![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Theism and Atheism
A small thought that I had today.
When I reflect on the difference between the theist and the atheist I find the fulcrum to be occam's razor.
For the atheist the idea of a God creating the universe by an act of will is an unverifiable hypothesis, and improbable on that account. The burden of proof therefore rests with the Theist to demonstrate the existence of God.
For the theist, the order in which the universe finds itself seems the articulation of a will, and this possibility that it could have come together without some kind of guidance and first cause seems likewise altogether improbable. The burden of proof is therefore on the Atheist to demonstrate the absence of God.
And therein lies the issue - the question of God is either unprovable or indisputable depending on your hypothesis - this moves the question beyond the realm of ontology. And because of that, either position demands a certain amount of faith.
The first act of faith any human being takes makes ontology possible: it is the decision we must make early on in our lives to believe that our senses are delivering us an adequate model of the world outside our mind. Without this leap of faith, one may not interact with the world.
When I reflect on the difference between the theist and the atheist I find the fulcrum to be occam's razor.
For the atheist the idea of a God creating the universe by an act of will is an unverifiable hypothesis, and improbable on that account. The burden of proof therefore rests with the Theist to demonstrate the existence of God.
For the theist, the order in which the universe finds itself seems the articulation of a will, and this possibility that it could have come together without some kind of guidance and first cause seems likewise altogether improbable. The burden of proof is therefore on the Atheist to demonstrate the absence of God.
And therein lies the issue - the question of God is either unprovable or indisputable depending on your hypothesis - this moves the question beyond the realm of ontology. And because of that, either position demands a certain amount of faith.
The first act of faith any human being takes makes ontology possible: it is the decision we must make early on in our lives to believe that our senses are delivering us an adequate model of the world outside our mind. Without this leap of faith, one may not interact with the world.
Re: well-deduced!
It seems to me that "almost everybody believes that there must be something" adds apparent power to a sort of "generic theism" position -- but it's not particularly compelling to me, given the differences in the conception. Many cultures have said "gee, this is all pretty complex; I wonder who put it together". But that question has received so many different answers as to hardly form a consensus other than "must have been something".
To me, religion is divided between "origin stories" and "rules for living" -- the latter is important and valuable, the former is (in my view) often something of a distraction.
Religions are most powerful, it seems to me, when talking about sweeping concepts and principles. They are often most useful and beneficial in this mode as well.
But when a religion attempts to project such principles into a physical impact such as "God made the Earth six thousand years ago" then it lends itself to having testable predictions made, and conflicts with evidence arise immediately.
Gould's two domains seemed to me an attempt to preserve the good aspects of religion by keeping it out of a "bad neighborhood" -- in this case, the evidentiary nature of empirical science.
I apologize for stating things that have already been said by others, and meant no slight. My reading is much more into sciences than philosophy, so I am less familiar with the "standard arguments" made by others. Gould, above, was encountered in the science context for example.
And since I'm not motivated to attack religion per se, I don't read specifically for that purpose. Religion hatred, like religion-worship, is baggage -- unfortunate, heavy baggage -- in the creationism discussions.
===|==============/ Level Head
Re: well-deduced!
To me, religion is divided between "origin stories" and "rules for living" -- the latter is important and valuable, the former is (in my view) often something of a distraction.
An origin myth without rules for living is a fable.
Rules for living without an origin myth is good counsel.
But it takes both to comprise a religion. Here I must limit myself to Judaism because it is in Judaism that I really understand how the coupling works.
The fact that the Jew understands the God he worships to be the Creator of all is what gives the mitzvot, the rules for living, an absolute, unshakable moral authority. The timeline or mechanics of creation matters little to most of us. The important thing in Judaism is that it is through our God's role as Creator of all that we can claim for the mitzvot the moral authority that makes it possible to observe them even in the face of earthly authorities that would have us transgress them, for there can be no higher authority than the Creator of the world.
There are moral dilemmas that can thus be solved. If an earthly king tells me I must eat pork, I may do so, because it is written "choose life, that you and your offspring may live," but if an earthly king tells me I must kill so-and-so or be killed myself, I may not kill so-and-so because I cannot know "whose blood is redder."