Atheists
- Thread starter Muslim
- Start date
I didn't mean to use the "spaghetti tactic"- it was accidental. Comment on whatever you think sticks, Sir, not the whole mess. =)
I think that this is what He meant when He said "you believe because you see me".Lil Light Foot said:
You believed when you needed Him, maybe not saw Him, but saw the lack of Him! Now when you got the answers you turn away.
So ask yourself, how could it have been differently? How could it have been done differently?
Lerxst said:
Absolutely agree.
I like your rambling. But for myself, I've found great joy in attempting to understand the universe as it is, not clouded, even at the boundaries, by unwarrented "beliefs". But they do say "ignorance is bliss". I've had a similar thought to yours that intelligence itself is a kind of curse. I think I might be much happier as a top predator, like a mountain lion, unburdened by the sure knowledge of my own mortality.
This is in response to a number of questiond from qwerty mob
My original comments in red.
qwerty in blue.
---------------------------------------------
it is perfectly plausible that we are living in a vast computer simulation
But not borne out by any objective evidence, only argument. No?
Correct. No evidence at all, just plausibility arguments. But those are not to be sneezed at. Sometimes scientific hypothesis that later are confirmed start as mere plausibility arguments.
and there is even a sound argument to show that the probability is not simply zero.
Is that really convincing though?
Is it convincing? Depends on what you are trying to be convinced of. Am I convinced that we live in a simulation? Of course not. If I did, I’d be insane. Am I convinced it is logically possible? Absolutely. It is entirely possible, and what is fascinating about it is that it could be done in such a way that we’d have no idea it was even going on.
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.
Yes, the allegory of the cave is the precursor to the simulation argument. It’s the same idea. And I think Plato’s cave is one of the most profound ideas anyone has ever had.
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.
Yes. But I’m not talking about something that can be investigated with science.
Here is how I view things: I see three distinct majesteria for human thought. The first and simplest is the analytic domain: math and logic. Here, we can have full proof and full certainty of various truths. However, important as these things are, they are rather limited in that they cannot alone get us up to the next level: synthetic truths. This is the realm of science, where all knowledge and all truth is provisional. I can say that it is a fact that Mars has two moons, but this is only a fact within the context of all data collected so far. I cannot state it with the same kind of certainty that I state 2+2=4. It is unlikely, but possible, that there is a third moon that has not been discovered. Hence the provisional nature of scientific truths. I’m not saying that science is weak because of this – in fact it is a source of it’s power in that nothing can become dogma and all “facts” are always open to further review. There is always a tiny bit of uncertainty in science – and that is a great thing.
Now- the last realm is that which I simply call “metaphysical” for lack of a better term. Here we are in the realm of the speculative. And it bears repeating that it must be recognized to be just that – speculative. Did I mention it was speculative?
Metaphysical musings can be informed to some extent by the other two realms, but not completely. There are natural limits to science and then we have no choice but to speculate. Granted, those boundaries keep getting pushed back as science advances – as it should be! But with certain discoveries, the philosophical conundrums can sometimes get more complex rather than more simple (quantum, for example).
So with an issue such as the ultimate origins of the universe or ontological questions such as “why does the universe bother to exist?” – we find ourselves with the capability to ask the questions but with no capability to really answer them. (Even if science someday uncovers a cause for the universe, we still have to ask why are there the particular set of rules that allowed this cause, etc…) This is troubling and yet exciting– to me, at least. There are all manner of possible explanations, but how shall we pick and choose among them? Not via equations. Not via controlled double-blind experiments.
So the first thing I can do is admit my fundamental agnosticism and ignorance on these heavy matters. I don’t know what time really is. I don’t know if I have free will. I don’t know why the universe bothers to exist. I don’t know if universes sprout like blackberries within a larger mutliverse. I don’t know what goes on during the collapse of a wavefunction. I don’t know if the many-worlds interpretation of QM is correct. I don’t know if the universe was intentionally created by some sentient being. I don’t know if there are dimensions we cannot access. I don’t know if future humans will eventually become God-like and resurrect us all, as Frank Tipler has predicted they will (now there is a God for you that is NOT supernatural at all!). I don’t know if we are in a vast computer simulation. And further, it is my opinion that nobody can KNOW the answers to these things, although science may eventually come to answer some of them. Some here will take issue with that, but I think most atheists, of the “weak” class, will not disagree that we are ignorant of many things and that we must confess our ignorance.
So now we are left with what to do about this abstract, fundamental sort of agnosticism - how shall it inform our actions and what we believe? Because we must make a choice – and choosing not to decide is still a choice.
Option A, that of the weak atheist, is to employ Occam’s razor and select the simplest of all possible philosophical perspectives: atheism coupled with naturalism. There is much to commend in this stance, its sheer economy alone is very persuasive. The only remark I can make against it is that Occam’s razor is not an arbiter of truth, it is merely a good tool (that has proven it’s value in the synthetic, scientific realm).
The razor combined with a pragmatic approach, becomes even more persuasive – the weak atheist in effect says “I see no evidence for God, I have no belief, I’ll take the simplest explanation, and my daily actions reflect these facts.” I think this is entirely justifiable and reasonable and I cannot really argue with it. Nowhere does it cross the line into an assertion that we can know that God doesn’t exist, etc.
My own agnostic stance isn’t really that far from weak atheism. Like you, I do not have a positive belief in God. Where I differ is that I’m not willing to take the razor to it as an idea. I don’t trust the razor in this particular realm the way I trust it in a scientific context. If I see hoof prints in the sand, I think horses, not zebras – yes, that is as it should be, because my experience informs me that it’s a good assumption. But I don’t have the experience in the philosophical realm. I don’t know if horses and zebras are a good analogy for naturalism and god, respectively. And an inductive argument is only as strong as the analogy.
