Thoughts on religion

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Steve81 said:

Given an absence of evidence of some type of deity (though I could go along with Spinoza’s god), and an inability to actually prove the null hypothesis, the only correct conclusion, is simply that we don’t know

There’s also an absence of evidence of an invisible dragon sleeping beneath my chair right now and an absence of evidence that pink unicorns gain the power of flight by collecting concentrated leprechaun farts. 

In this scenario, there is more than “only one correct conclusion” regarding existence or just validity, and it’s not “we simply don’t know.”

The god conjecture is no different in this regard, regardless of which god you mean among the millions we’ve invented across the millennia and which now lay dead in the graveyard of human mythology. 

Edited August 27, 2023 by iNow

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Steve81 said:

The truth is that we simply don't know.

This truth is so simple that it is trivial and irrelevant.

We don't know if neutrinos have mass. We don't know if there ever was life on Mars. Etc. End of story?

[Steve81]

51 minutes ago, Genady said:

I disagree that every null hypothesis is a belief. I think it is a wordplay.

Not every null hypothesis is a belief, but Atheism specifically is a belief that no deities exist. 
 

54 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Since this is a science site, it's my duty to point out that science doesn't deal in "proofs" and "logic". Philosophy and mathematics use formal logic and proofs.

That depends on the science. Computer science most certainly deals in logic. We wouldn’t be having this conversation without it.
 

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

This truth is so simple that it is trivial and irrelevant.

And yet, it is the only truth we have.

[Genady]

Just now, Steve81 said:

Atheism specifically is a belief that no deities exist.

Then we are back to my previous question: assuming that atheism is a belief that no deities exist, what is the correct label for taking not existence of deities as a null hypothesis rather than a belief?

[Steve81]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

We don't know if neutrinos have mass. We don't know if there ever was life on Mars. Etc. End of story?

Not at all, we simply try to gather more data to add further evidence to the theories already formed.

[Genady]

Just now, Steve81 said:

Not at all, we simply try to gather more data to add further evidence to the theories already formed.

Or to change them, right?

[Steve81]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Then we are back to my previous question: assuming that atheism is a belief that no deities exist, what is the correct label for taking not existence of deities as a null hypothesis rather than a belief?

I consider myself an agnostic, because I have neither found a religion that I agree with, nor evidence of a deity in my time on Earth, but remain open to the possibility that such a thing could theoretically exist.

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Or to change them, right?

Correct.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

I consider myself an agnostic, because I have found no religion that I agree with, nor evidence of a deity in my time on Earth, but remain open to the possibility that such a thing could theoretically exist.

Maybe I am wrong, but agnosticism sounds to me like a model with two or several alternative hypotheses, while I prefer a model with one null hypothesis and one or more alternative hypotheses. This is why I'd like to have a different label.

[Steve81]

Just now, Genady said:

Maybe I am wrong, but agnosticism sounds to me like a model with two or several alternative hypotheses, while I prefer a model with one null hypothesis and one or more alternative hypotheses. This is why I'd like to have a different label.

No worries on the label I chose; it appears we may agree on the underlying belief in any case, and that’s what matters. We can call it the Genady/Steve81 model for all I care 😆

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

No worries on the label I chose; it appears we may agree on the underlying belief in any case, and that’s what matters. We can call it the Genady/Steve81 model for all I care 😆

Yes, but as a matter of curiosity, here are three different atheisms, from Atheism - Wikipedia:

Quote

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.^[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

There are more nuances described in the article. You seem to refer to the "narrow atheism". I'd call myself tentatively, a rational atheist or simply, a non-believer.

[Steve81]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, but as a matter of curiosity, here are three different atheisms, from Atheism - Wikipedia:

There are more nuances described in the article. You seem to refer to the "narrow atheism". I'd call myself tentatively, a rational atheist or simply, a non-believer.

That seems to align well with some definitions of agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that it is unknown (or even, unknowable) whether any deities (god or gods) exist or not. 
 

