If you think it leads to maleficent actions in the majority of cases then I would say it is you that is naive and/or ideologically driven in your thinking. — Janus

I think you constantly attempt to fog and obfuscate the main point I am making regarding your comment about not caring about what others think of your viewpoints.
You have tried a few varieties of poor responses instead of accepting the criticism constructively.
I have wasted enough time on what has now become a pantomime exchange.

Where did the concept of the divine right of Kings to rule over masses of people come from?
Where does the idea that theistic believers are moral are non-theists are immoral come from?
Where does an action such as 'a teacher who is not a catholic, cannot teach in a catholic school,' come from? (only changed relatively recently.)
What was the actions of the crusades based on?
What is the action of a holy jihad based on?
I find your suggestion that theistic beliefs only ever result is such benign actions, as attending a church, almost comedic, in it's naivete.
My main point was that I do really care about what other people think, as it influences the actions they take, very strongly, and that has a direct affect on the type of society humans currently have to live under.
You have stated that you are a lot less concerned about what others think about the viewpoints you hold.
I think that such attitudes, are part of the problems we have and not part of the solutions we need.

Really? All theism is based on metaphysical beliefs, imo. Do theists not act based on such beliefs?

:up:

You're right your answer doesn't surprise me, and it probably won't surprise you to learn that what you are convinced of means little to me — Janus

Perhaps that is the most significant difference between us. What people are convinced of and what level of evidence is sufficient to convince individuals to support or hold a particular viewpoint, means a great deal to me, as it is the source of the actions they take.

Law is one method to help control human behaviour.
Reasoned argument about the common good is another. There are many more methods available.
The struggle between those who are part of the solutions and those who are part of the problem, will continue.
The warnings regarding this gollum class of AI being clarion called by the video in the OP, CAN BE contained. Perhaps in a similar way, to how the human race has been able to prevent it's own extinction via nuclear weapons....at least so far.
AI offers great benefits but as has always been the case with new tech, there are many dangers involved as well. The human race is NOT utterly incapable of containing the threats presented by this gollum class of AI's. I think that's the most important conviction to have at this point.

Since this is a money maker, laws will aim at maximising profit first at the detriment of protection for people. — Benkei

So do you agree that this is an outcome that we must all refuse to accept?

It's with topics like this that the EU is actually one of the best political actors globally. Almost all societal problems that arise out of new technology have been quickly monitored and legislated by the EU to prevent harm. Even so, you are correct that it's still too slow in regards to AI. — Christoffer

How do you know this? Are you familiar with the details involved via your career, past or current?

Nice to speak with someone who's teaching on this topic. — Christoffer

Well, I took early retirement from teaching Computing Science 4 years ago.

The positive traits of new technology are easily drawn out on a whiteboard, but figuring out the potential risks and dangers can be abstract, biased, and utterly wrong if not done with careful consideration of a wide range of scientific and political areas. There has to be a cocktail effect incorporating, psychology, sociology, political philosophy, moral philosophy, economy, military technology, and technological evaluation of a system's possible functions. — Christoffer

I agree that is broadly, what is required but Tristan and Asa seem to be suggesting, that such precaution, is just not happening and with all due respect to @Benkei, et al, some folks have already given up the fight!

These things are hard to extrapolate. It almost requires a fictional writer to make up potential scenarios, but more based on the actual facts within the areas listed. — Christoffer

I don't think that's true. I agree that fully exhaustive testing is not possible or practical but human experts are very good at testing systems rigorously, when time, money and profiteering are not the main drivers.

This is what I meant by the debate often polarizing the different sides into stereotypical extremes of either super-positive or super-negative, for and against AI, but never accepting AI as a reality and still working on mitigating the negatives. — Christoffer

I agree, such concern is probably why Mr Harris and Mr Raskin made the vid they made. They did highlight in the video, the example of how humans, eventually gained some control over the development of nuclear weapons. M.A.D was the main motivator in that example, imo, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese interest in Taiwan, the mad leadership of North Korea, etc, shows we are still not 'beyond' the threat of a global nuclear war. It remains one of my hopes that a future AGI might even save us from such threats.

