At the beginning of this young community, I thought it might be helpful to make a clear distinction between the definitions as they differ greatly in their explainability. Contrary to some opinions that can be heared, the statements a) there are one/more divine beings and b) no divine beings exist are logically equivalent.
I see. I only asked because you have to have some idea when you oppose something. From your answer I conclude that this is everything that is not clearly proven by science. Do I see that correctly?
I do not oppose it, I reject it.
I do not have ideas about Gods either, religious people do.
And no I do not need science to believe in gravity, but I don’t believe stones have a desire to seek towards the ground, as the ancient Greeks did.
I just don’t think there is any reason to believe old superstitions that are self evidently riddled with factual mistakes, and don’t explain anything.
My belief is not a claim but rather an interpretation of the sciences and their findings. Just like the quantum interpretations. As you said too you don’t THINK that there is any reason for the existence of any deity but can you really be sure? Isn’t that just another valid interpretation?
We can’t prove some kind of god doesn’t exist, because you can’t prove a negative. But we can be sure that it was not a god that created the earth the way it is described in the Bible.
We can definitely both agree on that ;) Fun fact: Even the catholic church rejects the idea of strong creationism: catechism of the catholic church
Sorry for this double response.
But this might have been a better response than the previous one.
There is good rule IMO, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You are correct that I value scientific evidence very high. I also value strong logic highly.
So we can have philosophical truths, that aren’t exactly scientific. But are arrived at through rigorous use of logic. There is no rigorous logic supported by evidence AFAIK that supports any religion.
Here we have to be careful what we call divine or even a divine being. Many religions have the image of the personified god(s), but I am more inclined towards more open interpretations like panentheism. I am also convinced that faith or the philosophy of faith can be against the rules of science. Rather, I believe that they complement each other wonderfully. I see myself more as an admirer of a whole that is more than its individual parts. For me, divine power can be described as the emergence of the totality of all real things. I am therefore of the opinion that “God” is in everything and even more.
As an agnostic theist, I admit that this belief cannot really be proven and probably never will be. For me, however, this is not so much a contradiction as a confirmation, since I perceive the divine as something superior to our imagination. Like infinity, which we can name and reckon with but never really understand.
Whether I say that quantum decay really exists or that it is an illusion is, in my opinion, similar to the question of the divine. Can we prove that it really exists? Can you prove that it is impossible?
I also tend towards realism and think that there is a reality independent of our consciousness, our knowledge and our evidence. A reality that we discover with science and do not create.
I suppose for you that belief creates some sort of pattern that makes sense to you. But I’d argue you can make that without needing a god.
If the god intersects everything, it’s kind of strange we can’t detect god in any way even indirectly.
That sounds a bit like the way Asimov described Gaia in Foundation and Earth. I read that in the late 80’s, so not a new concept to me. I found it intriguing at the time, because I was a lot more “spiritual” back then. Since I have investigated many such questions thoroughly, and always end up empty.
I wanted to believe there was “something more”, but my conclusion is that there probably is not.
Good. Keep your feet somewhat on the ground. ;)
We do. You just interpret and name it differently just like science does when it cant explain something. I am extremely intrigued by the quantum information interpretation. This site I linked is a true treasure trove. My whole way of thinking and my view of the world was strongly influenced by this interpretation.
That link is very interesting, and it seems to align quite well with some of my own ideas.
The foundation of an idea, is significant IMO. Especially when talking about religion.
A foundation of rigorous testing and evidence, is a good strong foundation. The foundation of someone unknown claiming something without evidence, is an extremely poor foundation.
Religion always tend towards the latter rather than the former.
You are absolutely right. But religion and faith are not the same. Faith is a personal view of the world. Religion, on the other hand, is more of a social construct, an association of people who share similar views. That is why they are also susceptible to problems that every social community has (corruption, power hierarchies, abuse of this power, …).
I agree on religion.
But similarly faith or belief, can be founded on baseless speculation or rigorous examination.
I hope you agree, that beliefs based on evidence and logic have higher value than beliefs that have none.
Of course, evidence-based beliefs are always preferable. But that depends on how detailed the foundations of your beliefs are. Religions tend to explain abstract things very simply and in a way that is easy for everyone to understand. They just give a different interpretation of the phenomena surrounding them, as we have done here. It really depends on how much information and how detailed your scientific basis is, because the simpler explanations often deviate greatly from reality.
In conclusion, however, I would say that what is really important is that every faith, be it atheistic, agnostic or theistic, leads to a good life for oneself and one’s fellow human beings.
Regarding the Quantum information interpretation he states:
"Even the smallest living things develop behaviors, sensing information about and reacting to their environment, "
This is absolutely true, even the most primitive living organisms have intelligence and a limited consciousness of their surroundings to interact with it.
But it goes further than that, because the same is true for atoms. The reason we can have intelligence in life, is that there is intelligence in Atoms. Atoms connect to molecules, based on which atoms they “prefer” to connect to, based on which connections create the more sustainable molecule.
I don’t think this is a very well known understanding, although it is IMO obviously true.
Nice take. The question really is: Where does it all end? And what does this say about “intelligence”? What is the fundamental concept of intelligence applying at the smallest scale of our universe? Could it be the drive to create information structures and order against entropy?
Yes we don’t know where it ends. But we do know that Atoms, electrons, neutron and protons, all have some pretty sophisticated behaviors. This continues into the quantum realm, where it seems even more complex. But I’m not well enough versed in quantum mechanics, to actually understand it at that level. And we can’t say for sure that quantum level is the final smallest level, it’s just the smallest we can detect.
Exactly. I can imagine that there is a fundamental mechanism that works in contrary to the second law of thermodynamics using the expanding space of the universe to create information structures.