2 ms·

Why would anyone choose to ingest powerful pharmaceuticals if they could experience significant improvements simply by believing that homeopathy works? Because

Why would anyone choose to ingest powerful pharmaceuticals if they could experience significant improvements simply by believing that homeopathy works? Because believing isn't a choice. Why would anyone choose to spend his life in existential crisis, when he could experience significant improvements by simply believing there is a God? Because I don't believe there is a God and I don't have a choice in that. If I had a choice, I would gladly believe there was a God: it would make my life a lot easier.

grandalf 17y ago
Your example brings up a good point. Consider the basis for which most atheists believe in any complex piece of engineering or science. At best, most people have a kindergarten level understanding of most of the natural world, and they pat themselves on the back for trusting authority figures. But all they are doing is trusting authority, not actually understanding anything. My point is that this sort of "truth" is on equal footing with religion... just because someone in a white coat tells you something doesn't mean your belief is of any better quality than if someone in a clerical robe told you to believe it. This is true for most people anyway... Please note that I am an atheist, but I try to avoid patting myself on the back for what amounts to nothing more than bowing to authority.
- Confusion 17y ago
  Well, you don't just trust the authority figures: you trust whole communities of authority figures, that consist of persons that differ in about every imaginable aspect. I do not believe something is right because a few authorities say so, but because their arguments are checked and criticised by a wide variety of scientists, including such varieties as Chinese Christian biochemists, Gay Ethiopian surgeons, White French scholars in Hindi and Argentinian female anthropologists. People of different backgrounds, with different values and ethics, that are yet all persuaded by sound evidence and reasoning. I cannot believe that is just coincidence. Edit: (And of course because the arguments seem plausible to me, with the limited understanding I have of the subject)

grandalf 17y ago

Your example brings up a good point. Consider the basis for which most atheists believe in any complex piece of engineering or science. At best, most people have a kindergarten level understanding of most of the natural world, and they pat themselves on the back for trusting authority figures. But all they are doing is trusting authority, not actually understanding anything. My point is that this sort of "truth" is on equal footing with religion... just because someone in a white coat tells you something doesn't mean your belief is of any better quality than if someone in a clerical robe told you to believe it. This is true for most people anyway... Please note that I am an atheist, but I try to avoid patting myself on the back for what amounts to nothing more than bowing to authority.

Confusion 17y ago
Well, you don't just trust the authority figures: you trust whole communities of authority figures, that consist of persons that differ in about every imaginable aspect. I do not believe something is right because a few authorities say so, but because their arguments are checked and criticised by a wide variety of scientists, including such varieties as Chinese Christian biochemists, Gay Ethiopian surgeons, White French scholars in Hindi and Argentinian female anthropologists. People of different backgrounds, with different values and ethics, that are yet all persuaded by sound evidence and reasoning. I cannot believe that is just coincidence. Edit: (And of course because the arguments seem plausible to me, with the limited understanding I have of the subject)