Since I cannot see a clear path here, I’m forced to throw up my hands and say “I don’t know.” I honestly think the god question is insoluble. I have my suspicions as to what the answer is (I suspect that there are no gods) but suspicion is not knowledge and it does not constitute certainty.
In terms of daily, outward living I am as atheistic as you – I don’t “do “ anything religious, other than think about it and talk about it and write about it and harbor a few faint hopes related to it. Pragmatically you could say I am a weak atheist, but philosophically I am a hopeful agnostic, if that makes sense.
Now here is an interesting question: If Occam’s razor does not stop me from forming a belief in God, then what exactly is it that does stop me from being a theist or a diest? I wonder about this a lot. It seems somehow innate. My mind refuses to jump from “x is possible” to “I believe x is true.” Is this hardwired? Or have I picked it up from years of being a nontheist? Did I pick it up from all my schooling? I don’t know.
Apparently, based on the way my brain works, I cannot have the comfort of belief, but I will take the next best thing: hope. Hope does not require belief. It is very, very easy to hope for something that you think is a long shot at best, something you do not EXPECT to happen, but hope for anyway.
I’m sorry to trot out my old lottery analogy, but it helps – it really does. If I buy a ticket, I know it is possible that I may win. However I cannot make myself actually believe that I will win. You will agree that that would be a kind of madness. I will, however, HOPE to win, and there is nothing neurotic or dare I say, irrational in my doing so. My HOPE to win is a natural extension of my DESIRE to win, which is what caused me to buy the ticket in the first place. Why else buy a ticket, if you don’t want to win?
Does this hope impact my views? Have I allowed an emotional desire for eternal life and God to cloud my reason? Is this the real reason that I’m agnostic not atheist? I will admit that this might indeed be the case. Perhaps my affinity for a more skeptical philosophical basis and the attendant agnosticism really stems from my innate hopes? Possible! But if it did – is this bad? I don’t know yet. I’m trying to figure that out.
I like puzzles. Puzzling out the inner workings of your own psyche can be a wonderful, mysterious, adventurous process. Why would I want a stifling of that, simply by saying “meh, it’s all delusion.” It might be delusions, yes I am willing to face that fact, but I haven’t convinced myself of this yet. Hence, it is a process. The point of the journey is not to arrive. The jury is still out.
As for Gardener, ask him if monotheism is "atheism minus one."
I honestly don’t understand what is meant by this. I have read it here multiple times though.
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.
See, I don’t have some specific concept of god in mind. Maybe it is not possible for a human to conceptualize what a “real” god might be. So there might be some kind of god I cannot perceive. Or it might be a Simulator running a simulation we are in, or Tipler’s god for the future, both of which are “natural” gods that can exist in accord with common sense. I have not a clue. I lump them all together into a meta-god concept. Maybe there are millions of deities. How should I know? In a way I don’t care about the details. I lump them all into a set of possible just, fair gods and hope that some element in that set turns out to be real.
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 what you are getting at, and it is a fair question. This is how I look at it: Santa and the Bunny have been given a large number of physical attributes and behaviors. Santa is only Santa if he comes down the chimney, rides a sleigh, etc… He is partly in this world, by definition, and the degree to which he has these attributes is the degree to which we can look for evidence that he exists. So I’m naturally not exactly agnostic about their being a real Santa for that reason alone. Moreover, the existence of Santa is not momentous (except to little kids). This puts him in a different class of consideration.
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.
Nope – it is not a risk issue at all for me. Being an agnostic, I am still not a believer. And if there is a kind of God that would punish me for having honest doubts (and I will have those whether I am agnostic or weak-atheist), then I say to that God: “Bring it on, you unjust bastard.” I have no interest in holding a belief or a hope in a vindictive, violent, utterly insane and fundamentally unjust being such as Jehovah.
If we are going to introduce another element for preferring agnosticism to atheism that is emotional, it is not fear. It is hope. And I think hope is healthy, if it is tempered.
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).
I don’t like Pascal’s Wager. I’m more interested in William James’ “Will To Believe” argument. I think it is easier to swallow. That being said, I’m still not a believer.
I’m aware of the militant Atheist criticism of Agnosticism as being wishy-washy. But I think militant atheism requires a specific philosophical base. And I don’t buy into that base. How are we to choose philosophical POVs? How are we to compare them? I’m not even being rhetorical here, it is a big question that nags me. If I incorporate ANY degree of philosophical skepticism, it is going to be impossible to be anything but a weak atheist or an agnostic. And some degree of philosophical skepticism (as opposed to universal skepticism) seems quite reasonable to me. To arrive at the strong atheist position requires something like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, which I do not agree with – I think it is too facile.
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?
If you define x to be imaginary, then by definition it isn’t actual. I’m confident that some (many? most?) descriptions of god have referred to something imaginary. But they don’t have to. And as long as there remains some actual possibility they could exist, well, then, you have answered your own question – I believe they could be because they could be. I do not believe they are, but rather that they are merely possible.
Why withold any judgement at all?
Because I don’t have enough evidence to warrant making the call. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Because if you and I were living in a simulation and if we decided to not withhold judgement and proclaim that the simulation idea was nonsense, we’d be DEAD WRONG. Can’t you see the folly in making grand, sweeping pronouncements about things you cannot possibly be certain of? To me this is as clear as day. To me this is just another logical consequence of the fact that I cannot will myself to believe any old thing – be it Jehovah, Santa, or the notion that this universe is strictly WYSIWYG and that we can be CERTAIN of it.
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?