That's the place where society needs to be right now, publicly, academically, politically, and morally. The public needs to understand AI much faster than they are right now, for their own sake in terms of work and safety, as well as to protect their own nation against a breakdown of democracy and societal functions. — Christoffer

I agree, especially if most of our politicians are not fully aware of the clear and present dangers described in the video. Perhaps it's time for us all to write to/email, the national politician that represents the region we each live in, and ask them to watch the video! We all have to try to be part of the solutions.

The UN would probably ban such tech and these nations will be pariah states, but I don't think we could change the fact that it could happen and probably will happen somewhere. — Christoffer

Yeah, 'sods law,' has always proved repeatably demonstrable, historically speaking!

That's something that might improve. Like, just put the scan on Trump and you have years of material to charge him for. — Christoffer

An AI scan of Trump's thoughts may become a moment of important scientific discovery, as I think the result would be the first AI, that digitally throws up!
I am imagining the user interface animation involved, right now, that I think the AI would automatically produce.

What god is there other than the universe? — Janus

I find that question more of a special plead, than a serious question. You will not be surprised that my answer as an atheist, is obviously going to be that I am convinced 99.999% that there are no, nor has there ever been, an entity/existent, that qualifies for the god label, due to it's irrefutable DEMONSTRATION, that it possesses all of the required omni qualifications. Perhaps you have some other notion that you would personally label god. The universe demonstrates none of the omni qualifications required, that I have saw evidence of. The only activity I am aware of that is, and forever will be, an asymptotic effort to reach the omni qualifications, is human intent and purpose. This emergent property of the intent and purpose of any lifeform that exists within the universe and is of the universe will forever fall short of the god label, in the same way that the numerical value, referred to as a googolplex, falls short of the infinity label.

It presents us with the face of the knowable and the face of the unknowable. We cannot but be its followers, but the stories it tells us are endlessly interpretable. It just depends on what our basic presuppositions or interests are. I am not responsible for what you can or cannot be bothered with. — Janus

Most of this quote seems to agree with my position, except for the slightly anthropomorphic references to the universe as if it had intent. I was not assigning YOU responsibility, for what I cannot be bothered with, I was merely explaining to you, why I think a non-believer, (such as you have presented yourself,) choosing a handle like Janus is rather bizarre, but I accept that is only my opinion.

The universe is a two faced god and we are its two faced acolytes.. — Janus

The above quote also has a theistic flavour. My point is not a strong criticism of you, its more just a 'heads up' that some of what you type, along with your chosen handle could be misinterpreted, as you holding or being sympathetic to, 'magical' views. I just could not be bothered dealing with having to counter the misinterpretations and either explain the apparent imbalance or insist that I don't care what impressions others have.

Yes! You chose to represent yourself using a non-existent two faced god!

We always have more room for another sharp pitchfork wielder, in times of unacceptably high beer prices but @Vera Mont might stop us with shouts of Salam. I understand her preference for peace.

The trouble is that that might mean as workers, we can but help make the beer, but under the tough, conservative, tory, unfair, money trick games, we cant afford to pay for any to drink!
But hey, that's the conservative way! :rage:

The universe is a two faced god and we are its two faced acolytes.. — Janus

The most recent data shows that the universe contains 8 billion human faces, all on different heads!
For a non-theist, you do seem to like and find employment for a lot of their woo woo.

So, I would say it's safer to be in the EU when AI systems hit since the EU more often than not is early in installing safety laws compared to the rest of the world. But since all of this is different around the globe, some nations will have AI systems that just have no restrictions, and that can spread if not watched carefully, much easier than human-controlled algorithms right now. — Christoffer

It seemed to me that what Tristan and Asa were warning about has little or no current legislation that would protect us from it's deployment by nefarious characters, only interested in profiteering.
They seemed to also suggest that any subsequent legislation, would be too little too late.
I do think we are potentially handing a whole new set of powerful weaponry to those nefarious humans amongst us without first establishing strong defences.

Surely they should be running well considered simulations of the consequences of this or that AI ability being released into the public sphere. In my own teaching of Computing Science, we even taught secondary school pupils the importance of initial test methodologies, such as the DMZ (De-Militarised Zone) method of testing software to see what affects it would have before it was even involved in any kind of live trial.

