Tip! Regarding your "conversion" - I suggest you not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You do not need to completely reject/embrace either idealism or materialism (theism/atheism) - the Truth (whether cap T or not) is simply "what is" despite what we may feel (think) about it.
Here is a sciency :-) POSSIBILITY (I am stressing that word) that I just ran across the other day that promises to show the beginnings of a reconciliation between materialism (atheism) and idealism (theism).
Basically, it posits that the very underlying structure of reality itself (that in which we live, move and have our being) consists of points of decision (implying intelligence/consciousness) that is a self-referential simulation transcending time such that it's future communal consciousness is co-creating the past/present (god knows the end from the beginning) in conjunction with . . . us (images of god).
This is a really well made kickstarter funded video this group produced, but don't neglect the rest of the (more sciency :-) stuff on the website - I think it is more accessible than most assume.
Good luck.
http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/portfolio/what-is-reality-movie
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'll check it out, but often the people who talk about this quantum woo stuff are not actually quantum physicists. When I've looked into it before, it seems like another version of the God in the Gaps using something we don't yet understand well from a practical use standpoint (quantum theory) to explain things we don't understand at all (our point of origin, meaning for existence, etc).
Well, if you want absolutes I wouldn't bother. Atheism (requiring absolute proof) is just another religion as there is NO absolute truth available unless/until you become absolute. So radical atheism requires just as much "faith" (belief without proof) as religion. But if you are willing to entertain uncertainty (possibilities and probabilities) then . . . ?
We seem to have different understandings of atheism. To me, it's about not pretending to know things I don't know. My whole post was about not wanting or needing absolutes because it's possible they don't exist and are just conventions which work for us. To go from my post to thinking I want absolutes must mean I did some very poor writing or you're reading into a label and applying things to me I didn't say.
I was just going off this you said:
Sounds pretty absolute to me.
Sometimes the words we use indicate that our true underlying viewpoint/philosophy is different than what proceeds from "out of our mouth".
When I say "things we don't understand" I'm basing that off lectures from actual quantum physisits I've heard say those things. They know more about their field than I do. That comes across as an absolute? To me it's just a perspective based on available evidence. If it was a point of contention, we could resolve it by sharing various expert opinions in the field or even meta analysis of the current state of quantum theory research to come to a rough approximation of how much people in that field believe they understand and how much they believe they don't yet understand.
Are you seeing absolutes where there are none? I'm fully open to being wrong about my perspective on the current state of understanding when it comes to quantum theory. We are just now creating quantum computers and even then, from what I've seen, it's very difficult stuff. It's not yet at a practical level of understanding where these concepts could be commoditized and put into application (such as relativity has with GPS satalites).
Yes, I am sure most of what I see is colored by my own . . . stuff and I am possibly mis-reading/interpreting your words.
Here is a link to just a few practical applications to which quantum mechanics has ALREADY been put: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/08/13/what-has-quantum-mechanics-ever-done-for-us/
Here is one definition of agnostic: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic
Note that last part
And here is one for atheist: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist
I find disbelief and belief equally . . . unreasonable.
And finally: Yes, even though we have differing opinions, we can be "brothers in peace" and accord each other the freedom to come to our own grasp of reality in our own time.
I have enjoyed our exchange.
I'm surprised you find disbelief unreasonable. If someone says, "Hey, I just saw a cow floating past the moon!" and someone else says, "I don't believe that actually happened" then the reasonableness of the disbelief can't be measured by the concept of disbelief itself, but by our shared conventions for knowledge (epistemology) and how we understand the physical universe.
Equally so, if someone says, "I believe if I jump off this roof, I'll fall towards the earth" then the reasonableness of their statement of belief again relates to what we know of gravity, the physical universe, etc.
Belief or disbelief in a god or gods is possibly a different category because it creates non-falsifiable claims. If these god/gods occupy a super natural or extra-natural place then they are beyond physical reality and can't be measured using the same tools of reason. They don't impact physical reality in the same ways to make the scientific method a useful convention there.
So we're left with personal, individual experiences and their interpretations. Those who have had what they consider supernatural experiences can't understand why others don't believe as they do. Those, like myself, who thought they had supernatural experiences while they were believers and later learned more about the human brain and how it creates stories to explain complex experiences then later wonder why so many people believe. Ultimately, we are held to our own personal experiences and the best way I've found so far to transcend that is to study logical fallacies, the human brain, the scientific method, systems of logic, and to share information through open communication and dialogue. At least that way when my perspectives are skewed and can be demonstrated as such, I can learn and grow.
I've enjoyed the exchange as well. Thank you for demonstrating how two people who many not agree on worldviews can still respectfully communicate and appreciate each other's perspectives.
I think "not pretending to know things you don't know" better fits agnosticism. In my experience, most atheists are as rabidly (unthinkingly) ANTI-anyconceptionofunderlyingintelligence as rabid fundamentalists claiming the earth is flat (or whatever) becuz the "good book sez so" making them equally reliant on faith (as there is no definite proof of/against but LOTS of observational evidence of SOMEsortof intelligence at work at the basis of reality (creation).
Agnosticism says it can't ever be known. That it's unknowable. To me, atheism is a more humble approach of "Yes, it could be possible, I just haven't seen convincing evidence yet so I won't claim to know it for sure." For example, we could be living in a simulation and at some point in the future we might even be able to prove this with useful contstructs. In that framework "god" becomes the simulation creator.
As for arguments via intelligent design, have you seen arguments for unintelligent design? Things which evolved in very poorly "designed" ways or aspects of the universe which are extremely hostile for the existence of life? Neil Degrasse Tyson has an interesting lecture on this topic.
Either way, we are drifting away from the core message of my post which is this: even if we disagree in our worldviews, can we agree on the importance of increasing wellbeing? Can we work together to decrease harm? Can we measure the usefulness of various approaches by how much they improve wellbeing?
If so, we can be brothers and live in peace.
Hmmm, "unintelligent design" . . . sounds like an oxymoron to me.
I have seen ATTEMPTS to argue it but they always seem to arrive at the same point - FAITH! In which you just have to BELIEVE that xyz is/worksin such and such a way.
The concept of "randomness" for example, there is no evidence that it is valid except that some processes "look" (presently) like they proceed unintelligently (no algorithm).
Well, it once LOOKED as if the Sun revolved around the Earth as well.
The only reason the concept of "randomness" (and MANY, MANY other "normal concepts) is BELIEVED is because of a reliance on absolute "determinism" (disbelief of all other possible explanations).
The word "random" is just a magical stand-in for "we-don't-know-how-this-works" and the only reason why we BELIEVE it is anything other than "magic" is because we discount (DISbelieve) ALL other possible explanation.
Perhaps what we see as "random" events are the result of a "decision" made on/at a level that we are not even aware of yet. (see, for instance: panpsychism (or etc.))