Well, I’m generally sort of happy. The point is I’d be happier with a few changes... I’d be happier to know that I’m not going to one day stop BEING. I’d be happier if I believed that there is going to be a good explanation for all the shit in this world. I’d be happier if I thought there was an ultimate form of justice, and that the despot that lives large at the expense of innocents and laughs about it is going to get his just desserts in the end. I’d be happier if I thought that I’d always be able to love and enjoy my family for an unlimited length of time. I’d be happier if I could look forward to a nice afterlife with confidence. I’d be happier if I thought that I’d be able to see all the future scientific discoveries that I will otherwise be oblivious to. I’d be happier to think that at my funeral my kids wouldn’t be despondent because they think their father is gone forever, but rather that they are comforted and hopeful of seeing me again.
You see, these things are momentous. That is another reason why it is so important. This isn’t Santa Claus. This is my life. It’s all I have, it is the only standard by which I can judge anything else. The big questions of philosophy are not just crossword puzzles for entertainment. They consume me daily.
Religion to me is a friggin’ very broad term, and perhaps I have been careless in my use of it and that has caused a number of folks here to view me with some suspicion. This definition will not be consider orthodox at all, but I view religion as a set of notions addressing fundamental questions of existence that cannot be definitively answer by science and reason. Those fundamental question include, specifically, is there a god, is there an afterlife, is there a purpose for us, why does the universe bother to exist, etc...
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.
But your behavior and actions are not informed by religion – so how do you guide them? Common sense, right? Me too. See, I don’t see ethics as having to be in religion’s domain. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be. In fact I’d argue that by freeing ethics from traditional religion we will become far more moral. I’m sure I have your agreement on that.
In summary, if religion is simply unnecessary to have happiness, why bother?
Correct! I couldn’t agree more. If you don’t need it, don’t use it. There is a set of people who are quite happy without any of the sundry things religion has to offer. I envy them. And there are others that seem to crave all aspects of religion. I myself do just fine without 90% of what religion offers – I don’t want it, I don’t need it. But there are aspects of it I like. And again, I’m speaking of a personal religion here, not an organized one.
You know, I’ve tried to do all the obvious things that atheist say they do to give their lives meaning, to obtain the sort of immortality that is tangible (but I argue this is not immortality at all – if my consciousness ends, it is NOT immortality). I try to have a positive impact on those around me. I have two kids, so I am propagating my genes, and to some extent, my personality, through them. I have contributed to the greatest human enterprise of all, science, with a dozen or so papers and big fat dissertation that someone might even read someday. I subscribe to what Michael Shermer calls “glorious contingency” – it may be that centuries from now, something in the seemingly mundane work that I did will turn out to be of critical import to some new technology or discovery. I have no way of knowing. This sounds familiar, eh? I have no positive reason to think my work will be of great import, but I HOPE it will. I daresay nobody here would call that an irrational hope.
Now these things are all well and fine, but they don’t assuage the principle fear and loathing I have for the idea of my entire world going blank and empty for the rest of eternity. It is a momentous concern. So to those of you who are not despondent at the thought of your own demise, I say, good for you! But I cannot grasp this perspective myself.
It could even be suggested that religion is harmful, if not to the religious themselves, then to others around them.
I cannot argue with history. Religion has had harmful effects. Lots and lots and lots of them. Many religious folks have been evil. But not all of them. Some have even been good. So this tells me that it can be a contributing factor in deciding if a given person is good or bad. Again: CAN be a CONTRIBUTING factor.
You know, one of the things I do at work is analyze lots of complex data where a large number of input variables and confounding factors make it difficult to determine the exact causes of various effects. And this data is for devices that operate by physical rules! Not humans, which are considerably more complex. This is why I get upset with people that make simple pronouncements to the effect of “get rid of religion and all our problems disappear” or “religion is harmful.” I ask “Whose religion?” and “Is every practioner harmful?” and “Can religion be further subdivided and be found to include both positive and negative aspects?” and “Can religion be slowly vetted and turned into something more humanistic while still answering some of the deep needs that most humans will probably always have?” and a myriad other questions. This is complicated stuff. All-or-nothing thinking here is not going to serve anyone well. And just because certain religious practioners do this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to rise above them.
Finally!
If I was to criticize my overall philosophy (and I do! Often!) I’d simply state the following, which is something Michael Shermer said, but I will paraphrase: “Sometimes smart people find very clever ways to justify holding some not-so-smart beliefs.” I fully realize that this may be all I am doing. And I don’t like it. Which is why I am always turning the questions over in my mind. And it is also why, instead of just forming my philosophy and then sitting on it, I am bringing it here for you to criticize. I thank you for your kind attention and your responses.
My original comments in red.
qwerty in blue.
---------------------------------------------
it is perfectly plausible that we are living in a vast computer simulation
But not borne out by any objective evidence, only argument. No?
Correct. No evidence at all, just plausibility arguments. But those are not to be sneezed at. Sometimes scientific hypothesis that later are confirmed start as mere plausibility arguments.
and there is even a sound argument to show that the probability is not simply zero.
Is that really convincing though?
Is it convincing? Depends on what you are trying to be convinced of. Am I convinced that we live in a simulation? Of course not. If I did, I’d be insane. Am I convinced it is logically possible? Absolutely. It is entirely possible, and what is fascinating about it is that it could be done in such a way that we’d have no idea it was even going on.
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.
Yes, the allegory of the cave is the precursor to the simulation argument. It’s the same idea. And I think Plato’s cave is one of the most profound ideas anyone has ever had.
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.
Yes. But I’m not talking about something that can be investigated with science.
Here is how I view things: I see three distinct majesteria for human thought. The first and simplest is the analytic domain: math and logic. Here, we can have full proof and full certainty of various truths. However, important as these things are, they are rather limited in that they cannot alone get us up to the next level: synthetic truths. This is the realm of science, where all knowledge and all truth is provisional. I can say that it is a fact that Mars has two moons, but this is only a fact within the context of all data collected so far. I cannot state it with the same kind of certainty that I state 2+2=4. It is unlikely, but possible, that there is a third moon that has not been discovered. Hence the provisional nature of scientific truths. I’m not saying that science is weak because of this – in fact it is a source of it’s power in that nothing can become dogma and all “facts” are always open to further review. There is always a tiny bit of uncertainty in science – and that is a great thing.