Imagine an actual lie detector that is accurate. It would change the entire practice of law. If you could basically just tap into the memory of a suspect and crosscheck that with witnesses, then you could, in theory, skip an entire trial and just check if the suspect actually did it or not. — Christoffer

But surely if AI becomes capable of such ability, then such would not be introduced before protection against such possible results as the 'thought police' (Orwell's 1984) or the pre-crime dystopian idea dramatised in the film 'Minority report,' etc, is established.

In one sense, it's great if AI can help catch criminals, and Tristan and Asa did talk about some of the advantages that this Gollum class of current AI will bring, BUT if it also brings the kind of potential for very powerful new ways to scam people etc then the one's who release it will have hell to pay,
If the people who suffer, track the cause back to them.

Well, if they don't work very hard to 'conserve' affordable prices on beer, then I will sharpen my pitchfork even more, and persuade the rich people, that we are all coming to drink free beer at their houses, if they don't stop ripping us all off! To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry and control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That’s actually a rich one — invicta

Yeah, rich, evil, vile ....... some folks love their abusers.

It is a poor author that makes a living bashing faith be it of any denomination. — invicta

On the contrary, all hail to those who will speak truth to all manifestations of power, especially religious faith based power, regardless of their toothless threat of eternal damnations. If those who peddle religious lies can make a living from doing so, then why would you insult those who make a living combatting such? I made my living from the field of Computer Science (now retired).

The concept of god creating and abandoning creation is not new. — invicta

I know, but the fact that deism is an ancient proposal adds 0 to it's credibility.

The thought I had the other day was what if he created the universe and then went on to do bigger better things but then one of his attributes is LOVE. — invicta

Yeah, 'what if's,' can be entertaining and entertainment is very subjective and preferential, yes?

You do not abandon things you love…or do you? — invicta

So if you love drugs, alcohol, violence, a person who does not love you back, an organisation that totally abuses you and takes all your worldly goods, a lie, etc You would not abandon such love that is proving to be very destructive to you? What aesthetic meaning does a song like this have for you?

well most faiths promise to make this earthly drudgery easier. — invicta

Well, that would only be of any value, at all, to those who choose to label their life on Earth as a drudge.
Divine hiddenness demonstrates that god(s) do 0 to alleviate any suffering of anything on Earth.
Most faiths offer relief from the drudgery YOU have decided to highlight, as a glass half empty style preference, only after you are DEAD and only if you agree to their terms, despite the truth of:
However, let no one say there's no cure: salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties. - Christopher Hitchens ( and he even had Christ in his first name!!) :scream:

Of course, do you? — Janus

Looks like we are equally biased. You seem to admire/see value in, a two faced god, whereas I prefer the 'ness' part I have (and you have,) of the universe.

I understand the preferences you identify.

And the way you see it is completely free from bias, right? — Janus

Quite a biased observation/question.
Do you have a bias towards what you consider good/true/positive/correct/beneficial?

But an optimist considers that things will keep getting better, that it's good overall to keep making babies. That some are born to endless night is considered a price worth paying, a reasonable sacrifice for the general weal. — plaque flag

Tracing that path back, I would say that the fact that abiogenesis happened, was not an act of optimism.
All species that reproduce don't exclusively do so due to optimism. Some species reproduce asexually.
Reproduction is fundamentally a natural survival instinct for a species survival.
The fact that some newborns (in many species it's actually most) don't make it to adulthood.
I just don't think a term like sacrificial, fits the 'natural selection,' imperative very well as natural selection has no intent. Humans are able to reduce human suffering, so the antinatalist remains a boring defeatist imo.

Humanism itself has a lion on its shield. — plaque flag

No, you have simply chosen to place such an image on such a defensive implement and imagineer humanist's brandishing such. I can just as easily suggest that humanism itself is a small innocent child, tying to think it's way into a more enlightened state. Which aesthetic attracts more people is a matter of preference, yes?

Christ the lion is the light bringer, Lucifer, child of thunder, the morning star. I speak metaphorically to dig out the emotional charge of Enlightenment's Oedipal autonomy project. 'I will not serve. I will not have been thrown. Nothing is sacred but my own freedom to question.' [Our God is a devouring fire.] Satan laughing spreads his wings. Our metaphysics is a gloriously anemic mythology. — plaque flag

I always appreciate pretty prose but your imagery to me, seems very old. I don't know if your last sentence in the above quote means that you in fact reject the misleading imagery that traditional human mythologies/religions have tried to peddle to us, so that the nefarious few can opiate the masses.
Perhaps you should take more note of the scientific KISS advice. Keep It Simple Stupid!

