7

The simulation theory has gained track in recent years; even Elon Musk has spoken on it.

As it follows the associated, can belief in the simulation theory be considered a form of religion?

  1. The belief in controlling power; someone or something of higher intelligence is running the simulation

  2. Relates humanity to supernatural; supernatural being something that is not yet scientifically proven, it is not proven we are actually in a simulation

  3. Gives the purpose of explaining the origin of life, the universe, and other things; the simulation theory explains by not having to explain the original of life as things just come to existence in simulations, there doesn't have to be a set beginning or end.

If the simulation theory can be considered a religion, wouldn't it be the only religion as it can help explain and relate other religions and their history? Such as each religion can be categorized as a different version of the simulation?

E...
  • 6,496
  • 4
  • 22
  • 39
Mel
  • 173
  • 4
  • 1
    Ironically, when I was around 6-8 years of age the thought suddenly crossed my mind: "What if none of this is real. My brain may really be in a vat somewhere being controlled by some mad scientist." I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing at the time, too. But I quickly dismissed the idea, and the memory still embarrasses me. I was a very imaginative, creative child, so I guess it is to be expected. Technically any belief system may be called a religion, so I consider it a very bizarre, irrational religion whose adherents are woefully immature. I would even call it a cult. – Bread Feb 13 '19 at 01:41
  • 1
    Not yet, but it is getting there. For now, it is more of a conduit for idle talk. That is because most people who love talking about the simulation theory do not actually believe in the simulation theory. Starting with Bostrom. – Conifold Feb 13 '19 at 01:41
  • @Bread but aren't religion and cult interchangeable depending on the followers.

    could you elaborate on how would simulation theory be categorized as a cult.

    There isn't an excessive obsession with it as far as I am aware. Couldn't even put statistics on the number of believers or partial believers.
    Hasn't gained much traction among conspiracy theorists No one has been killed in the name of simulation theory

     – Mel Feb 13 '19 at 03:01
  • It is entirely possible for one's religion to be uniquely individualistic and essentially private, whereas cults always involve programming and preaching to (or persuading, influencing) groups of people. Cults tend to seek more and more followers, and to organize with some sort of financial structure. So the terms are not interchangeable. – Bread Feb 13 '19 at 03:37
  • Is Atheism a religion? I mean... really? – Richard Feb 13 '19 at 11:10
  • 1
    @Richard - I'd say so, at least in the case of some of its adherents. This view is possible, but it all comes down to definitions. Both simulation theory and atheism are just vague ideas, not theories in any meaningful sense of the word. They explain nothing and solve no problems. They're optional accessories, not rich enough in content to be theories rather than just unecessary articles of faith. But it doesn't seem to matter much what we call them. . . –  Feb 13 '19 at 11:51
  • @PeterJ i know what you mean about 'hard' atheists. Theres an element of prostlytisation about it that i've never understood. But Atheism is an absrnce of religion.. so it's no more a religion than an absence of an orange is an orange. And yes.. simulation theory may be a belief.. but it has no other hallmarks of religion. No teachings or rules etc. – Richard Feb 13 '19 at 12:44
  • 1
    @Richard - Glad we more or less agree. I'd just note that not all religions teach that we have to develop speculative beliefs or even endorse theism. Thus atheism is not a rejection of religion but a rejection of dogmatic monotheism. The eliding of religion and faith-driven Victorian monotheism causes endless problems. The former is a far richer phenomenon that the latter, a point Dawkin's and most atheists very carefully never notice. . –  Feb 13 '19 at 12:52
  • 1
    @PeterJ etymologically.. it is "without theism". I share your definition of theism as being 'organised religion'. I consider myself an Atheist.. but I'm not a-deist. By which i mean.. i reject the idea centeal tenets of most organised religions.. but i'm not averse to the idea of a creator. That having been said.. i think the creator might be an electron. On tbe other point.. there are atheists who throw out the baby with the bathwater. But i find wisedom in a lot of religious texts etc. I'm just not a fan of malevolent beards in the sky. – Richard Feb 13 '19 at 15:22

7 Answers7

11

The simulation theory (or more precisely the simulation hypothesis) falls under the general heading of metaphysics. Most religions also delve into metaphysics by offering explanations of the origins of the universe, the nature of mind and matter, life after death, etc...hence the similarity between the simulation hypothesis and various religious doctrines.

However religions go beyond metaphysics and into ethics, value theory, and axiology, which the simulation hypothesis doesn't do.

So the simulation hypothesis is still far from being a full fledged religion.

If Elon Musk or Nick Bostrom were to start deriving moral codes and injunctions based on the simulation hypothesis like "Thou shalt recycle" or "An AI should be respected as much as a Human", then one could argue that it has achieved the status of religion, but until then it is just metaphysics.