Now- the last realm is that which I simply call “metaphysical” for lack of a better term. Here we are in the realm of the speculative. And it bears repeating that it must be recognized to be just that – speculative. Did I mention it was speculative?
Metaphysical musings can be informed to some extent by the other two realms, but not completely. There are natural limits to science and then we have no choice but to speculate. Granted, those boundaries keep getting pushed back as science advances – as it should be! But with certain discoveries, the philosophical conundrums can sometimes get more complex rather than more simple (quantum, for example).
So with an issue such as the ultimate origins of the universe or ontological questions such as “why does the universe bother to exist?” – we find ourselves with the capability to ask the questions but with no capability to really answer them. (Even if science someday uncovers a cause for the universe, we still have to ask why are there the particular set of rules that allowed this cause, etc…) This is troubling and yet exciting– to me, at least. There are all manner of possible explanations, but how shall we pick and choose among them? Not via equations. Not via controlled double-blind experiments.
So the first thing I can do is admit my fundamental agnosticism and ignorance on these heavy matters. I don’t know what time really is. I don’t know if I have free will. I don’t know why the universe bothers to exist. I don’t know if universes sprout like blackberries within a larger mutliverse. I don’t know what goes on during the collapse of a wavefunction. I don’t know if the many-worlds interpretation of QM is correct. I don’t know if the universe was intentionally created by some sentient being. I don’t know if there are dimensions we cannot access. I don’t know if future humans will eventually become God-like and resurrect us all, as Frank Tipler has predicted they will (now there is a God for you that is NOT supernatural at all!). I don’t know if we are in a vast computer simulation. And further, it is my opinion that nobody can KNOW the answers to these things, although science may eventually come to answer some of them. Some here will take issue with that, but I think most atheists, of the “weak” class, will not disagree that we are ignorant of many things and that we must confess our ignorance.
So now we are left with what to do about this abstract, fundamental sort of agnosticism - how shall it inform our actions and what we believe? Because we must make a choice – and choosing not to decide is still a choice.
Option A, that of the weak atheist, is to employ Occam’s razor and select the simplest of all possible philosophical perspectives: atheism coupled with naturalism. There is much to commend in this stance, its sheer economy alone is very persuasive. The only remark I can make against it is that Occam’s razor is not an arbiter of truth, it is merely a good tool (that has proven it’s value in the synthetic, scientific realm).
The razor combined with a pragmatic approach, becomes even more persuasive – the weak atheist in effect says “I see no evidence for God, I have no belief, I’ll take the simplest explanation, and my daily actions reflect these facts.” I think this is entirely justifiable and reasonable and I cannot really argue with it. Nowhere does it cross the line into an assertion that we can know that God doesn’t exist, etc.
My own agnostic stance isn’t really that far from weak atheism. Like you, I do not have a positive belief in God. Where I differ is that I’m not willing to take the razor to it as an idea. I don’t trust the razor in this particular realm the way I trust it in a scientific context. If I see hoof prints in the sand, I think horses, not zebras – yes, that is as it should be, because my experience informs me that it’s a good assumption. But I don’t have the experience in the philosophical realm. I don’t know if horses and zebras are a good analogy for naturalism and god, respectively. And an inductive argument is only as strong as the analogy.
Since I cannot see a clear path here, I’m forced to throw up my hands and say “I don’t know.” I honestly think the god question is insoluble. I have my suspicions as to what the answer is (I suspect that there are no gods) but suspicion is not knowledge and it does not constitute certainty.
In terms of daily, outward living I am as atheistic as you – I don’t “do “ anything religious, other than think about it and talk about it and write about it and harbor a few faint hopes related to it. Pragmatically you could say I am a weak atheist, but philosophically I am a hopeful agnostic, if that makes sense.
Now here is an interesting question: If Occam’s razor does not stop me from forming a belief in God, then what exactly is it that does stop me from being a theist or a diest? I wonder about this a lot. It seems somehow innate. My mind refuses to jump from “x is possible” to “I believe x is true.” Is this hardwired? Or have I picked it up from years of being a nontheist? Did I pick it up from all my schooling? I don’t know.
Apparently, based on the way my brain works, I cannot have the comfort of belief, but I will take the next best thing: hope. Hope does not require belief. It is very, very easy to hope for something that you think is a long shot at best, something you do not EXPECT to happen, but hope for anyway.
I’m sorry to trot out my old lottery analogy, but it helps – it really does. If I buy a ticket, I know it is possible that I may win. However I cannot make myself actually believe that I will win. You will agree that that would be a kind of madness. I will, however, HOPE to win, and there is nothing neurotic or dare I say, irrational in my doing so. My HOPE to win is a natural extension of my DESIRE to win, which is what caused me to buy the ticket in the first place. Why else buy a ticket, if you don’t want to win?
Does this hope impact my views? Have I allowed an emotional desire for eternal life and God to cloud my reason? Is this the real reason that I’m agnostic not atheist? I will admit that this might indeed be the case. Perhaps my affinity for a more skeptical philosophical basis and the attendant agnosticism really stems from my innate hopes? Possible! But if it did – is this bad? I don’t know yet. I’m trying to figure that out.
I like puzzles. Puzzling out the inner workings of your own psyche can be a wonderful, mysterious, adventurous process. Why would I want a stifling of that, simply by saying “meh, it’s all delusion.” It might be delusions, yes I am willing to face that fact, but I haven’t convinced myself of this yet. Hence, it is a process. The point of the journey is not to arrive. The jury is still out.
As for Gardener, ask him if monotheism is "atheism minus one."
I honestly don’t understand what is meant by this. I have read it here multiple times though.
