ext_254425 ([identity profile] bernmarx.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] sarahmichigan 2007-03-01 05:46 pm (UTC)

To me, an idea is "valid" or not based on one and only one criterion: how closely it reflects the actual state of the world.

I think this represents an important point of philosophical divergence between atheists and agnostics (and this is an oversimplification): An atheist is seeking to determine all aspects about the universe, even the parts that do not affect his existence, while an agnostic is primarily seeking to determine the aspects that affect him (directly or indirectly). For me, a lot of the stuff about the Big Bang is, "That's neat, but so?" -- unless it can be tied to how I live, how I interact with others, how others interact with me, etc., it's just interesting tidbits (and yes, I know there are ways that the Big Bang affects such things, but much of it doesn't).

I feel that what people believe, spiritually, is only relevant to me if it affects how they interact with me, and especially in a negative way. There are others (theists and atheists alike) who seem to think that merely believing something incorrect is dangerous in and of itself, and I disagree with that. If someone wants to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, and as a result of that belief the person treats me with compassion and respect, groovy... if as a result of that belief the person mocks me and snubs me for not believing it as well, not groovy.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting