|
science saved my soul (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
That’s because your atheism is as soft-cocked as atheism can get. |
Actually, I'd say my atheism is so rock-hard it'd be the stiffest of all hard-cocked atheisms in your analogy. I should probably call it "throbbing atheism", and here's why (for brevity's sake, I'm going to post links whenever I can resort to someone else's views to summarise my own):
I'd say most people, rather naïvely, subscribe to a simplified correspondence theory of truth. When the layman says "there's a cat on the mat", there'd better a small animal with fur, four legs, a tail and claws, usually kept as a pet, on a small piece of strong material which covers and protects part of the floor; and, when they say "there's a God in the universe" or "water's made up of atoms", they take both statements to represent actual states of affairs, which may (not) correspond to what can be found in the world. Hence there's one single truth, because there's just one reality, and to say something is true is to say it mirrors reality perfectly. You can find objections to this theory in the article I linked to.
This view of truth serves religion fairly well, and it's no surprise that Veritas (which is cognate with the word I use in my vernacular language for truth) was herself a Roman god. The Bible loves truth, and people like St. John are all too eager to claim not only there's one truth but "whoever lives by the truth comes into the light" (John 3:21)... and, let's not forget, you can show your love saving others from a sinful life through the truth. This makes truth quite a desirable thing for anyone with a brain... and it's worked wonders for scientists too! Galileo certainly believe that the Earth DID move (and this belief corresponded to reality), and that there could not be two truths (How on Earth can the Earth both move and not move!?). I doubt he'd have any of this madness.
Now, I'm not exactly a fan of Reality with a capital "R". Likewise, I don't think it makes any sense to believe in The truth. I'd be even hard-pressed to accept there's one single kind of truth, which brings us back to my so-stiff-it-aches atheism.
The Atheist Truth, that is, "There is no God" sounds too much alike its negation, religiously wise. That's the truth, there is no God. Nix. Zilch. Zero. Why? Because there isn't any evidence God exists (or, rather, there's plenty of evidence he doesn't exist), so it's pretty safe to say this corresponds to reality. Postulating the existence of a supernatural realm, as opposed to our natural world, has little explanatory power and only leads to more confusion. Good, now let's tell everyone else they're mistaken and save them from their errors and... hmm... déjà vu? So evil, this religion stuff.
No, what kills is not religion. If anything, we should pipe down and tell atheists that science has working truths (which are quite ephemeral in the sense that they're always being replaced anyway) and if we want to make sure religious truths and scientific truths aren't the same thing, we may go on and say that "if scientific statements are to be called truths, religious statements should be called something else—comforts, perhaps" (pg. 181)
In the end, what we need is not to get rid of God (though I'd definitely not mind that, I'd prefer if some sort of godless Christianity or a naturalist Islam replaced their current versions). Perhaps there's a useful insight or two from any given religion that we should keep, and religious folks might remind us every so often that they aren't all mentally handicapped (but some probably are intellectually lazy). What we need to ditch is certainty, and the passion that may come with the perception that one is certain and obliged to show others the way. Until the last man has had the last experience, there's no final word we can give about anything. It bothers a lot when atheists think that theories (which can be perfected) are as certain as mundane truths we take for granted (like the Earth being round). We can't know what new facts we're going to encounter in the future, and fossilising contemporary truths is no better than being religious (and I've seen it happen way too often).
What we can do, however, is tell what works (and what doesn't). Believing that there was a big bang and that we came from stardust is a rather good idea now thanks to its explanatory power... but no one knows what's to come. Newtonian physics had a firm foundation until Einstein replaced it, remember?
CORe version: Actually, I'm more of an atheist than you are because I have one less religious idea in my repertoire. Ergo, I espouse an adamantine-cocked atheism.
And this video's metaphorical semen left me with a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something I can swallow. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no. |
:stongue:
Really, I can't swallow it! |
|
|
| nefardec |
| religion is not mysticism. you'd think he'd know the difference. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
religion is not mysticism. you'd think he'd know the difference. |
That's like saying apples are not fruits. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And this video's metaphorical semen left me with a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something I can swallow. |
Maybe youre just not enough of a science nerd to swallow it? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Actually, I'd say my atheism is so rock-hard it'd be the stiffest of all hard-cocked atheisms in your analogy. I should probably call it "throbbing atheism", and here's why (for brevity's sake, I'm going to post links whenever I can resort to someone else's views to summarise my own):
I'd say most people, rather naïvely, subscribe to a simplified correspondence theory of truth. When the layman says "there's a cat on the mat", there'd better a small animal with fur, four legs, a tail and claws, usually kept as a pet, on a small piece of strong material which covers and protects part of the floor; and, when they say "there's a God in the universe" or "water's made up of atoms", they take both statements to represent actual states of affairs, which may (not) correspond to what can be found in the world. Hence there's one single truth, because there's just one reality, and to say something is true is to say it mirrors reality perfectly. You can find objections to this theory in the article I linked to.