Have courage to make use of your own understanding [= reason]! is thus the motto of enlightenment. — plaque flag

Sounds good to me!

On this freedom rests the very existence of reason, which has no dictatorial authority, but whose claim is never anything more than the agreement of free citizens, each of whom must be able to express his reservations, indeed even his veto, without holding back — plaque flag

I agree, with the exception's that people must 'hold back,' from inciting or performing violence unless they are under actual or immanent attack.

I belong to the tribe of philosophers. I'm a piece of the self-articulating Hegel bot. — plaque flag

I continue to learn more about that rather 'quirky' tribe. It has an academic/expert section, which I think DO assist and compliment my preferred tribe of scientists.
I continue to be convinced that the final arbiter of any philosophical posit IS scientific scrutiny.
But, I freely admit that my scientific musings have become deeper, wider and more personally meaningful, since I joined TPF and read what your philosophy tribe types.

My lack of academic prowess on the details of who, what, when and why of past and present philosophers, does mean that I often misunderstand what a particular knowledgeable philosopher is typing. I appreciate it when such folks attempt to correct any misinterpretations they think I am displaying. I also appreciate that doing so might be frustrating for them at times, but I feel the same way, when I think they misunderstand scientific/political/social or sometimes even humanist concepts.

.....on that happy note.... — Vera Mont

:lol: Pessimism is akin to misery imo Vera, It loves company.
I always liked the words of this song, in some strange way, it always seemed to make my more pessimistic friends smile and 'sit down' for another beer of cheer!

Consider the sigil of a lion on a shield on the morning of a battle. The glory and immortality of its god is the glory and immortality of the tribe. — plaque flag

Are we still fighting for the same tribe today and for the same reasons, in your opinion?
If you think we are, then is that wise? Is it not time to reinterpret your lion shield aesthetic?
What tribe do you belong to?

The project known as humanism is that of us becoming gods. Antinatalism resents us not being there yet, us still being embarrassingly vulnerable. Humanism is willing to put in the work, put bodies on the altar, in the hope of a relative utopia to come ,though I will include ironism as a last late rancid version of humanism. — plaque flag

I agree with your description of humanism's ultimate goal, but I think the goal will forever be an asymptotic approach, which I am very happy about, as to reach the omni qualifications required for the god standard, would mean there are no more questions, which is a return to a state of a mindless singularity, with no intent or purpose. Perhaps Roger Penrose's CCC theory best mirrors my thinking here. I also agree with your projection of impatience onto antinatalism, although I think it's a more pointless position than that label suggests. Yes, humans will continue to do the work, but your attached 'sacrificial' imagery, adds nothing of value that I can find commonality with.

I watched about 20 min of the video. So I cannot speak for the whole of it. But until that point I could not see anything that refers to an inherent danger of AI itself. — Alkis Piskas

Oh you so need to watch the rest Alkis!

Tell me what you thought of the example of AI learning the language produced via FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) scans. The two examples produced by the AI from ONLY analysing what it has learned from the data available from all FRMI scans performed on humans so far and developing that into a language!
If AI can learn to understand what our brain is 'thinking' then wow.......... wtf?
AI can't currently scan our brain from a distance, but future AI may be able to create such a tech quite easily based on current FRMI machines.
Maybe in the future we will all need to wrap our heads in tin foil!!!! :lol:

But I just see AI produce more extreme versions of the problems we already have. The major one being distrust of truths, facts, and experts. — Christoffer

Yep, I share that 'immediate' concern.

Facial recognition requires a 3D depth scan and other factors in order to work so I'm not sure it would change that fact — Christoffer

So how about an AI attached to a 3D printer, producing a 3D mask, the perp could paint and wear? :scream:

And today we don't really have any laws for AI in similar situations. Imagine getting bots to play "friends" with people on Twitter and in Facebook groups. An AI analyzes a debate and automatically creates arguments to sway the consensus. Or to be nice to people, and slowly turn their opinions towards a certain candidate. — Christoffer

Yep, another concern I agree with.

