3 ms·

There were reasons to believe in a God some two thousand years ago. Those might have been wrong reasons, but still the belief in gods reflected people's underst

by tpeo 10y ago

There were reasons to believe in a God some two thousand years ago. Those might have been wrong reasons, but still the belief in gods reflected people's understanding of the world at the time (i.e. pretty much none at all). I personally don't see much difference in the two. Before modern astronomy, people looked at the frequency of the revolution of visible planets and thought their ratios resembled musical ratios, and that this had to be the work of someone (such was the belief of Pythagoreans, Stoics and Neoplatonists). Nowadays people look at some other physical quantity and think that this has to be the work of someone. In this sense, they're pretty similar. And if the error of those ancient philosophers lies in that supposition, I don't see how the degree of reality of our idea of who's doing it (e.g. aliens vs. a hazy concept of a "Demiurge") makes it any better.

Houshalter 10y ago
Well people believed in wrong things a thousand years ago. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying we probably shouldn't have any beliefs at all, because they might be wrong a thousand years from now? That's just silly. Clearly we know a lot more than the ancients do. E.g. the concept of a "simulation". And so we can make more accurate predictions than they would have been able to.
- tpeo 10y ago
  I wasn't really pushing a point. I was trying to add some perspective on the issue. But if I were to push one, I'd say that the question of whether or not our experience is "real" should really be considered a pseudo-problem, because it's a question that can't be really answered. I don't see an issue with believing things that might be considered incorrect in the future, but I do see an issue with asking the wrong questions over and over again. I see no particular reason why someone ought to be responsible for the patterns of experience. Thinking it so is the crucial mistake here.

by tpeo 10y ago

Houshalter 10y ago

Well people believed in wrong things a thousand years ago. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying we probably shouldn't have any beliefs at all, because they might be wrong a thousand years from now? That's just silly. Clearly we know a lot more than the ancients do. E.g. the concept of a "simulation". And so we can make more accurate predictions than they would have been able to.

tpeo 10y ago
I wasn't really pushing a point. I was trying to add some perspective on the issue. But if I were to push one, I'd say that the question of whether or not our experience is "real" should really be considered a pseudo-problem, because it's a question that can't be really answered. I don't see an issue with believing things that might be considered incorrect in the future, but I do see an issue with asking the wrong questions over and over again. I see no particular reason why someone ought to be responsible for the patterns of experience. Thinking it so is the crucial mistake here.