[tgma]

Lots of top tier scientists have been religious. Knuth is too, for instance. It strikes me as strange that believing in "simulation theory" has become cool and acceptable in tech circles, but somehow traditional popular religions are frowned upon. Feels dogmatic to believe so strongly that scientists necessarily have to be in direct contrast with religion.

[shiroiushi]

>It strikes me as strange that believing in "simulation theory" has become cool and acceptable in tech circles

It has? I like to bring it up in comments sometimes, and I see other people do too, but this doesn't mean anyone actually "believes in it". Imagining it as a possibility is not at all akin to a religious belief, where you have a strong, dogmatic belief in something despite a total lack of evidence (or even evidence to the contrary).

[lupusreal]

> a religious belief, where you have a strong, dogmatic belief

"Strong" belief is probably overselling the strength of the belief of an average religious adherent. A whole lot of people have doubts, only go to church a few times a year, etc. There are a lot of people for whom Pascal's Wager is persuasive, who stick with a religion despite severe doubts "just in case."

In either the case of traditional religion or simulation theory, you have people with varied levels of conviction believing in something for which there isn't empirical evidence. As an atheist, I consider simulation theory to be one of the many manifestation of the innate religious tendencies in humans. It lacks a supernatural component per se (that's debatable, it depends on what is meant precisely by supernatural), but it's a framework commonly used to construct many of the same spiritual systems traditionally seen in religions (our reality was intentionally created, we have a purpose to the creator, we're being watched, we're being judged, etc)