RE: My view and reasons for them. Atheist and Christians welcome here. (short)
May 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
(This post was last modified: May 7, 2018 at 5:54 pm by Simon Moon.)
(May 6, 2018 at 10:37 pm)Quick Wrote: I do not mean the God of the bible. I am very very agnostic towards what the bible says as a matter of fact. I am talking about my own subjective interpretation of how some things appear to be apart of something bigger than oneself and that this could be interpreted as the will of a greater being that is intentionally ambiguous in its dichotomies because it is very hard to see it's limitations and/or tangible observability.
What makes you believe that your subjective opinion maps, in an accurate way, to reality?
Humans live our day to day lives relying almost exclusively by inference and induction. This works well because, for the most part, today is almost exactly like yesterday, and tomorrow. We are overly proud of this ability, because it works so well, until it doesn't. It doesn't tend to work, with regards to existential claims.
The core problem, is that our minds act like "hyperactive agency detectors" and "hyperactive pattern seekers". We try to find patterns, where they may not exist. And we try to find agency where it probably doesn't exist. We do this, because we evolved to survive on the African plains, not ponder the universe.
So, how do you discern the whether your position (that, 'some things appear to be apart of something bigger than oneself'), is actually true, or that is just your brain using its natural proclivity to find patterns and agency where there is none?
Wouldn't basing one's beliefs on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic be more reliable, than depending on your subjective interpretation?
Please explain how subjective interpretation is a reliable path to truth?
I mean after all, some people use their 'subjective interpretations' to come to the conclusion that: 1000's of people are possessed by demons, that all things are inhabited and animated by spirits, that crystal healing is effective, that Tarot card readings are accurate, that Jinn exist in middle eastern deserts, etc, etc, etc...
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
