Americans and Religion

[--Pete]

Hi,

I agree that the scenarios you describe are interesting and very fun to toss around. Regardless, all they amount to is academic mind-games.

Am I narrow-minded by basing reality on things that are proven to be real? I don't think so. Are there things in the univerise that humanity will never observe? Probably. I enjoy speculating about those things as much as you do.

I'd be happy to debate that the universe could not possibly have sprung into existance 25 seconds ago, if you like. And perhaps introduce you to the grand concept of falsifiability. :)

Actually, a number of fundamental questions are not falsifiable. Among these are the existence of an exterior universe. Solipsism is a viable (but boring) world view. The fundamental assumptions that each of us use are not based on logic or truth, they are based on emotion and perception. While we can give arguments why our individual world view is more tenable than someone else's, these arguments are a priory. Where logic comes in is to determine the consequences of our assumptions. If these consequences are grotesque, then the assumptions are probably poor (I include in this category things like 'fossilized light'). If the consequences include contradictions, then the assumptions are very likely wrong. However, there is nothing per se that excludes a universe containing paradoxes.

The primary reason to prefer the scientific explanations to the theological ones when discussing the universe is that science seems to work. Cars run, bridges stand, cakes bake. Religious predictions, on the other hand, are right no more than random statistics would predict they are right. It is not so much that one world view is more correct as that it is more useful.

But, ultimately, if we exist at all (also not provable except for oneself), what we believe is all assumption.

--Pete