are binding independently of our wishes and opinions. David
Hume said in effect that one cannot reason from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’; you can describe
what people think is right and wrong, and even why they may think so, but there
is no reason why you should privately adopt their view. In fact, it is
convenient if you don’t: I should like everyone else to believe in queuing for
the bus, so that I can jump the queue; this helps to explain why psychopaths
are over-represented in positions of power. All that matters (if you have any
care for yourself, and there is of course no reason why you should) is to work
out how to minimise the negative consequences for yourself of society’s
disapprobation of your actions.
This nihilism being so, it is difficult to explain why Tiddles
is in Schwab’s caressing embrace. Schwab may have a grand vision for future
society, but as nothing matters, there is no reason to help him bring it about.
Tiddles has expressed concern https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yuval-harari-sapiens-60-minutes-2021-10-29/
that in an AI data-gathering world humans are ‘hackable’, can be manipulated
more comprehensively than ever before. Is this not the WEF’s plan, to design an
environment full of blandly contented Stepford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives
people? Isn’t this what the Chinese are
up to with their ‘social credit’ system https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4?r=US&IR=T
, intended to nudge their citizens relentlessly towards absolute conformity with
the CCP’s commandments? What is the point of creating a perfect world, but not
for us as we have previously and in differing ways understood ourselves?
The resistance to this nightmare heaven may have to come
from the irrational, the superstitious, the emotional, the capricious, violent,
stupid, human-hearted humans.
Dig your claws in, Tiddles, and leap off Schwab’s lap.