What good is democracy if you can just reprogram people toward what you want them to vote? It's essentially the death of democracy as we see it today if this happens. — Christoffer

Would people be so easily fooled however, if they know this is happening. Surely we would come up with a counter measure, once we know it's happening. Could a 'counter' AI intervene and point out to the viewer that they are being duped. But then how do we know which AI is the 'good guy?'
Surely those 'good guy's' in power must see the dangers Tristan and Asa are pointing to!

I would have helped Tony kick Rico's arse and gave his diamond to the poor!
Dance Lola dance! I wonder if she was the same Lola that the kinks met? :chin:

I have started singing the 'Internationale,' in my head. I wanted to post a youtube rendition of it below but I don't want some conservative to post 'Jerusalem,' in response. So I thought you might also sing along with me, in your head, will you?

A fair question. My answer is YOU, I am typing to you, and anyone else who will listen/read, in the true 'soap box'/pamphlet tradition.

Do you not think that's it's important for those whose intent IS to do good, to be as 'messianic' as those who have nefarious intent? I am talking to anyone who will listen but I have no power to force anyone to listen or agree or join with me and others in common cause. A part of me is boosted by the imagery you incite with 'unhinged rhetoric.' Perhaps that is what is needed to get people to consider what you are pointing at. Making loud noises, is good for getting attention, children use it all the time.
I agree with you that after doing so, you have to convince others of the details involved.

It seems to me that even 'nice' conservatives, don't like to have their world reformatted, so that it becomes more inclusive of those they all often call 'them.'
I don't want to sweep any viewpoint aside, so I understand the last paragraph I quoted from you, but I do want to challenge 'conservative ideology' 'vigorously,' and defeat it 'totally,' in the minds of as many of our species as possible, so that our species can finally understand that 'gated, secured, ideology driven, privileged, conserved, small communities, is not the way for our species to progress in a VAST universe.
The way forward is as one united planet/species.

I think I would make it a law that each of us MUST spend a day a week, following around a white/black/brown/yellow/red/transexual/transgender/disabled/underprivileged/....../..../.... person for a ...... YEAR or something like it, before we are allowed to get married/have children/vote/join .... ANYTHING!.... including TPF.
Perhaps we would then each learn to be open to more change and become less 'conservative.' :halo:

But in the crass populist form, it protects a power that doesn't give a flying fig about the underling's virtues, feelings and needs, but feeds him empty slogans instead of recognition. Make 'em mad; make 'em fight for you; discard 'em. — Vera Mont

It also promotes the unacceptable imagery (aesthetic) of the 'white knight' coming to help the poor underprivileged, unfortunate black people in Africa or brown people in India or red coloured indigenous people in America etc, etc. I despise the 'missionary' label as an utter insult to the people they claim to care about! Look at the damage the evanhellicals are doing in the poorer places of the world.
The poorer places that our Western ancestors, are mainly responsible for creating.

Whether this is a bad thing or not is the key ideological difference: conservatives do not believe it is possible, advisable, or ethical to attempt to wipe out hierarchy on the basis of principles of egalitarianism. Others, like me, do. — Jamal

Absafragginlootly. Jordan Peterson is almost ad nauseam about the 'natural order' of hierarchy.
Why does a behaviour learned under 'jungle rules,' and 'jungle pressures,' mean it can never be changed, even though we left the freaking jungle thousands of years ago? I accept that the jungle has not yet left some of us but that's no excuse!
I prefer the non-hierarchical system that can be envisaged based on the French goal (not yet realised), of liberté, égalité, fraternité, as long as YOUR personal notion of liberté, does not mean less liberté and égalité for others.

However, I still think we have a lot to learn from intelligent, “nice” conservatism, and its arguments might be seen to have gained a lot of power since the disastrous and violent attempts at radical change in the twentieth century. So I do think the concerns of traditional conservatism have to be faced up to rather than swept aside. — Jamal

Meh!

What did people think of the prediction of 2024, as the last election?

Thanks for the responses so far guys and for taking the time to watch the vid.

What did you think about the opening point of 50% of all current AI experts think there is currently a 10% chance of AI making humans extinct?
My initial reaction was hey, that means 90% chance that it won't. That is quite good odds on our favour.
Later on when they spoke about past prediction regarding how long it would take for AI to achieve this or that ability, and that AI was actually achieving such ability, much faster than predicted, then I became a bit uncomfortable again.