This view of truth serves religion fairly well, and it's no surprise that Veritas (which is cognate with the word I use in my vernacular language for truth) was herself a Roman god. The Bible loves truth, and people like St. John are all too eager to claim not only there's one truth but "whoever lives by the truth comes into the light" (John 3:21)... and, let's not forget, you can show your love saving others from a sinful life through the truth. This makes truth quite a desirable thing for anyone with a brain... and it's worked wonders for scientists too! Galileo certainly believe that the Earth DID move (and this belief corresponded to reality), and that there could not be two truths (How on Earth can the Earth both move and not move!?). I doubt he'd have any of this madness.
Now, I'm not exactly a fan of Reality with a capital "R". Likewise, I don't think it makes any sense to believe in The truth. I'd be even hard-pressed to accept there's one single kind of truth, which brings us back to my so-stiff-it-aches atheism.
The Atheist Truth, that is, "There is no God" sounds too much alike its negation, religiously wise. That's the truth, there is no God. Nix. Zilch. Zero. Why? Because there isn't any evidence God exists (or, rather, there's plenty of evidence he doesn't exist), so it's pretty safe to say this corresponds to reality. Postulating the existence of a supernatural realm, as opposed to our natural world, has little explanatory power and only leads to more confusion. Good, now let's tell everyone else they're mistaken and save them from their errors and... hmm... déjà vu? So evil, this religion stuff.
No, what kills is not religion. If anything, we should pipe down and tell atheists that science has working truths (which are quite ephemeral in the sense that they're always being replaced anyway) and if we want to make sure religious truths and scientific truths aren't the same thing, we may go on and say that "if scientific statements are to be called truths, religious statements should be called something else—comforts, perhaps" (pg. 181)
In the end, what we need is not to get rid of God (though I'd definitely not mind that, I'd prefer if some sort of godless Christianity or a naturalist Islam replaced their current versions). Perhaps there's a useful insight or two from any given religion that we should keep, and religious folks might remind us every so often that they aren't all mentally handicapped (but some probably are intellectually lazy). What we need to ditch is certainty, and the passion that may come with the perception that one is certain and obliged to show others the way. Until the last man has had the last experience, there's no final word we can give about anything. It bothers a lot when atheists think that theories (which can be perfected) are as certain as mundane truths we take for granted (like the Earth being round). We can't know what new facts we're going to encounter in the future, and fossilising contemporary truths is no better than being religious (and I've seen it happen way too often).
What we can do, however, is tell what works (and what doesn't). Believing that there was a big bang and that we came from stardust is a rather good idea now thanks to its explanatory power... but no one knows what's to come. Newtonian physics had a firm foundation until Einstein replaced it, remember?
CORe version: Actually, I'm more of an atheist than you are because I have one less religious idea in my repertoire. Ergo, I espouse an adamantine-cocked atheism.
And this video's metaphorical semen left me with a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something I can swallow. |
wow thats a mouth full. what was that in response to? can't we get back to happiness? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Maybe youre just not enough of a science nerd to swallow it? |
But... I'm actually a scientist :p
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
wow thats a mouth full. what was that in response to? can't we get back to happiness? |
PKC and Oscar believe "[my] atheism is as soft-cocked as atheism can get", and I told them that, as a matter of fact, it's the other way around. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| I wasn't aware there was a soft/hard version. I thought it was like being pregnant you either are or you aren't. I'm agnostic so it affords me a little more latitude. I'm 99% sure God doesn't exist but leave 1% open for human error. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But... I'm actually a scientist :p
|
Linguists dont count :p They never includes huge explosions which is the prerequisite to be officially declared a scientist. If you've never blown anything up in orer to expand your field of study youre not a proper scientist :D |
|
|
| woscar |
Interesting couple of paragraphs you wrote, but I don't see how that demonstrates that you have a throbbing diamond hard for atheism. Thinking that there's a brand of atheism that's equivalent to religious fundamentalism isn't really an argument at all.
In fact, I know that you're a smart person so I'll be fairly justified in my assumption that you are an atheist because you are pretty certain that it corresponds to the relevant, every-day experience that we call reality better than any religion. Why do you assume, then, that an extreme there-is-certainly-no-god-whatsoever brand of atheism that sounds too much like a religion for your comfort would result in the same upetry (:p) as, say, Catholicism? After all, you think atheism matches reality much better, and thus it's eventual "dogmatism" (for lack of a better word) about gods would match reality better?
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
What we can do, however, is tell what works (and what doesn't). Believing that there was a big bang and that we came from stardust is a rather good idea now thanks to its explanatory power... but no one knows what's to come. Newtonian physics had a firm foundation until Einstein replaced it, remember?
CORe version: Actually, I'm more of an atheist than you are because I have one less religious idea in my repertoire. Ergo, I espouse an adamantine-cocked atheism. |
Actually, Einstein didn't replace Newtonian Physics, he just came up with a solution for the fact that it breaks down at the very large (relativity) and very small (quantum mechanics). Newtonian physics still describes phenomena at our scale of the Universe. ;)
P.S. I'm not saying that Einstein came up with quantum mechanics, but I can't be arsed to phrase that last paragraph differently. :p |
|
|
|
|