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.
See, I don’t have some specific concept of god in mind. Maybe it is not possible for a human to conceptualize what a “real” god might be. So there might be some kind of god I cannot perceive. Or it might be a Simulator running a simulation we are in, or Tipler’s god for the future, both of which are “natural” gods that can exist in accord with common sense. I have not a clue. I lump them all together into a meta-god concept. Maybe there are millions of deities. How should I know? In a way I don’t care about the details. I lump them all into a set of possible just, fair gods and hope that some element in that set turns out to be real.
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 what you are getting at, and it is a fair question. This is how I look at it: Santa and the Bunny have been given a large number of physical attributes and behaviors. Santa is only Santa if he comes down the chimney, rides a sleigh, etc… He is partly in this world, by definition, and the degree to which he has these attributes is the degree to which we can look for evidence that he exists. So I’m naturally not exactly agnostic about their being a real Santa for that reason alone. Moreover, the existence of Santa is not momentous (except to little kids). This puts him in a different class of consideration.
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.
Nope – it is not a risk issue at all for me. Being an agnostic, I am still not a believer. And if there is a kind of God that would punish me for having honest doubts (and I will have those whether I am agnostic or weak-atheist), then I say to that God: “Bring it on, you unjust bastard.” I have no interest in holding a belief or a hope in a vindictive, violent, utterly insane and fundamentally unjust being such as Jehovah.
If we are going to introduce another element for preferring agnosticism to atheism that is emotional, it is not fear. It is hope. And I think hope is healthy, if it is tempered.
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).
I don’t like Pascal’s Wager. I’m more interested in William James’ “Will To Believe” argument. I think it is easier to swallow. That being said, I’m still not a believer.
I’m aware of the militant Atheist criticism of Agnosticism as being wishy-washy. But I think militant atheism requires a specific philosophical base. And I don’t buy into that base. How are we to choose philosophical POVs? How are we to compare them? I’m not even being rhetorical here, it is a big question that nags me. If I incorporate ANY degree of philosophical skepticism, it is going to be impossible to be anything but a weak atheist or an agnostic. And some degree of philosophical skepticism (as opposed to universal skepticism) seems quite reasonable to me. To arrive at the strong atheist position requires something like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, which I do not agree with – I think it is too facile.
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?
If you define x to be imaginary, then by definition it isn’t actual. I’m confident that some (many? most?) descriptions of god have referred to something imaginary. But they don’t have to. And as long as there remains some actual possibility they could exist, well, then, you have answered your own question – I believe they could be because they could be. I do not believe they are, but rather that they are merely possible.
Why withold any judgement at all?
Because I don’t have enough evidence to warrant making the call. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Because if you and I were living in a simulation and if we decided to not withhold judgement and proclaim that the simulation idea was nonsense, we’d be DEAD WRONG. Can’t you see the folly in making grand, sweeping pronouncements about things you cannot possibly be certain of? To me this is as clear as day. To me this is just another logical consequence of the fact that I cannot will myself to believe any old thing – be it Jehovah, Santa, or the notion that this universe is strictly WYSIWYG and that we can be CERTAIN of it.
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?
Well, I’m generally sort of happy. The point is I’d be happier with a few changes... I’d be happier to know that I’m not going to one day stop BEING. I’d be happier if I believed that there is going to be a good explanation for all the shit in this world. I’d be happier if I thought there was an ultimate form of justice, and that the despot that lives large at the expense of innocents and laughs about it is going to get his just desserts in the end. I’d be happier if I thought that I’d always be able to love and enjoy my family for an unlimited length of time. I’d be happier if I could look forward to a nice afterlife with confidence. I’d be happier if I thought that I’d be able to see all the future scientific discoveries that I will otherwise be oblivious to. I’d be happier to think that at my funeral my kids wouldn’t be despondent because they think their father is gone forever, but rather that they are comforted and hopeful of seeing me again.
You see, these things are momentous. That is another reason why it is so important. This isn’t Santa Claus. This is my life. It’s all I have, it is the only standard by which I can judge anything else. The big questions of philosophy are not just crossword puzzles for entertainment. They consume me daily.
Religion to me is a friggin’ very broad term, and perhaps I have been careless in my use of it and that has caused a number of folks here to view me with some suspicion. This definition will not be consider orthodox at all, but I view religion as a set of notions addressing fundamental questions of existence that cannot be definitively answer by science and reason. Those fundamental question include, specifically, is there a god, is there an afterlife, is there a purpose for us, why does the universe bother to exist, etc...
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.
But your behavior and actions are not informed by religion – so how do you guide them? Common sense, right? Me too. See, I don’t see ethics as having to be in religion’s domain. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be. In fact I’d argue that by freeing ethics from traditional religion we will become far more moral. I’m sure I have your agreement on that.
In summary, if religion is simply unnecessary to have happiness, why bother?
Correct! I couldn’t agree more. If you don’t need it, don’t use it. There is a set of people who are quite happy without any of the sundry things religion has to offer. I envy them. And there are others that seem to crave all aspects of religion. I myself do just fine without 90% of what religion offers – I don’t want it, I don’t need it. But there are aspects of it I like. And again, I’m speaking of a personal religion here, not an organized one.
You know, I’ve tried to do all the obvious things that atheist say they do to give their lives meaning, to obtain the sort of immortality that is tangible (but I argue this is not immortality at all – if my consciousness ends, it is NOT immortality). I try to have a positive impact on those around me. I have two kids, so I am propagating my genes, and to some extent, my personality, through them. I have contributed to the greatest human enterprise of all, science, with a dozen or so papers and big fat dissertation that someone might even read someday. I subscribe to what Michael Shermer calls “glorious contingency” – it may be that centuries from now, something in the seemingly mundane work that I did will turn out to be of critical import to some new technology or discovery. I have no way of knowing. This sounds familiar, eh? I have no positive reason to think my work will be of great import, but I HOPE it will. I daresay nobody here would call that an irrational hope.
