From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sat Jun 07 2003 - 04:50:31 MDT
Steve Nichols writes:
From: "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@optusnet.com.au>
> > Subject: Atheism as a spandrel? (was Re: Deep River/Deep Sleep etc)
> >
>
> > I'm an atheist, but the psychology of believing is easier
> > for me to explain than the psychology of disbelieving. I can
> > see how believing and hoping for some sort of personal
> > survival and continuance however irrationally, could be an
> > evolutionary advantage enabling one to pass on one's genes,
> > yet disbelieving in all forms of personal continuation seems
> > to be self defeating mechanism more likely to instil
> > depression and hopelessness.
> >
> > Historically if there has been a personal upside to atheism
> > for the atheist I can't see it. It seems to me that not
> > believing in things without evidence would normally be a
> > benefit to the individual. But not believing in that which
> > gives one's contemporaries hope
> > would be a detriment.
> >
>
> MAYBE JUST THE TRUTH IS SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF?
I don't think so. "The truth" doesn't come at us or yield itself in
one big chunk.
I think the individual's pursuit of "truth" amounts to a utilitarian
pursuit. Without a subjective basis and bias towards seeing the
world in an ordered and consistent way I doubt sentient beings
would bother too much with just any particular objective
factoid or even with grand unified theories.
I think even the interest in objective facts like 1 + 1 = 2 is a
subjective one.
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 05:06:30 MDT