It’s a pretty smooth brain take because the core ideas of religion are just about universal. Those core ideas would be re-derived. It’s the details and names that vary. You could describe religion as a connectedness to, and humbleness before the mystery of, the universe
What I’m saying is that nobody knows how any of this works. Maybe we are in a simulation and there is a literal being overseeing us. Logical positivism & reductionist materialism have long been disproven by Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem & quantum uncertainty. We do not know what’s going on. Athiest people who claim they definitely know how the universe works are just as bad as fundamentalists. It’s the same mistake of overconfidence
Athiest people who claim they definitely know how the universe works
The thing is that atheists don’t do that. They are aware how science works and that what we consider to be true is only the current best approximation.
disproven by Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem
I don’t know much about most of the fancy words you’re throwing around. But I do know that the Incompleteness Theorem only states that statements can exist that you can neither prove nor deny. We could assume that a deity exists that chooses to hide its existence. This assumption would be such an independent axiom. If we take it to be true, however, then it is subject to reasoning, and we can quickly derive that this deity does not have the properties we usually associate with it. So while a deity may exist, it certainly isn’t the one we’re picturing, from which “God doesn‘t exist” follows necessarily.
It’s also worth noting that Gödel was talking about an axiomatization of mathematics, not the ‘real world.’
As I understand it, a statement like that is unscientific. You can say that the likelihood of unicorns existing is extremely small, trace possible mythological origins to show the stories are fabricated, but you can’t categorically prove that something doesn’t exist.
To be fair, one is about something that would be observable, and another is an abstract concept that as defined could be completely unobservable.
Of course, there no practical consequence of that hypothetical. Since we have no evidence we can’t claim to know the will of such a hypothetical being or beings. The problem with a hope or faith in such a hypothetical is really when a human asserts the authority of the divine to their own words, desires, and judgements. So if someone’s faith is truly private and they don’t believe they have any true insight into the nature of their faith, then no need to object since it’s it has zero effect in practice.
So the agnostic perspective rather than the atheist perspective.
We could assume that a deity exists that chooses to hide its existence.
The funny thing is it’s always been hiding at the edge of knowledge. Used to be sun and lightning, now it’s the architect of the supposed simulation we might be living in.
I think the point is that humanity 2.0 might believe the sea gods will reward your undying bloodlust and through many murders, you may be rewarded with eternal battle in the under halls.
But humanity 2.0 will always discover that the earth revolves around the sun the same way we did, and that whatever math they derive will provide the same answers as ours.
“a connectedness to, and humbleness before the mystery of, the universe”
This is the same rationale Stephen Colbert used when debating Ricky Gervais making the same point above. Yes, similar ideas may come back and people may invent new deities to direct this emotional response towards as humans have done in the past, but it is not observable and/or measurable fact. There is no evidence that any of these created deities are real, but the science of human behaviours in such a experiment may show that humans will always create religions to deal with the overwhelming response of appreciating the improbable notion that your conscious self exists.
the core ideas of religion are just about universal
Even just within Christianity, in the modern world, there are radical differences in the core ideas between sects. Across all religions, throughout history, the differences dwarf that.
It’s the details and names that vary
It’s not (see above), but if it were: the details count toward this as well. Just saying “meh, ignore the details” is cheating to get the answer you want.
You could describe religion as a connectedness to, and humbleness before the mystery of, the universe
How many religious people have you actually met, friend? I have known some whose views roughly fit that description, but most do not. In fact, I’d suggest that you could describe science that way. Religious people start with the belief, the box they want to put the universe in, and then insist that it must be, and attempt to adjust the facts to match their views - this is the farthest thing from humbleness before the mystery of the universe. Science tells us to put our preconceptions and expectations aside, and observe how the universe really functions - if we see facts that don’t match our current understanding, we adjust our understanding.
I think it’s funny that we attribute grand universals to things that are really just particular to our species because we’re simply meat machines lashed together to a similar loose specification.