What happens when the majority of photos being taken use AI to manipulate people's faces? — Christoffer

How would this affect facial recognition as a means of security? If someone steals your mobile phone, could they then use AI to access it, by fooling the facial recognition security software?
The potential for 'increased scamming' via voice simulation or impersonating another's physical characteristics, seemed very concerning indeed, considering the current security methods we all depend on?
Are there any counter-measures, currently being developed, as this AI Gollum class, gets released all over the world?

Another way of looking at this is that language (or the core pattern creation and manipulation power therein) has "escaped" into technology which offers it more avenues for expression and proliferation. — Baden

I was quite amazed at the example of the mobile phone radio signals, being used to identify people and their posture, in a room and the projection that such 'language development and interpretation,' could mean that we could all soon, be easily 'monitored.' At the lower levels, stalkers would love that! But even more concerning is that, so would nefarious authority.
Again the practical question becomes, what counter-measures are available? Will we have to employ features of AI systems, to counter other features of AI systems? Is there an AI security war coming to us all soon? Has it, in fact, already began?

Everyone should watch that video. — Baden

Insightful and important video, I think a must watch. — Wayfarer

I agree, YOU really really should watch it, @180 Proof, @Athena, @Vera Mont, @T Clark, @Jamal, @Alkis Piskas, @..... @...... @..... everyone on TPF!!

:up: Thanks for the clarifications.

There are more grounds than just "aesthetic reasoning" to favor e.g. string theory. — 180 Proof

I agree.

I don't equate "inspires" with reasoning in any sense. For instance, motives themselves are not beliefs or judgments. — 180 Proof

I don't get that. What motivates you to 'reason' something, surely you must have been 'inspired' to?

I prefer terms like sublime or, even better, ecstatic to more woo-like words "numinous" & "transcendent". — 180 Proof

Yeah, as replacement terms, those would also work for me but I wonder if we are missing an important point here. Is it not important for science to claim as much right to 'positively' employ words such as numinous, transcendent, faith, belief, etc, in contextually accurate (but still positive) ways?
Would this be similar to the need for black people to claim the 'n' word insult and render it relatively benign within their own cultural discourse.
Perhaps Scots, should do the same with the less offensive but still quite insulting term 'Jock.'
There are many other more powerful and less powerful examples but do you think that such struggles for 'ownership' of words are important? There is a aesthetic issue here, due to the presumptions such words incite when applied in context.

The only claim about theism I think is worthy of sustained, principled challenge is to the demonstrably untrue claim that 'theism is true'. — 180 Proof

I agree but I think you underestimate the power of a claim of 'follow me, as I absolutely speak for the highest power in the universe.' This is what the biblical Jesus combinatorial character is depicted as claiming. Many people WILL follow that pied piper clarion call, blindly. Should we just accept that, or is it vital to challenge the claim that theism occupies the highest ground and highest aesthetic, that it is possible to imagineer?

I'm partial to the Good Samaritan story. It opened up a broader notion of morality to me when I was a kid. — Tom Storm

This is a crucial landing zone/launch pad imo. Who are the true owners/inheritors of such stories? All humans? No particular human?
This is the concept of YOU helping, when every other potential helper chose to refuse the risk!
The aesthetic of that is very powerful indeed, in MOST human beings. BUT, most of us don't choose to OWN such, either as individuals or as a collective. We ascribe it's source to be 'beyond US.'

How different might the human race be now, IF, when still in the wilds, and we first looked up at the sky at night, we considered what we saw, as what WE are and where WE CAME FROM.
Not something separate from us and better/superior to us, but completely manifest WITHIN US.
The good Samaritan story (so good that you 'automatically' capitalised the word Good Tom) is a product of the deep human psyche. It is such a powerful aesthetic to us, because WE KNOW it is one of the moral standards AT OUR CORE. That's why the theists gained so much ground initially, because the vast majority of our species, recognised the moral standard behind that story, as the manifestation of the core of OUR OWN HUMANISM. Unfortunately too many of us got sidetracked, and assigned our core humanism to BS godism! and we have suffered from that delusion to devastating historical affect, including our initial acceptance of slavery (in the same way as it is biblically accepted,) and the divine rights of kings (in the same way Jesus insists we render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.)

