[ExI] A science-religious experience

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 20/02/2025 20:10, Jason Resch wrote:
> Surely you hold some beliefs, including those that you can't justify 
> with science or reason.
>
> 1. ... an external reality beyond your consciousness (non solipsism)
> 2. ...  you will experience future events in your life (rather than 
> "you" being confined to this singular moment in time)
> 3. ... physical laws that have held will continue to hold (a belief in 
> empiricism)*
> 4. ... other people experience things and are neither automatons (sic) 
> nor figments of your imagination.
> 5. ... the universe is old (rather than being created in its current 
> state in the last few minutes)
>
> You choose to not call these religious beliefs, but they are 
> nonetheless beliefs you accept as true and operate according to the 
> assumption of their truth. An assumption not justified by science.


None of these are beliefs, and all are justifiable. They are null 
hypotheses, or working assumptions, that are backed up by experience. As 
long as no contrary evidence is presented, we keep assuming they are 
true, because they are useful. This is the very essence of science.

The word 'belief' can be confusing, and I prefer to avoid using it (when 
I can remember to).

If you define beliefs as 'working hypotheses', then ok, these can be 
called beliefs, but when someone says they have no beliefs, I think we 
can assume they mean 'big B' Beliefs, that often, but not exclusively, 
relate to religion. In other words, dogmatic assertions that are not 
tested against evidence (or 'Believing in' something). It's the 
difference between "I believe it's going to rain soon" (a testable 
hypothesis) and "I Believe in the holy trinity" (untestable gibberish 
that nevertheless has some emotional significance to the speaker).

I will sometimes say "I believe so" in response to a question, but it 
just means "I think so", not "I fervently cling to this opinion, despite 
any evidence to the contrary".

I think it's important to distinguish between an opinion that you're 
willing to change when evidence or logic shows that it's false, and one 
that nothing will persuade you to change. I think that, for most people, 
the five points above all fall into the former category.


*Empiricism has nothing to do with constancy of physical laws, it's just 
a view that knowledge comes from experience.

-- 
Ben