the atheist says “i will not believe”. the agnostic says “i can not believe”. one is as dogmatic as the beliefs they purport to refute, the other lacks the capacity for dogma, as belief for them is simply not possible.
I’m willing to accept Atheism, ‘I do not believe in God’, as somewhat dogmatic, but as others have said, it’s the null hypothesis and they have Occam’s razor going for them. Pragmatically it is a useful stance in light of the societal harm religion does.
I am however unwilling to conflate Agnosticism with ‘I can not believe’, always been “I’m waiting for evidence one way or the other” to me, so perhaps the more scientific point of view.
to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren’t really talking about god.
if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that’s the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there’s proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require “belief”, i.e. unfounded assumptions.
as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.
Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.
Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.
That doesn’t mean I don’t try disproving the null hypothesis.
Honestly? Without evidence, they’re both equally probable. And believing, or refusing to believe in a god or something, are both faith of equal measure.
It’s just whether someone thinks their version is faith is more realistic than the opposite.
I don’t think reasonable is even it for me, it’s just a helpful assumption.
If they are doing a perfect job at a Truman show type situation, there’s nothing you can do, so you might as well assume they’re not and play your role.
It’s more reasonable via Occam’s razor (more complexity is less reasonable, when everything else is equal). However it is still just a belief axiom. You have to assume 1 holds.
If things are not all equal, then we can slice off a section of the axiom, and start dissecting it, via science. The axiom only applies if things are exactly equal.
E.g. Gravity wave detectors have found oddities, just above the noise floor. These are likely equipment artifacts. They are also consistent with us being in a simulation, and us touching close to the resolution limit. If true (quite unlikely) then it would prove the axiom false.
It’s an assumption, not an extrapolation. Assumptions, without evidence are beliefs.
We assume several unprovable axioms to allow science to function. A lot of work has also been done to collapse them down to the core minimum. What is left is still built on belief.
The fact that the results are useful back validates those beliefs. It doesn’t prove them however.
we’re comparing it to a system where none of that has been done. it’s sort of a “god of the gaps” situation but the gaps are shaped exactly like pieces in a puzzle. we can extrapolate the form of the proof even if we can’t show it. the same is not true of the other camp.
You say that, but, if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains. (There would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains, but only a finite number of humans)
I personally believe I am not, and the universe actually exists, rather than a sensory/memory ghost.
surely if the universe has an infinite lifespan there could be an infinite number of humans? for whatever passes as a human at any given time. the two concepts may even overlap.
Oh, you’re a solipsist? You believe reality is an illusion and trees don’t really exist? I’m somewhat similar, I’m an antirealist. I recognise that reality is an illusion, but I still choose to believe in it until it can be overthrown. If we teach enough people how to reshape their beliefs and perceptions, then we can decide for ourselves whether trees exist. But at present, I need to believe in trees in order to inhabit consensus reality and communicate efficiently with the people who live here. It’s cool that you don’t believe in trees, though!
I’m happier with non-belief, than squirming through the exercise of deciding what to believe and disbelieve under the unchecked presumption that we must believe something.
Even more so for the distinct “believing in” something.
i don’t believe in wifi, just like i don’t believe in trees. i know they’re there. that requires no belief.
The belief would be that your senses aren’t being actively deceived. Also, that you’re not a Boltzmann brain hallucinating in the void.
I personally believe all the axioms of science apply. It’s still fun to poke at them.
the atheist says “i will not believe”. the agnostic says “i can not believe”. one is as dogmatic as the beliefs they purport to refute, the other lacks the capacity for dogma, as belief for them is simply not possible.
I’m willing to accept Atheism, ‘I do not believe in God’, as somewhat dogmatic, but as others have said, it’s the null hypothesis and they have Occam’s razor going for them. Pragmatically it is a useful stance in light of the societal harm religion does.
I am however unwilling to conflate Agnosticism with ‘I can not believe’, always been “I’m waiting for evidence one way or the other” to me, so perhaps the more scientific point of view.
It’s not 3 points, but 4.
Atheist==>Theist Agnostic==>gnostic
There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren’t really talking about god.
if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that’s the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there’s proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require “belief”, i.e. unfounded assumptions.
as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.
Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.
Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.
That doesn’t mean I don’t try disproving the null hypothesis.
Honestly? Without evidence, they’re both equally probable. And believing, or refusing to believe in a god or something, are both faith of equal measure.
It’s just whether someone thinks their version is faith is more realistic than the opposite.
I don’t think reasonable is even it for me, it’s just a helpful assumption.
If they are doing a perfect job at a Truman show type situation, there’s nothing you can do, so you might as well assume they’re not and play your role.
It’s more reasonable via Occam’s razor (more complexity is less reasonable, when everything else is equal). However it is still just a belief axiom. You have to assume 1 holds.
Too many cut themselves on Occam’s razor, incorrectly presuming all else equal.
If things are not all equal, then we can slice off a section of the axiom, and start dissecting it, via science. The axiom only applies if things are exactly equal.
E.g. Gravity wave detectors have found oddities, just above the noise floor. These are likely equipment artifacts. They are also consistent with us being in a simulation, and us touching close to the resolution limit. If true (quite unlikely) then it would prove the axiom false.
a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.
It’s an assumption, not an extrapolation. Assumptions, without evidence are beliefs.
We assume several unprovable axioms to allow science to function. A lot of work has also been done to collapse them down to the core minimum. What is left is still built on belief.
The fact that the results are useful back validates those beliefs. It doesn’t prove them however.
we’re comparing it to a system where none of that has been done. it’s sort of a “god of the gaps” situation but the gaps are shaped exactly like pieces in a puzzle. we can extrapolate the form of the proof even if we can’t show it. the same is not true of the other camp.
You say that, but, if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains. (There would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains, but only a finite number of humans)
I personally believe I am not, and the universe actually exists, rather than a sensory/memory ghost.
surely if the universe has an infinite lifespan there could be an infinite number of humans? for whatever passes as a human at any given time. the two concepts may even overlap.
not that it matters for the day-to-day, anyway.
Sounds like presuming some place further along in an infinite set. We may still be in an early iteration at the start, as plain as it seems.
No.
Oh, you’re a solipsist? You believe reality is an illusion and trees don’t really exist? I’m somewhat similar, I’m an antirealist. I recognise that reality is an illusion, but I still choose to believe in it until it can be overthrown. If we teach enough people how to reshape their beliefs and perceptions, then we can decide for ourselves whether trees exist. But at present, I need to believe in trees in order to inhabit consensus reality and communicate efficiently with the people who live here. It’s cool that you don’t believe in trees, though!
I’m happier with non-belief, than squirming through the exercise of deciding what to believe and disbelieve under the unchecked presumption that we must believe something.
Even more so for the distinct “believing in” something.
no