Love that framing Tomasz
Cordially, Ameya Nagarajan (she/her) <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ameyann> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 06:17, Tomasz Rola via Silklist < [email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 10:19:58AM -0500, Bob Frankston via Silklist wrote: > [...] > > > > The word “supernatural” when defined as “(of a manifestation or > > event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or > > the laws of nature” is interesting. In mathematics there is the > > I am of habit to strongly distinguish between the two abovementioned > things. > > Two hundred years ago, radio transmission would have been beyond > scientific understanding (at the time) but not beyond laws of > nature. Thus to qualify what is supernatural - i.e., belonging to some > hypothetical plane "external to nature" - one needs to have perfect > knowledge of nature and its laws. > > We are not there yet. We barely cover some part of 5% of what the > Universe is. By current understanding, the rest is Dark Matter and > Dark Energy, about which we know close to nothing. I do not think > there was ever a laboratory experiment which inquiried any of the two > D-things, albeit of course they are probably present in every lab of > ours. > > There are, of course, plenty of people who would like to think that we > are almost there, just fill in some gaps, neutrino this, quark that. > > As of "religion for atheists", me being a simpleton, I once defined > (for my own use) religious thinking as "making claims, especially > about God, which cannot be proved in any way". Deists claim that > God(s) exist, atheists claim the other way. Of those, deists seem to > be more trustworthy because they openly say this claim belongs to the > domain of faith. Minus some philosophers who want to rationalise their > faith, sometimes going to great lengths in order to "proove" that > subject of their beliefs is inevitable consequence of logic. > > In this light, atheists who understand how irrational their position > is, are trustworthy. > > Those who claim to be rational (deists and antideists alike) are > dangerous to various degree - some are printing brochures and giving > them away on the street (Bertrand Russell wrote one, which I am yet to > read, so maybe he will convince me, who knows), and some other > "rationalists" are killing random folks. > > So, for me, there is no need for "religion for atheist" because > atheists are religious already... Now, if they want to be in the > presence of likeminded people, there is no need to make (surplus) > religion of this. > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:[email protected] ** > -- > Silklist mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
