Heyas, didn't mean for this to be sooooo damn long. lol~
sorry!
Lerxst said:
[...] it is perfectly plausible that we are living in a vast computer simulation
But not borne out by any objective evidence, only argument. No?
Lerxst said:
and there is even a sound argument to show that the probability is not simply zero.
Is that really convincing though? I say the same thing about ETI, and though there's nothing
incoherent or supernatural about it, the subject of
probability is met with much undue resistance by "Skeptics" (capital S). Living in a holographic universe takes a leap, afaics, because it implies a holographer... recall the allegory of Plato's cave.
Lerxst said:
It would make no sense to think science could address such an idea, but I don't think that means we should dismiss it.
If all there is a logical proposition and a mathematical probability, science won't work in the first place; in order to apply the Scientific Method there has to be something objective and characterizable.
Lerxst said:
We are dual beings, amalgamations of reason and emotion, and emotion is not rational.
Yes, we are multi-faceted beings who 'exist' materially and 'metaphysically' and otherwise, but consider this-
Emotions and reasoning aren't isometric; they aren't polar opposites in the complementary sense. Reasoning is a real-time cognitive, associative, logical process which constantly occurs within one's mind (indexing and correlating inputs from one's senses, memories, and imaginations
most essentially for survial, but also for esteem or other subjective or social benefits), and Emotions are the
physiological manifestations of one's thoughts or instincts, very often expressed externally over short periods of time.
...
As for Gardener, ask him if monotheism is "atheism minus one."
I'd sure like read more from the Deists and Agnostics.
I'm not trying slur deism here, but I sure don't see how "weak monotheism" as any more coherent or rational than ordinary monotheism or other theisms. Similarly, how if one accepts that one "can't know" about any specific God, how it is any more logical to adopt the 'process of tempering one's knowledge to evidence' dogmatically, since the ultimate logical consequence thereof is that "
the least knowable god is the one most likely to exist."
What if there are two deities? A God and a Goddess? Or two or more gender-neutral or ambiguous Gods, and Polytheism is "the truth" of our universe... holographic or otherwise.
If there's no "evidence" for something, only intangible arguments and mathematical probabilities, one might be wasting their time trying to temper their knowledge to these immaterial and imaginary constructs; even if they are communicable and objective memes (like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny), they aren't actual or "real." Are Agnostics certain that the Easter Bunny can't be known? I'm not trying to be funny or vulgar here, I understand propositions such as Ophiolite described once, that one tempers Agnosticism to the notion of God because of the
imagined risk of being wrong about "God" is imminently greater than lesser propositions, and that you risk nothing by "leaving the door open"... but that is exactly what
they have in common.
There have been so many logical dismissals of similar "Pascal's Wager" type arguments that anyone who "leaves the door open" for any impertinent, intangible, supernatural, "evil" or logically artificial God-- has simply not considered their corollaries or other refutations. If so, however, the more "militant" Atheist (capital A) suggestion that the fallacy of Agnosticism (capital A) is the dogmatic unwillingness to commit to any proposition on God(s) (capital G), no matter what, seems more plausible. My take on it is that such a position is
axiomatic, not dogmatic, but that's a matter of precision (linguistically; thematically and semantically).
To put things in perspective, because it must seem like I'm deriding agnosticism altogether-
I'm agnostic (lower case A) towards the proposition that the legendary Jesus actually existed because it's not *inconceivable* that some compelling, objective, authentic artifact or documentary evidence may yet be discovered 2,000 or more years later to settle the matter, historically. However, I'm
not agnostic on the proposition that "Jesus Christ" existed-
that Jesus is a
myth, because the very idea of a "Supernatural Human" or a "God Man" is simply
incoherent..
You'll no doubt recognize that these views are both perfectly compatible; one can have an ordinary guy named Jesus who
might've lived (we don't know)
without the "Miracle Working, Water Walker, who was born of a virgin and who rose from the dead"
type individual of myth, legend, superstition, faith, or whatever label one affixes to the prophet-martyr figure central to Christianity.
You see, by divorcing any Jesus (real or not) from the "Christ mythos" all we have left is a possibly historical character; whose mere existence is so doubtable at this time (no artifacts worked by him, no period documents authored by him, no eyewitness accounts of him, no records left of him at all outside those of scripture and hearsay) that it doesn't even merit using the descriptive adjective
probable. It'd be genuinely nice to have satisfactory evidence and settle that aspect of history, but the most
honest of Theologians will admit that
rationally one has to be agnostic regarding an historical Jesus, and take the legendary, scriptural "Jesus Christ" on
faith alone. No wonder, there.
So, agnosticism isn't useless, no. I've said before that "in many regards I am one," but if I had to clarify that any better for the sake of precision, rather than convention, I'd say "I use agnosticism" (towards specific subjects) rather than "I am agnostic" (more generally).
And regarding Agnosticism (again, big A)-
Again, I put it to You (big Y, *grin*) that the only coherent definition of Any, Every, and All Gods is that they are "imaginary, mythological beings."
Why believe that any of them could be actual?
Why withold any judgement at all?
Lerxst said:
I think I'd be a happier person if I was religious.
I'm curious, why?
You've been very open and honest so far, and though we've only traded notes for a couple weeks now, I'm guessing this is a sensitive topic for you... but (1) what is happiness (2) what is religion -
to you?
..
To me, happiness is internal satisfaction; confidence and contentment; health and purpose; reason and awareness.
We each spend alot of our time trying to happy, but few stop to try write down what happiness is, or means.
..
Religion, in my view, is any belief, or set of beliefs, that direct or guide one's behavior or actions. It is synonymous with superstition, cognitively, with the baggage of social and cultural memes.
Others have said that religion is merely an innate "reverence for life"... but this occurs on an instinctive level in every one of us; it is the
will to survive and avoid death and suffering.
..
I suggest that happiness is only one preferred
manner of being (but not a means, nor an end), and that one need not adopt any belief system to attain it; we already
instinctively value life and
most of it's 'modes' (pain, suffering, and insanity kinda suck, then there's the 'ultimate' mode of life... NOT LIVING).
In summary, if religion is simply unnecessary to have happiness, why bother?
...
It could even be suggested that religion is harmful, if not to the religious themselves, then to others around them.
There are historical examples.
Remember,
"Men feared Witches and burnt Women"...
Lerxst said:
Sorry for rambling. It's a fasciating subject, and like the Spinoza quote I posted somewhere, I'm really interested in understanding....
Best to all of you.
"Lord, I was born a rambling man... nah-nah nah, nah-nah nah"
Apologies for the MONSTER post, and prolly some of it's "tone" or,
how I said
what.
Ditto, understanding... ditto, Best
!