Some people who call themselves "agnostic" say that it is not possible for anyone ever to know if there are any deities or not. Other agnostics, though, say only that they themselves currently do not know if there are any deities.

 

 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

That seems to align well with some definitions of agnosticism.

 

I think it is rather a different aspect of the question. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about attitude.

[Steve81]

30 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think it is rather a different aspect of the question. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about attitude.

All I know is that I don’t have the answer, and I let that guide my attitude accordingly. If a religious nut job wants to try and convert me, well….good luck 😆

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Steve81 said:

All I know is that I don’t have the answer, and I let that guide my attitude accordingly. If a religious nut job wants to try and convert me, well….good luck 😆

You might be just an atheist in disguise, like the ones described here (from the same wiki article):

Quote

Australian philosopher J.J.C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalized philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."

😄

Edited August 27, 2023 by Genady

[Steve81]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

You might be just an atheist in disguise, like ones described here (from the same wiki article):

😄

I think that about covers it! 

[iNow]

One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but not just agnostic. As Genady rightly mentioned, agnosticism is about knowledge whereas theism/atheism is about belief. 

Agnostic theist. Agnostic atheist. Agnostic by itself is an orphan misplaced.

I find that people who call themselves agnostic tend mostly to lack the courage of their convictions and rather often just fear the social consequences of openly sharing with others that they lack belief in the mass delusion about a bearded cloud surfer who cares if you masturbate or “nature as magical wizard” more broadly. 

[Steve81]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

I find that people who call themselves agnostic tend mostly to lack the courage of their convictions and rather often just fear the social consequences of openly sharing with others that they lack belief in the mass delusion about a bearded cloud surfer who cares if you masturbate or “nature as magical wizard” more broadly. 

Agnostic atheist in that case. 
 

There aren’t really any social consequences for me that I can tell. No one quizzes me on my beliefs, and I don’t quiz them.

[TheVat]

Not sure if null hypothesis applies to a metaphysical conjecture.  There is no statistical test that would affirm or reject.  We can't compare data sets for a universe that has a god and another universe that lacks a god.   

In any case, I see no epistemological position that can not be agnostic and be valid.  There is simply no means by which a human mind can obtain and crunch sufficient data to certify the existence or nonexistence of a deity.  The only mind that could make a valid claim that there is a god would be the mind of that god, since it would have the prerequisite features to discern traits like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.  

Personally I do not believe, so I would be atheist in the broad and nonprejudicial sense, IOW no burning bushes have spoken to me or filled me with some divine inspiration.  I make no conjecture, though I am sometimes intrigued by panpsychism as an alternative to theism.  

 

[Genady]

You are right, 'null' is not strictly applicable here. I use it here rather in the sense of 'default setting.'

(Re:

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Not sure if null hypothesis applies

)

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Steve81 said:

On point 1, the capacity to feel shame is built into our hardware. It’s how our society / family / close friends / church / etc. program the software that determines what will be shameful to us. 

Isn't it more likely that shame is a byproduct of our need to cooperate?

For instance, my culture sees shame much differently to that culture, because our need to cooperate, in our enviroment, is different to their's; shame is flexible and survival isn't, ergo shame is in the software and not in the hardware.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't it more likely that shame

Please don’t invite him to infect yet another thread with off-topic conjectures from that one book he read that one time from that one author about shame

[Steve81]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't it more likely that shame is a byproduct of our need to cooperate?

For instance, my culture sees shame much differently to that culture, because our need to cooperate, in our enviroment, is different to their's; shame is flexible and survival isn't, ergo shame is in the software and not in the hardware.

Shame is a byproduct of our need to cooperate. It’s also been identified as being in infants, essentially indicating it’s genetic.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Steve81

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please don’t invite him to infect yet another thread with off-topic conjectures from that one book he read that one time from that one author about shame

Sorry, I was bored. 

[Steve81]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please don’t invite him to infect yet another thread with off-topic conjectures from that one book he read that one time from that one author about shame

It’s much more than just that one book now. That book was just the starting point. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Steve81 said:

It’s much more than just that one book now. That book was just the starting point. 

Shame... 🙄