From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:27:37 MDT
> (Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@yahoo.com>):
>
> However, I'd like to point out some misperceived conclusions. For
> example, I'd agree that the odds that we live in a simulation are
> undetermined. I went on to point out that given such a situation, the
> only proper stance for a scientific individual at this point in time is
> to be agnostic, NOT atheistic. Atheism is as much a leap of faith in
> such a state of undetermined reality as religiosity. It is NO LESS a
> leap of faith as well. If the argument that we live in a simulation
> holds true, then atheism is a completely improper stance and
> religiosity should be the norm, since the existence of a simulation
> implies some meta-entity creating and/or operating the simulation.
>
> Now, I can entirely forsee that based on this logic, individuals
> determined to hold fast to their atheistic faith will try to undermine
> the simulation argument, while the religious will try to support it.
> IMHO this should and can be a real debate that the religious can take
> part in equally, and should cast aside lots of the silly aspects of
> mainstream creationism that depend on obsolete science.
This contention has two problems, as it clearly must by the fact
that I have a great admiration for the simulation argument and yet
remain an ateist. First of all, to equate religious notions of
God with notions of wholly non-supernatural beings that might be
running a simulation is to totally ignore centuries of theology.
We're bombarded again and again with hundreds of ideas about God;
the fact that /one/ of those ideas (i.e. "creator") might be true
says nothing about the rest. That's the "package deal" fallacy.
Second, the old "atheism is a faith too" canard has been debunked
so many times by those more capable than I that I hardly feel up
to the task, but I'll try, just for the record: As a rational being
I cannot totally reject any possibility for all time under all
possible circumstances. All knowledge is tentative, and must change
with new evidence. But that doesn't mean I can't base decisions on
what I consider to be my current working model of the universe, based
on the best knowledge I have so far. This working hypothesis is my
"world view", if you will. It differs from "faith" in that I
explicity understand it to be tentative even though I may bet my life
on it every day. I have no choice, after all: it is necessary to
have /some/ world view to base one's actions upon or else one is
impotent. So my current world view includes things like the laws of
physics, math, evolution, and the absence of anything resembling
historical theistic descriptions of God. But I am not "agnostic"
about God any more than I am "agnostic" about physics, just because
I can't offer complete, final, unassailable proof of either one.
Simple honesty demands that I describe what I believe in simple
terms: I believe that atoms exist, and that God doesn't. Just because
I can't prove the non-existence of God any more than I can prove
the non-existence of Santa Claus, that doesn't mean I have to hold
some wishy-washy ineffective stance that Santa Claus /might/ exist
as part of my present world view. That's just a waste of effort. I'd
rather simply conclude for now that there's no Santa Claus, and live
my life under that assumption until something foces me to reexamine
it. Calling that "agnosticism" is a cop-out. If you asked me whether,
really, deep down, as part of my present being, whether I thought
there was a Santa Claus, I wouldn't answer "maybe", I'd answer "no".
That's what I think, right now. Same for God. Today, I am an atheist.
That's not taking a leap of faith or making a dogmatic commitment;
it's simple honesty.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:41:40 MDT