Now these things are all well and fine, but they don’t assuage the principle fear and loathing I have for the idea of my entire world going blank and empty for the rest of eternity. It is a momentous concern. So to those of you who are not despondent at the thought of your own demise, I say, good for you! But I cannot grasp this perspective myself.
It could even be suggested that religion is harmful, if not to the religious themselves, then to others around them.
I cannot argue with history. Religion has had harmful effects. Lots and lots and lots of them. Many religious folks have been evil. But not all of them. Some have even been good. So this tells me that it can be a contributing factor in deciding if a given person is good or bad. Again: CAN be a CONTRIBUTING factor.
You know, one of the things I do at work is analyze lots of complex data where a large number of input variables and confounding factors make it difficult to determine the exact causes of various effects. And this data is for devices that operate by physical rules! Not humans, which are considerably more complex. This is why I get upset with people that make simple pronouncements to the effect of “get rid of religion and all our problems disappear” or “religion is harmful.” I ask “Whose religion?” and “Is every practioner harmful?” and “Can religion be further subdivided and be found to include both positive and negative aspects?” and “Can religion be slowly vetted and turned into something more humanistic while still answering some of the deep needs that most humans will probably always have?” and a myriad other questions. This is complicated stuff. All-or-nothing thinking here is not going to serve anyone well. And just because certain religious practioners do this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to rise above them.
Finally!
If I was to criticize my overall philosophy (and I do! Often!) I’d simply state the following, which is something Michael Shermer said, but I will paraphrase: “Sometimes smart people find very clever ways to justify holding some not-so-smart beliefs.” I fully realize that this may be all I am doing. And I don’t like it. Which is why I am always turning the questions over in my mind. And it is also why, instead of just forming my philosophy and then sitting on it, I am bringing it here for you to criticize. I thank you for your kind attention and your responses.
Heya, ecellent post, as always!
Elegant use of color. Let me change formats though, and respond point by point numerically, each representing a section sorted by idea and/or quotation.
(1) Yeah, what we think of as modern Science is about three hundred years old, and has at it's core Newton's Scientific Method. Oddly now, from our perspective, Newton was very much a fundamentalist Christian who hypothesized and calculated the exact date of "Jesus Christ's" crucifixtion to be April 3rd, 33 CE.
How that will ever be confirmed is anyone's hypothesis... it'd require either a time machine, or some kind of extraterrestrial involvement.
(2) I agree about the gravity of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"
(3)(a) Are you describing the analytic-synthetic? It is a proof for objectivism and direct-realism (which you may've shown a disinterest in elsewhere). Beyond that there is nothing objective, only speculation, bordered by one's imagination. Technically, this is beyond classical Metaphysics, but I can see why you'd avoid calling what you describe Supernaturality (because it can occur to/in one's mind).
(3)(b) Remember the fallacy of Occam's Razor though, sometimes the simplest explanation isn't the correct one. "Why do planes fly? Because they have wings"- for example.
(4) "atheism minus one"... It is interesting to note that even in the time of Nero (forgive me, source not handy), it is alleged that Romans referred to Christians as Atheists, because they disavowed all the Pagan Gods and Goddesses.
Ask any theist- by what criteria they establish that anyone else's God is wrong, but theirs is/are True? And then why those same factors only to apply to "other people's Gods" and not their own...
I suggest there is some common reason why monotheists adopt (or allow for) a single god, but disbelieve in all others.
(5) The set of all possible Gods is bounded only by the set of actual imaginations though.
(6) "Bring it on..." is acknowledgement of the classic Problem of Evil. I think that hope is a very slippery slope, and I'm not persuaded that one's wishes should amuse their senses. One could easily imagine situations of suffering where the hope for an end does nothing but apply another dimension to one's misery. If one can draft it to mean only optimism, then there has to be some distinction between forms, and some metaphysical connection to one's health. Health is another slippery term, because there's more than a semantic difference between a state of "well being" and the "absense of ailment or disease."
(7) Agree, Pascal's Wager is really worthless, most essentially because "soul" and "eternal damnation" are incoherent, objectively.
(8) If we define (x) to be imaginary, it better be because (x) can be shown to be imaginary, objectively, by superior reasoning; exhibit all properties of being purely conceptual and immaterial, and characterizable and communicable, and the better explanation of why (x) cannot be actual. One can either find tangible evidence of an (x), or provide better reasoning; there are three ways to "win"; disproof of statement (x is imaginary), or the characterization of objective evidence, and both.
(9) "Why withold judgement?" I gather your general reasoning is that there is no "proof of a negative" with which I disagree. The general rule of "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense" is true only semantically; I call the rhetorical flaw "the alibi"-
I don't have to prove that I *wasn't somewhere* that a crime was committed, I only have to prove that I was *somewhere else* when it was. My evidence of absense is my alibi, and my absense of evidence therefore isn't so "absent."
(10, 11, 12) I acknowledge your replies to my inquiry, but allow me more time to soak in what religion and happiness mean to you.
(13) "Is religion harmful"... I can't begin to equate religion with charity either; the proofs of autonomous moral agents are compelling enough; that any good one does or perceives in the world can't be attributed in any way to a deity worthy of worship, nor to the mere existence and expression of any creed, religious or secular.
Besides, to be slightly vulgar for humor's sake- "If there is a "Very powerful" God which is constrained in any way by Forces greater that He is, then fuck Him, I'm worshipping Those."
(14) "Finally!"... That's a very compelling observation by Shermer, but maybe there is a hidden meaning to explore in it's corollary- "sometimes dumb people stumble across a piece of objective truth"
Nah, that's just me being stupid again. Obviously! =)
Thanks in Kind, Sir~
Elegant use of color. Let me change formats though, and respond point by point numerically, each representing a section sorted by idea and/or quotation.