We created the incarnation myth because we feel like gods trapped in crucified dogs. — plaque flag

Think of the aesthetic ugliness of the imagery here. Trapped, horrible death via crucifixion, resident inside low creatures such as dogs (a creature that most of us actually love dearly and many consider a family member). We created gods, yes, but only because we have yet to consider ourselves as worthy of our own existence. That's also why such ridiculous idea's as antinatalism and nihilism get any oxygen at all, imo. Why do some feel like 'gods trapped in crucified dogs?' I think it's because such people are not in communication with their own core HUMANISM (or Samaritan, to project Tom as a kid!).

My world is solipsistic. It is mine alone. It is the world as I see it. As I experience it. — Fooloso4

I fully endorse and 'live within,' the 'my world that IS mine alone,' as you depict it in the above quote BUT it is not solipsistic! There are other worlds/universe's, currently, over 8 billion of them and I can join in common cause with as many of them as possible.

Conversely atheists may claim that a calling to science is higher than a calling to religion, which would be an equally arrogant claim. — Janus

But I witness very important differences in the behaviour and claims of both camps. Scientific endeavour is much more humble and rational than religious endeavour. I have never witnessed a scientist 'preach' a theory or writhe on the floor of a lecture hall in physical rapture about E=MCsquared whilst intermittently speaking in tongues. I have witness such from religion. Scientists accept that science can be wrong. Theists do not accept god can be flawed.
I do accept however that many scientists and many people (me included,) would claim that a call to science may help @Tom Storm's sister in law more than a call to religion.

I am not that surprised by your response, as I am unsure whether the point I am trying to make is of significant importance. I will try again.

Fideism, described as:
Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.

I think "aesthetic reasoning" can be used, at best, to rationalize "morality and meaning". It's actually akin to fideism, no? — 180 Proof

So, if I make a statement like 'I give a high credence level to the basic premise of string theory,' PARTLY because I am attracted to it's aesthetic (or it's beauty). Would I, in your opinion, be as guilty of being 'romantic' about science, in the exact same way that I might accuse a theist of being irrational/romantic/unreasonable, about the credence level they assign to the existence of their god?

I would accept that both positions are currently faith based and both have aesthetic aspects to them.
I use the concept of me having a faith in string theory, to deliberately walk the line, between those theists who try to claim science is a religion and a non-theistic use of words like 'believe' and 'faith' within science. That's what I meant by

Do you think reason and faith have nothing between them other than hostility? — universeness

Do you agree that some equations are more aesthetically pleasing than others?
If an aesthetic, inspires a person to learn more about a topic, is that an 'aesthetic reasoning,' that we should always guard against?

I don't care if someone states something like 'I chose to study astrophysics because I loved Carl Sagan's voice, and that's why I ended up discovering .........' or I BELIEVE science has more value that any religion etc.

Is Tom correct when he types:

You're a guy who .......... and has a sense of the numinous — Tom Storm

Hitchens saw value in the word numinous as well, whereas I have always associated that word with other rather woo woo words like transcendent.

So, I will always combat any claim that science is in anyway, a religion, but I think Tom's 'aesthetic reasoning,' concept you repeated in:

I think "aesthetic reasoning" can be used, at best, to rationalize "morality and meaning". It's actually akin to fideism, no? — 180 Proof

is not as problematic to me as fideism, and such aesthetic reasoning can go farther than rationalise morality and meaning.
Such can give an individual very significant new intent and purpose, to learn science, with a dedication level, which is at the least, the equal of any 'spiritual epiphany,' or 'born again' experience, based on some authentic calling a theist experiences, via the aesthetic (beauty) of the concept of a god.
Am I making any more sense in what I am trying to point towards?

Theists often claim a calling which is 'higher than any other calling,' including any call to human science, and I think we should NEVER forget to totally challenge that arrogant, unjustified claim.

It's actually akin to fideism, no? — 180 Proof

Do you think reason and faith have nothing between them other than hostility?
Is there any value in faith being the equivalent of a measured credence level, you assign to a particular proposal? Fideism seems a bit unnecessarily inflexible to me, in as far as it can be called an epistemology.

I don't like the 'ownership' theism claims over words like 'believe' and 'faith.'

My apologies your Kingship!