Some people choose to strictly and fully synchronize their #2 to #1. They believe that #1 is "all there is". This leads to the natural conclusion that #3 is equal to #1. This is a choice, and it does have a massive advantage: it automatically allows them to share a personal reality (#2) with all others who have done the same, and allows them to function without ever conflicting with the wide breadth of understanding and utility offered by #1.
However, i repeat: this is a choice... or dare i take it a step further, and say that it is an act of faith. Now, this isn't the kind of faith the carries the connotations of God or religion or FSM silliness with it -- i don't mean to suggest that. But, in the strict sense, it is faith: it is the arbitrary selection of a set of ultimately improvable assumptions to establish a personal reality (#2).
By contrast of example, there are others that select a #2 that totally conflicts with #1. These are people who believe that #3 includes things that directly contradict science, and they live with the consequences of that. Some do so peacefully (no harm, no foul, i guess) while others zealously try to convince others to join them (annoying, sometimes harmful) or perhaps even persecute those who disagree with them (harmful and intolerant).
Then, there are many (i think) who have a #2 that is not the same as #1, but also does not conflict with its conclusions. This is something i personally endeavor to do. I believe in the discipline of science/reason, its uses, its very wide context, and its excellent utility as a common ground for working with others (it's probably the best and only real option for that, as universal "common grounds" go). But i do not believe that the #1 is all there is to #3; i try to maintain a #2 that is a superset of #1, believing it to be part of #3, but not that it tells the whole story about #3.
OK, sorry i digressed a little there in the hopes it might help clarify my thoughts.
My point, though, was to suggest that using "burden of proof" or "Ockham's Razor" or similar idea as a basis for "hard atheism" (the belief that there is no God and/or supernatural phenomena) is a judgement call. To say that it is somehow "closer to reality" because of this basis is to propose that true reality (#3) is equal to #1, which is to assert that one has synched their understanding of it (#2) to #1, which is to operate from a standpoint that is already based on an act of faith. That's what i mean to say when i ask if it is a kind of circular argument.
Is that clearer as to what i mean?
Also, i want to close by re-addressing that i'm not meaning to imply any superiority or inferiority of one faith over another here. I truly do respect the belief that there is no God -- the synching of #1 and #2. I seek only to validate my claim that that belief is a belief which, in a neutral philosophical context, is no more or less apt at reflecting true reality (#3) than any other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(cont'd...)
Date: 2007-03-01 08:45 pm (UTC)However, i repeat: this is a choice... or dare i take it a step further, and say that it is an act of faith. Now, this isn't the kind of faith the carries the connotations of God or religion or FSM silliness with it -- i don't mean to suggest that. But, in the strict sense, it is faith: it is the arbitrary selection of a set of ultimately improvable assumptions to establish a personal reality (#2).
By contrast of example, there are others that select a #2 that totally conflicts with #1. These are people who believe that #3 includes things that directly contradict science, and they live with the consequences of that. Some do so peacefully (no harm, no foul, i guess) while others zealously try to convince others to join them (annoying, sometimes harmful) or perhaps even persecute those who disagree with them (harmful and intolerant).
Then, there are many (i think) who have a #2 that is not the same as #1, but also does not conflict with its conclusions. This is something i personally endeavor to do. I believe in the discipline of science/reason, its uses, its very wide context, and its excellent utility as a common ground for working with others (it's probably the best and only real option for that, as universal "common grounds" go). But i do not believe that the #1 is all there is to #3; i try to maintain a #2 that is a superset of #1, believing it to be part of #3, but not that it tells the whole story about #3.
OK, sorry i digressed a little there in the hopes it might help clarify my thoughts.
My point, though, was to suggest that using "burden of proof" or "Ockham's Razor" or similar idea as a basis for "hard atheism" (the belief that there is no God and/or supernatural phenomena) is a judgement call. To say that it is somehow "closer to reality" because of this basis is to propose that true reality (#3) is equal to #1, which is to assert that one has synched their understanding of it (#2) to #1, which is to operate from a standpoint that is already based on an act of faith. That's what i mean to say when i ask if it is a kind of circular argument.
Is that clearer as to what i mean?
Also, i want to close by re-addressing that i'm not meaning to imply any superiority or inferiority of one faith over another here. I truly do respect the belief that there is no God -- the synching of #1 and #2. I seek only to validate my claim that that belief is a belief which, in a neutral philosophical context, is no more or less apt at reflecting true reality (#3) than any other.
Thanks again to all for this discussion!