(1) Yeah, what we think of as modern Science is about three hundred years old, and has at it's core Newton's Scientific Method. Oddly now, from our perspective, Newton was very much a fundamentalist Christian who hypothesized and calculated the exact date of "Jesus Christ's" crucifixtion to be April 3rd, 33 CE.
How that will ever be confirmed is anyone's hypothesis... it'd require either a time machine, or some kind of extraterrestrial involvement.
(2) I agree about the gravity of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"
(3)(a) Are you describing the analytic-synthetic? It is a proof for objectivism and direct-realism (which you may've shown a disinterest in elsewhere). Beyond that there is nothing objective, only speculation, bordered by one's imagination. Technically, this is beyond classical Metaphysics, but I can see why you'd avoid calling what you describe Supernaturality (because it can occur to/in one's mind).
(3)(b) Remember the fallacy of Occam's Razor though, sometimes the simplest explanation isn't the correct one. "Why do planes fly? Because they have wings"- for example.
(4) "atheism minus one"... It is interesting to note that even in the time of Nero (forgive me, source not handy), it is alleged that Romans referred to Christians as Atheists, because they disavowed all the Pagan Gods and Goddesses.
Ask any theist- by what criteria they establish that anyone else's God is wrong, but theirs is/are True? And then why those same factors only to apply to "other people's Gods" and not their own...
I suggest there is some common reason why monotheists adopt (or allow for) a single god, but disbelieve in all others.
(5) The set of all possible Gods is bounded only by the set of actual imaginations though.
(6) "Bring it on..." is acknowledgement of the classic Problem of Evil. I think that hope is a very slippery slope, and I'm not persuaded that one's wishes should amuse their senses. One could easily imagine situations of suffering where the hope for an end does nothing but apply another dimension to one's misery. If one can draft it to mean only optimism, then there has to be some distinction between forms, and some metaphysical connection to one's health. Health is another slippery term, because there's more than a semantic difference between a state of "well being" and the "absense of ailment or disease."
(7) Agree, Pascal's Wager is really worthless, most essentially because "soul" and "eternal damnation" are incoherent, objectively.
(8) If we define (x) to be imaginary, it better be because (x) can be shown to be imaginary, objectively, by superior reasoning; exhibit all properties of being purely conceptual and immaterial, and characterizable and communicable, and the better explanation of why (x) cannot be actual. One can either find tangible evidence of an (x), or provide better reasoning; there are three ways to "win"; disproof of statement (x is imaginary), or the characterization of objective evidence, and both.
(9) "Why withold judgement?" I gather your general reasoning is that there is no "proof of a negative" with which I disagree. The general rule of "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense" is true only semantically; I call the rhetorical flaw "the alibi"-
I don't have to prove that I *wasn't somewhere* that a crime was committed, I only have to prove that I was *somewhere else* when it was. My evidence of absense is my alibi, and my absense of evidence therefore isn't so "absent."
(10, 11, 12) I acknowledge your replies to my inquiry, but allow me more time to soak in what religion and happiness mean to you.
(13) "Is religion harmful"... I can't begin to equate religion with charity either; the proofs of autonomous moral agents are compelling enough; that any good one does or perceives in the world can't be attributed in any way to a deity worthy of worship, nor to the mere existence and expression of any creed, religious or secular.
Besides, to be slightly vulgar for humor's sake- "If there is a "Very powerful" God which is constrained in any way by Forces greater that He is, then fuck Him, I'm worshipping Those."
(14) "Finally!"... That's a very compelling observation by Shermer, but maybe there is a hidden meaning to explore in it's corollary- "sometimes dumb people stumble across a piece of objective truth"
Nah, that's just me being stupid again. Obviously! =)
Thanks in Kind, Sir~
qwerty mob said:
Thanks. But if you and I don't sign a non-proliferation agreement, this debate will grow without bound.
I'm just using the terms analytic and synthetic as I have seen them used elsewhere. I could as easily have said mathematical truths and scientific truths to denote the difference I was getting at.
Totally agree.
Okay, now I see! I'll have to look at Gardner's book again, because before he talks about why he is not an atheist, he has a chapter on why he is not a polytheist.
I do not follow. There may be concepts of God outside of OUR imaginations, just like the concept of integral calculus is outside of a dog's imagination.
Hope might lead to bitter disappointmet in some cases as you describe. But the case at hand is much different and the analogy does not hold - because if my hope is baseless, and I suspect that is more likely than not - then I shan't be disappointed, because I'll just be DEAD. I really see that I have nothing to lose.
Moreover, my hope is really not a choice. I didn't choose to hope. I do it quite naturally. I cannot turn it off.
Well, without thinking all of that through critically, I will give you my provisional assent on the above. But there are a number of god-like scenarios that I feel quite strongl do not belong in the imaginary camp but in the possible camp.
I understand what you mean, I think. I had an interlocutor on another board tell me that my 'absence of evidence != evidence of absence' principle was wrong for the following reason - that we conclude that various species are extinct or extirpated on the basis of the fact that we do not see any instances of that species in it's native habitat.
True, but again, this is quite provisional. And in the last year, nature and science might have together given me a concrete example that this kind of thinking can turn out to be DEAD WRONG: evidence for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, long thought extirpated, has been found in Louisiana. (The jury is still out, but that really isn't the point - obviously we could have been mistaken in giving it an early funeral).
Sure. It is in the philosopical detail where I feel lost. It is not my field. If I had my druthers, I'd quit working and pick up a few degrees in philosophy from the local U.
