Thanks to those who replied.
Here's an executive summary:
1. There are objective, personal benefits associated with being a theist.
2. Certitude is poison, among both theists and atheists. Theistic certitude leads to sharia law type thinking. Atheistic certitude leads to intolerance of theists (e.g. the Soviet Union) and loss of potential personal benefits associated with theism.
3. Cosmological physics is perhaps the scientific discipline most closely related to theology. I find it most interesting that cosmological physicists accept the plausibility of concepts not only rejected but actually derided by atheists.
4. For a skeptic, the possibility for theistic belief begins with rejection of certitude and an open minded consideration of plausibility.
5. Once plausibility is accepted, the next step is self exploration. I have found -- personally -- that it's entirely possible to separate formal religious doctrine from belief in a higher level of sentience. Based on this principle, I entered into a process of self exploration which has become of great personal benefit. I don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don't even require preponderance of evidence. All I required was a real universe, physical plausibility and the personal experience of self exploration.
There is absolutely no downside in what I've done in this regard. I've benefited personally. My family has benefited. The only "victims" are the people on this blog who have chosen to follow this thread and who have "suffered" annoyance.
My conscience is entirely clear. I haven't hurt anyone. Atheism isn't an evil, but certitude is an evil. I hope to have struck a blow against certitude.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Here's an executive summary:
1. There are objective, personal benefits associated with being a theist.
2. Certitude is poison, among both theists and atheists. Theistic certitude leads to sharia law type thinking. Atheistic certitude leads to intolerance of theists (e.g. the Soviet Union) and loss of potential personal benefits associated with theism.
3. Cosmological physics is perhaps the scientific discipline most closely related to theology. I find it most interesting that cosmological physicists accept the plausibility of concepts not only rejected but actually derided by atheists.
4. For a skeptic, the possibility for theistic belief begins with rejection of certitude and an open minded consideration of plausibility.
5. Once plausibility is accepted, the next step is self exploration. I have found -- personally -- that it's entirely possible to separate formal religious doctrine from belief in a higher level of sentience. Based on this principle, I entered into a process of self exploration which has become of great personal benefit. I don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don't even require preponderance of evidence. All I required was a real universe, physical plausibility and the personal experience of self exploration.
There is absolutely no downside in what I've done in this regard. I've benefited personally. My family has benefited. The only "victims" are the people on this blog who have chosen to follow this thread and who have "suffered" annoyance.
My conscience is entirely clear. I haven't hurt anyone. Atheism isn't an evil, but certitude is an evil. I hope to have struck a blow against certitude.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