Alexander S King
  • 27,390
  • 5
  • 70
  • 188
  • 3
    I wish you'd ask questions like in the old times, the quality has gone down since then :) – Conifold Feb 13 '19 at 22:03
  • 1
    @Conifold nice to talk to you again. It's been a while. Work has been forcing me to spend most of my time on Cross-Validated and Stack- Overflow...I yearn to come back to the serious questions in life at some point. – Alexander S King Feb 14 '19 at 00:33
9

It depends on a) how you conceptualize the simulation theory and b) how you conceptualize religion. The best-known version of the simulation theory is the one formulated by Professor Nick Bostrom of Oxford. In it, he explicitly states that the simulator in his theory would be analogous to God as viewed in traditional religions.

That may or may not make belief in the simulation theory a religion per se. Religion typically involves worship of a deity, ritual observances, moral codes, and a range of other elements not typically found in the simulator theories.

With that said, you are correct that belief in a simulator is a metaphysical belief, and as such, has much in common with the kinds of belief we associate with religion. It's also true that there are subcultures that have arguably entered pseudo-religious relationships with the hypothetical simulator.

Chris Sunami
  • 29,852
  • 2
  • 49
  • 101
  • My book-length series on this very topic, "Saints and Simulators", is currently featured on the Partially Examined Life blog. Introductory essay is above, most recent essay is here. – Chris Sunami Feb 13 '19 at 17:33
  • on a related note (if taking a somewhat more negative turn than what you wrote) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/god-in-the-machine-my-strange-journey-into-transhumanism – Alexander S King Feb 14 '19 at 01:24
  • 1
    @AlexanderSKing Yes, there's a MUCH stronger case to be made that Transhumanism is in fact a religion. Thanks for the link, I've integrated it into my answer. BTW I'd love to have your comments on the series, if you'd like to respond on the site. – Chris Sunami Feb 14 '19 at 03:48
1

Yes, it can be considered so.

We have all the required elements that define religion:

  • worshiping of something (a God, an Alien, a Simulation's Operator/Designer, etc) - clearly true

  • commitment or devotion to it - clearly that exist

  • a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practice (not practically fully institutionalized yet, but the rest fits)

  • a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - yes

The fact that it can explain the variations present in other religions, just makes it stronger in the above points that actually define a religion.

Overmind
  • 674
  • 3
  • 8
  • 2
    Interesting answer. I would have said no (or not yet), precisely because I see no evidence of worship, What makes you say that the operator/designer is being worshipped as against just postulated? – Alex Feb 13 '19 at 12:17
  • If the theory is assumed true, that designer is practically human's God. And there are groups already worshiping his complex job and his ability to sustain all this without any critical system crash. Now on this aspect, maybe the sudden end of certain civilizations and their sudden disappearance was just that: a big system crash, like a game map error with too many variables to check in which case you keep the layout and textures only and re-do all other objects inside it. – Overmind Feb 13 '19 at 12:33
  • Also, things are a little dependent on the accepted definition of God. God as in the creator of everything (Universally speaking) or as in the creator of man only (the two can differ). – Overmind Feb 13 '19 at 12:36
  • 1
    i completely agree with the idea that it has a lot in common with other theist belief systems. I'm just a little surprised about the worship bit and, as most definitions of religion include worship, I wouldn't categorise it as one. Do you, by any chance, have any links that refer to worshipping a simulator? Would be fascinated to read. – Alex Feb 13 '19 at 13:03
  • I did find some info of such groups at a point about an year ago when I was looking into this a lot (I'll check if I bookmarked some). We should not be surprised. Even Jedi religion is quite large and officially registered at this point and it has plenty of worshiping. Btw, they don't worship the simulator, but the creator of it. – Overmind Feb 13 '19 at 13:07
1

To address your last paragraph, simulationism isn't the only religion (if it even counts as one). I'm free to think that I'm in the real world and have a relationship with a real God. If I believed I was in a simulation, I could believe that the simulator is in the real world with a real God, even if the simulation had a God that differed from the real one.

A simulationist would be free to believe that any deities in the observable Universe were merely simulations, but believing that one's religion is true and others are only true so far as they agree with one is pretty common.

David Thornley
  • 1,134
  • 5
  • 7
1

Simulationists can be considered religious followers. We don't have scientific proof of us living in simulation, but there is a big group of 'believers' (including Elon Musk) who think that it is the case. Once you have a following to some form of beliefs and you don't have scientific proof, then it is a religion. Funny enough i bumped into this simulation religion web site https://www.simulationstar.com .

Yuri Vovchenko
  • 141
  • 2
0

We authors didn't know about this post, truths can be achieved from different paths.

https://medusa8.com/2023/01/26/il-segreto-finale-delluniverso-la-simulazione-come-nuova-religione-the-ultimate-secret-of-the-universe-simulation-as-a-new-religion/

https://medusa8.com/simulation/

:-)

Cristian De Vries
  • 1
  • As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Dec 10 '23 at 09:22
  • While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review – Meanach Dec 10 '23 at 09:23
0

If the simulation theory can be considered a religion ?

