Yes, Wiccan teachings are indeed well intended. Treating science as a religion, even thou it is not is also good. But, there is always danger believing things for which there will never be evidence.
Your implication is that, in time, when no evidence presents itself, I will observe that people who have beliefs lacking evidence are indeed happy and healthy. Well, guess what. What I have observed is that people shift to use cognitive biases to support their beliefs in the long term. They fail to look for contraindications to their unprovable beliefs. Rather than accepting the unprovability, they fall into a cognitive dissonance sort of mindset. This is not grossly maladaptive, but it colors the aspirations for knowledge and acceptance of uncertainty in ways that are detrimental to scientific thought.
Agnosticism is reality. It can be proven that certain hypotheses in science, philosophy, and mathematics are in fact unprovable. There is no need to demand absolute certainty about metaphysical issues.
Wow, You write like the people I work for. Do you just sneeze on the keyboard and press the buttons covered with snot?
1. "Your implication is that in time, when no evidence presents itself, I will observe that people who have beliefs with no evidence are indeed happy and healthy." I won't imply it, I will state it. Yes. Are there unhappy people? Yes. The same with your views.
2. "What I have observed is that people shift to use cognitive biases to support their beliefs in the long term." Yes, like everyone with an opinion.
3. "They fail to look for contraindications to their unprovable beliefs." Not every religion has a stated set of beliefs. Also your whole post is about how religion causes suffering. But now you are dragging proof into it? Agnosticism can not by it's nature be proven. And before you say something like "But you can prove God exists." you can't prove it doesn't. And lack of proof is not proof. Also the word is contradictions. contraindications is a medical term.
4. "This is not grossly maladaptive, but it colors the aspirations for knowledge and acceptance of uncertainty in ways that are detrimental to scientific thought." I listed this because in your paragraph you say, " It can be proven the certain hypotheses in science, philosophy, and mathematics are in fact unprovable." and you are against things that are unproven. So since you seem to be confused, could you tell me, what are you against here? Religion or science, philosophy, and mathematics?
Also don't try changing you post because I've copied it.
Religion celebrates the misery of life.
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Nope, try again. There are some religions that have only good intentions. "As it shall harm none, do as thou will"
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, Wiccan teachings are indeed well intended. Treating science as a religion, even thou it is not is also good. But, there is always danger believing things for which there will never be evidence.
--
Hateful1
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your right. Like the belief that only your opinion is the correct one. There is danger in that.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Danger in the short run. When the evidence comes in, the reality check straightens you out.
--
Hateful1
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You right, in time you will realize your mistake.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your implication is that, in time, when no evidence presents itself, I will observe that people who have beliefs lacking evidence are indeed happy and healthy. Well, guess what. What I have observed is that people shift to use cognitive biases to support their beliefs in the long term. They fail to look for contraindications to their unprovable beliefs. Rather than accepting the unprovability, they fall into a cognitive dissonance sort of mindset. This is not grossly maladaptive, but it colors the aspirations for knowledge and acceptance of uncertainty in ways that are detrimental to scientific thought.
Agnosticism is reality. It can be proven that certain hypotheses in science, philosophy, and mathematics are in fact unprovable. There is no need to demand absolute certainty about metaphysical issues.
--
Hateful1
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Wow, You write like the people I work for. Do you just sneeze on the keyboard and press the buttons covered with snot?
1. "Your implication is that in time, when no evidence presents itself, I will observe that people who have beliefs with no evidence are indeed happy and healthy." I won't imply it, I will state it. Yes. Are there unhappy people? Yes. The same with your views.
2. "What I have observed is that people shift to use cognitive biases to support their beliefs in the long term." Yes, like everyone with an opinion.
3. "They fail to look for contraindications to their unprovable beliefs." Not every religion has a stated set of beliefs. Also your whole post is about how religion causes suffering. But now you are dragging proof into it? Agnosticism can not by it's nature be proven. And before you say something like "But you can prove God exists." you can't prove it doesn't. And lack of proof is not proof. Also the word is contradictions. contraindications is a medical term.
4. "This is not grossly maladaptive, but it colors the aspirations for knowledge and acceptance of uncertainty in ways that are detrimental to scientific thought." I listed this because in your paragraph you say, " It can be proven the certain hypotheses in science, philosophy, and mathematics are in fact unprovable." and you are against things that are unproven. So since you seem to be confused, could you tell me, what are you against here? Religion or science, philosophy, and mathematics?
Also don't try changing you post because I've copied it.