Slashdot Mirror

I pretty much agree, On the other hand, working though the whole thing rationally gives me a headache. I've always would this little game quite entertaining. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

You may want to take this test to see if your beliefs about personal identity are consistent. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm

But cold logic is what differentiates good decisions from bad decisions.

However, as a devout agnostic I would like to point out a fallacy that atheists often fall victim to: how do you know that "god/es/s" are simply "magic"?

Short answer: You don't.

Long answer:

I used to ask the same question, but then I visited Battleground God, which claimed I was being inconsistent. The site isn't perfect (some of the questions are too polarized), but it's worth looking at.

I am an atheist and an agnostic, but my views aren't really in line with people who traditionally call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic". The problem for me is that these people define "belief" as an all-or-nothing constant; Either you believe in God, or you don't, or you take absolutely no position. That's a fallacy.

If you asked me the time, and I told you it is 8:48 PM, would you believe me? Under normal circumstances, you probably would. However, if you were Phileas Fogg, and you were on the 80th day of your trip around the world, you would be wise to be a little more skeptical. Your apparent belief in my accuracy depends upon the situation.

I don't know, with complete certainty, that the supernatural does not exist---that's what makes me "agnostic"---but I also don't know, with complete certainty, that anybody except me exists. Maybe I'm just a brain in a vat; Maybe the universe came into existence five seconds ago; Maybe I'm a brain-in-a-vat that came into existence five seconds ago. Who knows?

And who cares? There is a reason why scientists demand that hypotheses be testable. What good is a theory that, for example, incorporates 300 different completely undetectable particles? If the particles have no measurable effect, then a theory that discards them is just as useful and probably easier to work with than a theory that posits their existence. Today, structural engineers continue to apply Newtons laws of motion---even though it is well understood that Newton's laws are "wrong"---because they are good enough for structural engineering.

Ultimately, everyone has to make decisions in spite of their limited knowledge. Some people base (or purport to base) their decisions on unconditionally-held religious beliefs. I do not; Instead, I use what can loosely be described as statistics: Every proposition has a certain probability of being true, and for each decision I make, I try to compare my confidence in the applicable propositions with the confidence level that is necessary to sufficiently mitigate the expected cost of one or more errors. To put it another way, I make decisions not as though I "believe" anything, but as though I am sufficiently convinced of various things. What constitutes "sufficiently convinced" depends upon the situation.

As is typical of someone who is agnostic, my view is that claims of the supernatural are highly speculative. I think they are so speculative that I currently can't imagine a situation where I would ever make a decision presuming the existence of the supernatural. That is, for every decision I will ever make, none will be based upon the notion that a supernatural entity exists. Thus, in addition to being agnostic, I am also atheist, albeit tentatively, for all practical purposes.

<rant>On a related point, even if I'm wrong and there really are supernatural entities, they simply aren't as reliable as other factors that can be used as the basis of a decision-making process. Look at the failure of so-called "abstinence-based sex education" programs. Most of us know that abstinence is in the best interests of adolescents, but why aren't they getting the message? In my view, these programs tend to fail because they're centred around the notion that abstinence should be practiced for religious reason

As someone else pointed out, if you know you could prove it yourself but have not, it's really a type of faith.

I'd distinguish it this way.

Axioms: a fact simply because we say it's so. (i.e. set theory)

Proven Fact: what you know that you have proven to yourself

Accepted Fact: what you've been taught (i.e. most of what you've learnt in school that you didn't derive yourself, i.e. most people haven't derived the real numbers from set theory)

Belief: what you have a high degree of confidence that you could prove or you have a high degree of confidence will happen based on experience (e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow, even if it's surrounded by clouds or covered by an eclipse)

Provable Faith: You don't know that something is true, but you know a mechanism where it can be proved. For now, you've adopted a belief in the most likely outcome. (E.g. is there intelligent life in outer space, because there sure isn't on earth;-])

Unprovable Faith: You don't know that something is true, but because of this lovely thing called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel%27s_Incomplete ness_Theorem) there's no way of knowing what the real answer is, but for one reason or another you have to believe *something* in order to survive, so you've made a decision to believe something anyway. Questions of existence fall squarely in this area. (For fun, try out this game: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm )

Relating to the first point, that depends on what identity means to you. Believe it or not, there are at least 3 theories of identity and in two of those theories, who you are you, even if your personality and memories are different. Have a look at this short quiz for more info: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm . It actually covers a case that's very similar to the one provided.

Okay, I took the quiz. Several times, I wanted to see what all the answers are... and in two out of three, I'd say letting go is the better option..

1.)Psychological reductionism. - Suffering the kind of damage Mrs. Schiavo did, it's already all gone. Too late to save the self now.

2.)Existence of a soul - Either it goes when the brain goes, or it hangs around trapped for a few decades. Either way....

3.)Bodily continuity - I guess I would call this one genetic continuity.

For the first case, you're already gone - survival of the body, with its new personality, would seem like kind of a moot point. The second case generally supposes some kind of afterlife - not any specific one, but generally religions with souls are religions with afterlives. The third case... I admit, that one I don't get.

Relating to the first point, that depends on what identity means to you. Believe it or not, there are at least 3 theories of identity and in two of those theories, who you are you, even if your personality and memories are different. Have a look at this short quiz for more info: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm . It actually covers a case that's very similar to the one provided.

Relating to the second point, it depends again. If the part of the brain related to motor skills and other basic body functions is damaged, then after repair (or after a transplant), the appropriate memories can be transplanted (similar to you can re-install your OS without affecting your data files in Linux). In this case, you'd be as good as new after everything has been fixed.

But even in the worst case where you'd have to start again as a child and there was no way of transplanting other memories, some people *would* choose this option if they don't believe in an after life. This decision is very much up to the person involved, which is why a living will (either written down or by word of mouth) is very important. The last thing you want to do is to give your relatives the burden of deciding. If they guess *wrong*, both of you have to live (or die) with the consequences.

Here's the start page:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm