tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post4839111530723751992..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: ExclusivityAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-74375366389382290082010-01-16T09:25:20.343-05:002010-01-16T09:25:20.343-05:00If I assert the existence of a deity (any deity), ...If I assert the existence of a deity (any deity), it has the same level of provability as the non-existence of that deity.<br /><br />At least, I cannot, in my own mind, find one side of the argument to be more provable than the other.<br /><br />Thus, atheism should have the same basis in unprovable faith as polytheism, pantheism, or monotheism.karrdehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00205160745963596856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-57519284005535978062010-01-13T22:06:01.006-05:002010-01-13T22:06:01.006-05:00I think those who assent to no especial religious ...I think those who assent to no especial religious belief do indeed try to streamline as much faith out of their opinions as they can - some quite actively. I think there's a practical weakness in that argument, though perhaps not an absolute one. Ninety, ninety-five, ninety-nine per cent of what we believe about everything is taken largely on faith. That does not exclude reasoning and proof to try and narrow the field to the most likely truths, and some people certainly subject some core opinions to more rigorous scrutiny. But ultimately the simple need for efficiency to get through the day at all requires an overwhelming number of mental shortcuts. Most of what we believe is unproven, and that's a good thing. Otherwise no one would get anything done.<br /><br />Once this is noted, it becomes clear that we can not <i>absolutely</i> remove some element of faith from belief. I don't disbelieve you that you are attempting to reduce that to a minimum, and that each squiggle of identified faith in your beliefs you would honestly hold in suspension, once recognised. But there's a limit we can't get below, where we have to start choosing among the most likely answers, such as choosing to accept that other minds exist.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40739697459609790922010-01-13T17:57:38.753-05:002010-01-13T17:57:38.753-05:00You make some good points, but I have to take issu...You make some good points, but I have to take issue with two things. One is your use of the word "faith." By definition "faith" implies a lack of proof. Thus, if someone believes only in what can be proven to them, their belief system cannot properly be called a faith. Neither, by my definition at least, can it be called a religion. I think religion necessarily includes faith, or it ain't religion.<br /><br />The second point is where you assert that having "soft edges" is in in itself a belief that others should have soft edges. I think here you're not wrong, but overstating your case. To use the first analogy that came to mind, it's like saying that by eating kimchi I am stating that every should eat kimchi and that the world would be a better place if everyone did. Besides the attraction of some to certain niche beliefs whose attractiveness lies in their obscurity, there some beliefs that some hold simply because holding them works best for them. For example, I avoid sushi because I don't like it. This in no way implies that I believe anyone else should avoid the foul stuff.<br /><br />For a more relevant analogy, I hold no religious beliefs (again, defining religion as a set of beliefs that includes faith, which again implies a lack of proof), and do not proselytize against religion ("soft edges"), yet I happen to believe that those who do have a religion _should_ try to spread it through persuasion.Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082374076978989199noreply@blogger.com