Well just looking at the diverse belief systems of the world I have to say: Anybody can believe pretty much anything.
Also anybody can withold belief in pretty much anything.
We all do it both at the same time in warious subjects to different degrees. I actually think it is vital for a healthy and rational mind to do both.
Question: Are any of the belief systems /i think atheism qualifies as such/ absolutely correct about their claims regarding our universe and a hypothesised maker of it?
Just judging by our seemingly inexhaustable capability to be wrong about a subject, I have to say no. If anything science taught us in the past couple of hundred years it is that we are wrong.
So when it comes to the question of the existence and characteristics of a maker for our reality and ourselves, I am a wrongist.
We are most likely all wrong. I find it exciting because I would like to know where the faults are in our collective and diverse beliefs regarding the ultimate questions of our existence.
But seriously. Look at the universe through the lense of science. Then consider a hypothesised being making such things as a rutine past time thing it does for just giggles. Then look at the asinine arguments and beliefs we have about what this being would or wouldn't do, would think or wouldn't think, would be like or wouldn't be like, would want us to do or wouldn't want us to do etc.
It's like possums trying to argue about QED and it's implications on jumping on rooftops, using their scent glands and pheromones. It's a joke. It cannot be considered anything else.
Atheism is not a belief system, it is a position on theistic statements. We do not necessarily assert that there is no god - that's anti-theism - we merely reject claims that there is one. It's an important difference because the first position must prove the non-existence of a god to be justified, where as the second must have the existence of a god proven to it to be unjustified.
And science is the progression from ideas that are wrong to ideas that are, at the very least, less wrong :D
You are correct, i wasn't phrasing what i wanted to say correctly. Atheism is merely not accepting or believing theistic claims about the universe. But atheists still hold beliefs or convictions in general about the universe on the same scale where God is fit into the theistic worldview. Be it thinking that the universe is a quantum fluctuation in an infinit void, or there are immense structures like in brane theory that can collide and produce universes, or other types of multiverselike structures.
Theism differs in proposing that this structure has humanlike characteristics on that large scale. So that it can think, plan, manipulate things, etc like we do. This is indeed an extraordinary claim, but what the actual issue is that in reality we cannot meaningfully debate this with the simplistic arguments that are in circulation. It looks silly because the subject is immensly more complex than either side depict it.
Also theists could be wrong about that this thing has a human like mind, yet it still could posess mindlike characteristics making atheistic beliefs in a mindless void or brane structure equally wrong.
The main difference between scientific and religious beliefs about the universe is that the scientific ones have testable, observable consequences. Essentially, scientific beliefs can be tested, improved upon, and even replaced, traits that religious beliefs lack.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is easy to debate in reality. If a thing exists, it interacts with reality. If it interacts with reality, then evidence of it's existence is available. Where is the evidence for deitie(s)? And if it/they don't interact with reality, what is there to distinguish between them and something that doesn't exist?
We don't ascribe a mind/mindlike qualities to the forces that caused the universe to exist for the above reasons. If that were the case and it made a difference, there would be evidence. If that were the case but there were no observable consequences, then what differentiates them from mindless forces?
Well just looking at the diverse belief systems of the world I have to say:
ReplyDeleteAnybody can believe pretty much anything.
Also anybody can withold belief in pretty much anything.
We all do it both at the same time in warious subjects to different degrees. I actually think it is vital for a healthy and rational mind to do both.
Question:
Are any of the belief systems /i think atheism qualifies as such/ absolutely correct about their claims regarding our universe and a hypothesised maker of it?
Just judging by our seemingly inexhaustable capability to be wrong about a subject, I have to say no. If anything science taught us in the past couple of hundred years it is that we are wrong.
So when it comes to the question of the existence and characteristics of a maker for our reality and ourselves, I am a wrongist.
We are most likely all wrong. I find it exciting because I would like to know where the faults are in our collective and diverse beliefs regarding the ultimate questions of our existence.
But seriously. Look at the universe through the lense of science. Then consider a hypothesised being making such things as a rutine past time thing it does for just giggles. Then look at the asinine arguments and beliefs we have about what this being would or wouldn't do, would think or wouldn't think, would be like or wouldn't be like, would want us to do or wouldn't want us to do etc.
It's like possums trying to argue about QED and it's implications on jumping on rooftops, using their scent glands and pheromones. It's a joke. It cannot be considered anything else.
Atheism is not a belief system, it is a position on theistic statements. We do not necessarily assert that there is no god - that's anti-theism - we merely reject claims that there is one. It's an important difference because the first position must prove the non-existence of a god to be justified, where as the second must have the existence of a god proven to it to be unjustified.
ReplyDeleteAnd science is the progression from ideas that are wrong to ideas that are, at the very least, less wrong :D
You are correct, i wasn't phrasing what i wanted to say correctly. Atheism is merely not accepting or believing theistic claims about the universe. But atheists still hold beliefs or convictions in general about the universe on the same scale where God is fit into the theistic worldview. Be it thinking that the universe is a quantum fluctuation in an infinit void, or there are immense structures like in brane theory that can collide and produce universes, or other types of multiverselike structures.
ReplyDeleteTheism differs in proposing that this structure has humanlike characteristics on that large scale. So that it can think, plan, manipulate things, etc like we do. This is indeed an extraordinary claim, but what the actual issue is that in reality we cannot meaningfully debate this with the simplistic arguments that are in circulation. It looks silly because the subject is immensly more complex than either side depict it.
Also theists could be wrong about that this thing has a human like mind, yet it still could posess mindlike characteristics making atheistic beliefs in a mindless void or brane structure equally wrong.
The main difference between scientific and religious beliefs about the universe is that the scientific ones have testable, observable consequences. Essentially, scientific beliefs can be tested, improved upon, and even replaced, traits that religious beliefs lack.
ReplyDeleteI've said this before and I'll say it again. This is easy to debate in reality. If a thing exists, it interacts with reality. If it interacts with reality, then evidence of it's existence is available. Where is the evidence for deitie(s)? And if it/they don't interact with reality, what is there to distinguish between them and something that doesn't exist?
We don't ascribe a mind/mindlike qualities to the forces that caused the universe to exist for the above reasons. If that were the case and it made a difference, there would be evidence. If that were the case but there were no observable consequences, then what differentiates them from mindless forces?