First of all it can not be considered a religion. It is more "hypothesis" than a "religion" Because it does not include a socio - cultural system, with no behaviour and practise, morals, beleifs, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, rituals and etc. Also terminologically you have to replace the "God" with AI which is also uncommon with any religion. The hypothesis does not include the "Afterlife" concept and any escathology so that it will be wrong to call it as a religion as well.

*wouldn't it be the only religion as it can help explain?

Lets assume the hypothesis is true. It can only prove that there is an intelligent and or supreme being who created everything and as a deistic perspective which proves that a creator exists.

and relate other religions and their history?

I assume your question is related with Mono-theistic religions.

Some religious scholars are against and some are neutral with this hypothesis. In terms with mainstream Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) you can find many contradictions with their scripture and beleif. But from perspectives of esoteric and mystic branches of religions such as Jewish mysticism, kabalah, gnosticism and sufism in general you may find some supporters.

Note that for Abrahamic religions simulator would be equivalent to the God of the simulation so you have to eliminate the terms such as AI, Alien or hyper-intelligence. Budhism however have elements consistent with the simulation hypothesis. But in general there is no prominent religion that believes the universe is a simulation.

Here are some arguments from Abrahamic Religions:

Christianity:

As it turns out, Scripture indicates that our earthly lives are only part of a larger whole, and there is a “real reality” above and beyond what we experience on a day-to-day basis. The Bible says our “reality” is created and designed. And yet, most who support “simulation theory” reject the idea of God, an afterlife, or other spiritual concepts. This is not dissimilar to how many atheists attempt to use evidence for the Big Bang Theory against biblical views, despite the fact that concepts like a “beginning” were once seen as antithetical to atheism itself.

https://www.gotquestions.org/simulation-theory.html

The simulation hypothesis can’t explain this any better than the atomic theory of matter does. Therefore, the simulation hypothesis changes nothing with respect to the third component of the Christian worldview—the soul.I thus don’t see how the simulation theory changes anything from a faith perspective. We still have the same three elements—God, the spiritual world, and the natural world—and all three interact.

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/would-it-matter-if-we-re-living-in-a-simulation

Did God create a simulated universe for us? The answer is, No!” Are we living in a glorified computer simulation? No! Our Creator made this universe. Someday He will destroy it and make a new one. While the universe, our world, its surroundings, and our bodies are all temporary, in contrast our spirits are eternal. Our bodies will change from this present life into immortal bodies at death and will live forever (Matthew 25:46; Revelation 20:11-15). Now try that with the characters in some electronic game! If you destroy or delete the game will the characters still exist?

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/simulation-theory-did-god-create-a-simulated-universe-for-us/

Islam:

The Simulation Hypothesis is but one small branch of the giant tree of materialism. The roots of this tree lie not in science, but in atheism—an allergy to anything Divine, and by extension, anything non-material or unseen. It is part of a cultural zeitgeist that tells us that we are machines, programmed by our genes, acting out our predetermined roles, functioning by the chance interplay of impersonal laws. Such a worldview has no foundation in the true spirit of science, but rather emerges out of a type of blindness—dazzled by the bright successes of modern physics, we see its afterimage in our vision wherever else we look. But progress in reductive physical science does not mean that its principles apply universally.

https://www.ahmadiyya-islam.org/articles/the-simulation-hypothesis-is-wrong-humans-are-not-machines/

Do you not see that Allah has created the heavens and the earth with truth? If He will, He can remove you and bring (in your place) a new creation! (Surah:Ibrahim Verse No:19) We have not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in play and fun. (44:38)

https://quran.com/

Understanding and interpreting the behaviors prohibited in the Qur'an and hadiths within simulation will ease to understand what is religious and what is simulation formed for religion but incompatible with religious truth. Simulation theory is actually a critique towards the process started with modernization. Trying to understand Islamic concepts within this theory will also show how these concepts were shaped in the process started with modernization. Perceiving behaviors such as hypocrisy, hypocrisy and polytheism, which can be expressed as simulation, within the framework of simulation will contribute to a better understanding of the essence of religion in the modern world

https://theology-ataunipress.org/en/personality-types-critized-in-the-quran-within-the-context-of-baudrillards-simulation-theory-and-seeking-the-reality-in-the-modern-world-161511

Judaism:

But no, we aren’t an imaginary figment—we are a reality. Because that capital R reality is invested within us and within each creation—something no mortal imagination or simulation could achieve.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/615042/jewish/Am-I-just-a-Figment-of-Someones-Imagination.htm

Yes, we are indeed living in a simulation, just not the one that the simulation theorists imagine. A basic tenet of classical monotheism is that in order to provide the correct training ground for ethical development, a dimension had to be created that masked the true and ultimate reality—which is infinite and wholly spiritual. This mechanism allowed for free will to exist and afforded humanity the opportunity to make moral decisionsThese theorists are essentially substituting one massive (alien/programmers) power for another (God). It would seem odd that these programmers are capable of creating a program of seemingly infinite complexity but couldn’t keep the Fruit of the Loom logo straight and therefore had to go back and tinker with it.

https://aish.com/is-elon-musk-right/

Wiseman
  • 123
  • 8