This is sort of how the argument comes across to me:
There is some most powerful and agentic thing in the universe; let’s call this God.
One way that you could be powerful and agentic is by being a super-cooperator. Being a super-cooperator might also make you very wise (and forgiving, etc).
Therefore, God must be very wise and forgiving.
There’s a bit of a logical problem with this posing of it, which is apparent if we look at the implications being asserted:
When you mix together Is, Ought, Darwinism, and the idea of a Super Cooperation Cluster, this is what comes to mind more me:
It is not at all obvious to me that, at the level of “is”, something like a blissful, godlike, super cooperation cluster must arise. The overarching narrative of collaboration wins over defection seems a bit overly simplistic and fails to take into account all of the local incentives which lead to game-theoretic instability.
Is’s and oughts.
An “is” is relatively easy to understand, even if it can be difficult to sort out whether an is truly is.
“is"s fit within our consciousness.
Tell me that super cooperators shall inherit the earth, I’m with you.
Tell me that a “designer religion” is the way that a super cooperator cluster is most likely to emerge on earth, I can at least understand what you are saying.
The gist:
Slippery slopes are real, since in many cases taking a type of actions makes you more likely to take the same type of action in the future (action becomes normalized, etc.). Implies that Schelling points are natural places to take a stand against a slippery slope, draw a line in the sand. A funny thing is that the first two examples are completely individualistic in nature, so it’s odd to invoke the concept of a Schelling point.