It’s a pretty smooth brain take because the core ideas of religion are just about universal. Those core ideas would be re-derived. It’s the details and names that vary. You could describe religion as a connectedness to, and humbleness before the mystery of, the universe
What I’m saying is that nobody knows how any of this works. Maybe we are in a simulation and there is a literal being overseeing us. Logical positivism & reductionist materialism have long been disproven by Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem & quantum uncertainty. We do not know what’s going on. Athiest people who claim they definitely know how the universe works are just as bad as fundamentalists. It’s the same mistake of overconfidence
The thing is that atheists don’t do that. They are aware how science works and that what we consider to be true is only the current best approximation.
I don’t know much about most of the fancy words you’re throwing around. But I do know that the Incompleteness Theorem only states that statements can exist that you can neither prove nor deny. We could assume that a deity exists that chooses to hide its existence. This assumption would be such an independent axiom. If we take it to be true, however, then it is subject to reasoning, and we can quickly derive that this deity does not have the properties we usually associate with it. So while a deity may exist, it certainly isn’t the one we’re picturing, from which “God doesn‘t exist” follows necessarily.
It’s also worth noting that Gödel was talking about an axiomatization of mathematics, not the ‘real world.’
I think this is what the poster was referring to with the overconfidence part
“There are no unicorns, that’s the simple truth.”
Is this also over confidence?
There are a lot of children who believe in unicorns.
A lot of pictures too. The pictures are more consistent than that of the gods.
As I understand it, a statement like that is unscientific. You can say that the likelihood of unicorns existing is extremely small, trace possible mythological origins to show the stories are fabricated, but you can’t categorically prove that something doesn’t exist.
Are you saying that a proof that God doesn’t exist, can’t itself exist?
…Yes?
So therefore you can categorically prove that something doesn’t exist?
Let me change my answer to “…most probably?”
To be fair, one is about something that would be observable, and another is an abstract concept that as defined could be completely unobservable.
Of course, there no practical consequence of that hypothetical. Since we have no evidence we can’t claim to know the will of such a hypothetical being or beings. The problem with a hope or faith in such a hypothetical is really when a human asserts the authority of the divine to their own words, desires, and judgements. So if someone’s faith is truly private and they don’t believe they have any true insight into the nature of their faith, then no need to object since it’s it has zero effect in practice.
So the agnostic perspective rather than the atheist perspective.
The funny thing is it’s always been hiding at the edge of knowledge. Used to be sun and lightning, now it’s the architect of the supposed simulation we might be living in.
I think the point is that humanity 2.0 might believe the sea gods will reward your undying bloodlust and through many murders, you may be rewarded with eternal battle in the under halls.
But humanity 2.0 will always discover that the earth revolves around the sun the same way we did, and that whatever math they derive will provide the same answers as ours.
What core ideas are there in the big religions?
Besides the oppression of subserviente women and the hatred of homosexuals?
“a connectedness to, and humbleness before the mystery of, the universe”
This is the same rationale Stephen Colbert used when debating Ricky Gervais making the same point above. Yes, similar ideas may come back and people may invent new deities to direct this emotional response towards as humans have done in the past, but it is not observable and/or measurable fact. There is no evidence that any of these created deities are real, but the science of human behaviours in such a experiment may show that humans will always create religions to deal with the overwhelming response of appreciating the improbable notion that your conscious self exists.
Even just within Christianity, in the modern world, there are radical differences in the core ideas between sects. Across all religions, throughout history, the differences dwarf that.
It’s not (see above), but if it were: the details count toward this as well. Just saying “meh, ignore the details” is cheating to get the answer you want.
How many religious people have you actually met, friend? I have known some whose views roughly fit that description, but most do not. In fact, I’d suggest that you could describe science that way. Religious people start with the belief, the box they want to put the universe in, and then insist that it must be, and attempt to adjust the facts to match their views - this is the farthest thing from humbleness before the mystery of the universe. Science tells us to put our preconceptions and expectations aside, and observe how the universe really functions - if we see facts that don’t match our current understanding, we adjust our understanding.
I think it’s funny that we attribute grand universals to things that are really just particular to our species because we’re simply meat machines lashed together to a similar loose specification.