Thanks for the dialogue!
radical atheism
Lerxst,
I must say that yours was one of the very few kilometer-long posts that I've read in its entirety. Excellent. You remind me of me about ten years ago (no Phd though, just a lowly engineer). I dwell on the very same philosophical questions although not as much as I used to. I too could be heard to say, at times, that I might be happier with the comfort that some form of theism or deism seems to give certain people. But I've gotten to a point where my unavoidable demise dosen't bother me in the least. The closest I come to "hope" for some form of post-death consciousness is the multiverse idea in which there should be (given an infinity of universal configurations of matter) a universe in which I am fully conscious of my life as it is now.
You see, I happen to think of time as a kind of fiction of human consciousness. When I die, there will be (most likely) no experience of time or anything. So one has eternity in the blink of an eye, as it were, to wait for the right universal configuration to assert itself and reestablish the above sense of continued consciousness. Or not.
The majesteria you describe are as I perceive them also. I find though that I have no need of transitioning from simply speculating (at the philosophical level) to belief. It does nothing for me personally. You seem to regret not being able to make this leap and the "comfort" it might afford. I felt this very strongly at one time also.
I must say that yours was one of the very few kilometer-long posts that I've read in its entirety. Excellent. You remind me of me about ten years ago (no Phd though, just a lowly engineer). I dwell on the very same philosophical questions although not as much as I used to. I too could be heard to say, at times, that I might be happier with the comfort that some form of theism or deism seems to give certain people. But I've gotten to a point where my unavoidable demise dosen't bother me in the least. The closest I come to "hope" for some form of post-death consciousness is the multiverse idea in which there should be (given an infinity of universal configurations of matter) a universe in which I am fully conscious of my life as it is now.
You see, I happen to think of time as a kind of fiction of human consciousness. When I die, there will be (most likely) no experience of time or anything. So one has eternity in the blink of an eye, as it were, to wait for the right universal configuration to assert itself and reestablish the above sense of continued consciousness. Or not.
The majesteria you describe are as I perceive them also. I find though that I have no need of transitioning from simply speculating (at the philosophical level) to belief. It does nothing for me personally. You seem to regret not being able to make this leap and the "comfort" it might afford. I felt this very strongly at one time also.
I agree that we should allow people to think differently, but I draw the line here "different capacities to obtain logical conclusions?" mainly because there are no logical conclusions for any god or religion it is all based entirely on faith.Varda said:
you know as well as I, you can only arrive at a logical conclusion using your reason sense and intellect.
these are the only paths you can take, faith is not one of them.
now if your post read like this "different capacities to obtain their conclusions?" thats fine.
superluminal said:
superluminal:
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and I appreciate your remarks. I also find the multiverse notion very interesting, and I include it in my huge set of "hoped-for scenarios."
Just in the last couple of days as I have been writing and thinking hard on these matters, I have really been asking myself where this notion of hope springs from. It seems to be innate for me. I can no more turn off the hope than I can turn on a positive belief in God. Even when I considered myself an atheist, I still sort of hoped I was wrong.
I'll tell you another thing - my interest in these issue really started to grow after I had kids and they started getting old enough to understand mortality. It's one thing to be able to deal with your own mortality - it is another thing when faced with the prospect of telling a child that you love more than anything else in this world that he will someday cease to exist.
Finally, there is also the notion of "quantum immortality" that I find extremely interesting - however it doesn't really amount to an afterlife, and it might involve significant amounts of pain.
Lerxst said:
Touche'
I fought Dyson's ideas on the Orion project for years, the man clearly went insane.
I cannot see though how a rigorous scientist is able to reconcile his beliefs with that of which he studies. It is hypocrital in the extreme.
Religion is borne from ignorance and fantasy, surely they must recognize that.
Lerxst said:
No worries, we all do very much the same, and much worse, at times. I thought your tone was rather mild.
That was what I was trying to say as well, that they are exclusive.
And they must repent their sins for the rigor and understanding of their science before their gods.
Precisely my point. Therefore, they must rationalize that partition as they would also rationalize the partition between themselves and their souls, death and the afterlife.
These are people who don't attempt to create partitions between their beliefs and their work. Although coupled in the sight of their gods, they are quite different than those who would attempt to rationalize their diametrically opposed beliefs to that of their work.
Perhaps, but it is the hypocrisy of those personal convictions I question. I would submit that those who hold those convictions could not possibly rationalize their rigor with myth and superstition, and with that, scientist and theist would remain exclusive terms.
There you have a interesting comment (if I can step in here for a moment).Ophiolite said:
Each step encourages the next one, the problem is that we don't have a compass. So we ~pretty much~ allways feel that we are on the right track.
If we stop there for a while.
Breathe, in and out slowly.
(....I'm not trying to hypnotize you....)
Now count to three
Nah, just kidding...
Ok, so one person goes straight forward, the straight line.
The problem is that it is hard to follow a straight line (for one) and the other problem is that we are turned into different directions.
Oh, how hard it is to see this...
Hrrm. So finally we cross the goal line, but we are miles away from the goal (or we are walking in the opposite direction!!!)
Because of that it can be a nice touch to have a bit of faith and hope to achieve the goal, cause it is like as if that draws a straight line between you and the goal, when you go astray you get this feeling that * no ' no* nnooo... this can't be it... and you stop and think about it some more, and then you realise what you had thought bad and what you need to solutionise it.
I'm not that serious you know, but I think that is the general idea that I have of these things.
Now, go on, by all means, go on.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
An entirely materialist mind set is illogical, flying in the face of the observed existence of emergent properties as an intrinsic feature of the Universe. A contemplative, introspective, holistic approach to life, the universe and everything can provide solutions, insights, or holding patterns, not available from a purely materialist approach.
Philosophy (religion) is the other side of the coin (or the other leg) from science (technology). Both are necessary and are natural properties of intelligence.
Philosophy (religion) is the other side of the coin (or the other leg) from science (technology). Both are necessary and are natural properties of intelligence.