Yes, like the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, espoused by Elon Musk and other respected, ostensibly science-minded people.
It's basically Creationism in modern form.
Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory.
I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.
In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment?
(* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)
The point is "could" because a complete simulation of "the world" would require another world much the same way that complete map of the world would constitute another world if trying to capture a full level of detail.
It's only silly in the sense that such an explanation is just one out of infinite possible, and coherent, propositions about the mechanics of "our world". In hindsight, the timescales of Hindu and Buddhist mythology don't seem absurd.
Now if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N, then I suppose your assertion about creationism would also hold.
Really? Why would you not simply "see" whatever the Creator(s) want you to "see"? After all, it's a simulation.
And it seems to me likely that Creationism originally grew out of a then-unexplained observation: "Hey, we're alive and we exist! How the heck did that happen???"
>Now if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N, then I suppose your assertion about creationism would also hold.
I'm not sure what you mean. My assertion about classic Creationism is that it's disproven bunk.
Are you saying that if "if we were to observe new species being created in N days, for small integer N" then my assertion that simulation-Creationism is also bunk would hold?
Also, creationism isn't limited to only 6 day creation, that's more of a modern thing by people that insist on taking Genesis 1 (which is poetry) literally. Early Christian thinkers postulated that 1 Genesis-day was actually 1000 years. Creationism just says that God created the world; how long it took and how he did it are implementation details.
It's not even modern. It is basically Plato's Cave, which is classic Greek philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
The religious touch of that idea did not become popular until the movie "The Matrix", which originally had allusions to many different religions, but specialized to Christianity / Creationism with the second and especially the third movie "The Matrix Revolutions".
But if you still don't like that example, here's another historic example of a philosopher who published the idea that everything could be a simulation.
The evil daemon by René Descartes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
So my point still stands: The idea that everything might be a simulation is as old as humanity. It is neither modern nor based on creationism.
No multi-layered metaphysical construct in the ancient world discussed simulations. There isn't even a vocabulary that could describe an abstract simulation rather concrete reenactment, like drama or a physical model.
Some ancient religions spoke of the physical world as an illusion, but that too does not mean anything like a simulation.
A simulation is a virtual reality created by a higher intelligence in a real-world environment with great real-world power. Plato's forms weren't discussed as beings who did anything, and in the end were just reifications of predicates.
Descartes' skepticism is the foremost example of a simulation issue, but in addition to the great flaws in his arguments in the Discourses, saying you can't absolutely prove that your senses are not an elaborate deception is no indication that it is.
Profound ignorance and misunderstanding of philosophy is, for me, the most salient feature of the latest discourse on world-as-simulation.
2 weeks of an intro to philosophy college course would correct most peoples' thoughts on the matter, as examining Descartes is the most basic first step in learning philosophy.
So it makes sense for Musk.
If AI flourishes, it'll consider even the smartest human as a hillbilly swamp creature, a mockery of the possibilities of intelligence.
First of all, pstuart nailed it: "I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.". Also, one could argue that not all modes of thinking eventually lead to rationalist mindset, at least not directly - one problem with superstitions is that people don't have or need proofs for them and that they as memes fight the same space truth does.
True concept of, for example, evolution still is fighting with creationism because they solve the same problem, but one of them was made completely made up and people still believe in it because it was here earlier. I think it would be better if we had no answers rather than ones that are utterly wrong. Especially since people who make them up and believe based on "faith" alone are so convinced that their concept is true that they actually harm the actual, proven truth.