Possibilianism

[Perknose]

Still in the thrall of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or militantly exclusionary atheism?

Why, exactly?

It's high time you started questioning your idiot certainty!

What is possibilianism?

Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground. The term was first defined by neuroscientist David Eagleman in relation to his book of fiction Sum. Asked whether he was an atheist or a religious person on a National Public Radio interview in February, 2009, he replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now." In a subsequent interview with the New York Times, Eagleman expanded on the definition:

"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."​

An adherent of possibilianism is called a possibilian. The possibilian perspective is distinguished from agnosticism in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others. Possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity, testing, and tolerance for multiple ideas.

THIS is what I've always thought and sometimes tried to say in all the many chest-thumping threads full of atheist certainty.

Outside of the small circumscribed circle of scientific certainty, YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT AND SQUAT IS WHAT YOU CAN PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, so a priori closing your mind to ANY of the myriad possibilities and simply continuing to be a smug supporter of only one is arrogant, closed-minded and well, stupid.

It is unscientific! :ninja:

So stop acting like a super certain 17 year old, even if you are.

http://www.possibilian.com/

 

[slayer202]

so agnostic?

meh, this is retarded imo

 

[Malak]

Is this a trident callout?

 

[Perknose]

so agnostic?

meh, this is retarded imo

You obviously didn't read it, and if you attempted to, you obviously didn't understand it.

You are just the first. I am confident that many shallow OT twerps will have the self-same response as you did. It's a given.

Just watch, though, as the more intelligent and thoughtful ones respond.

Just how truly stupid you are will be revealed by whether you will be subsequently able to change your mind.

Time will tell.

 

[Perknose]

Is this a trident callout?

I don't take you for stupid. Read it. Click on the link and listen to him speak. This is a world renowned neuroscientist speaking, and despite your hasty dismissal, what he is saying makes absolute scientific sense.

 

[Malak]

I don't take you for stupid. Read it. Click on the link and listen to him speak. This is a world renowned neuroscientist speaking, and despite your hasty dismissal, what he is saying makes absolute scientific sense.

I did read it and appreciate the idea. I agree.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't take you for stupid. Read it. Click on the link and listen to him speak. This is a world renowned neuroscientist speaking, and despite your hasty dismissal, what he is saying makes absolute scientific sense.

(I actually did read it, I just love that gif )

 

[ahenkel]

Reminds a lot of apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism . Although in this case the apathy is replaced by an I don't know so I'll consider it all possibly valid.

 

[slayer202]

I typed up a short response, but forget it. this is too stupid to bother with*


this may not be my real response. your brain may be projecting what you believe my response might be. or you may be dead and your brain is connected to a machine, inventing a reality sort of like the matrix. and this page note is a second level of your conscience, like the dream levels in the matrix. its all possiblianism

 

[Drako]

Rationalization of faith can be difficult.

 

[dank69]

Am I allowed to dismiss a religion if I think there is no possibility of it being true? Or do I have to accept that it's possible that Osama may really be nailing 72 beautiful virgin girls right now?

 

[Perknose]

Am I allowed to dismiss a religion if I think there is no possibility of it being true?

You're allowed to be as closed-minded as you wish, but it is not scientific to completely and smugly dismiss any possibility you do not possess the data to to completely exclude.

You can rank possibilities according to probability, of course, but being completely closed-minded without proof is to be just as silly and superstitious as any religious fool, yo.

Perhaps with an additional decade of maturity and life experience you'll outgrow your factually unsupported idiot certainty, or you could read up and maybe accelerate the process.

It's really up to you.

 

[Jeff7]

You're allowed to be as closed-minded as you wish, but it is not scientific to completely and smugly dismiss any possibility you do not possess the data to to completely exclude.

You can rank possibilities according to probability, of course, but being completely closed-minded without proof is to be just as silly and superstitious as any religious fool, yo.

Perhaps with an additional decade of maturity and life experience you'll outgrow your factually unsupported idiot certainty, or you could read up and maybe accelerate the process.

It's really up to you.

I guess that's where it lies for me. Yes, I suppose that darn near anything is possible. It's possible that a whole new Oldsmoboat will spontaneously coalesce out of the vacuum, and find himself trapped in my basement. It's possible that all of the protons in Earth will suddenly undergo radioactive decay at the same time, destroying the entire planet. It's possible that the LHC will create something that will destroy the solar system.
It's not bloody likely though, so much so that it's not really considered to be within the realm of any practical possibility.

So I can feel pretty confident in assigning an equal amount of this practical possibility to the validity of any of humanity's religions and myths. Does the motion of the Sun across the sky result from our relative viewpoint from a rotating Earth, or did the ancient Nordic tribes have it right all along, and the Sun was pulled along the sky by a horse with a chariot?
Thus far, this giant horse and chariot elude detection. Can they be ruled out absolutely 100%? I guess not.
Within the realm of practical possibility? No.

 

[Perknose]

Rationalization of faith can be difficult.

Indeed. Possibilianism is anything but that, though . . . which you would know if you read the OP and/or were just slightly smarter.

 

[dank69]

While I agree it is best to keep an open mind at all times, I think it is foolish to believe you need hard facts to dismiss unreasonable theories.

 

[slayer202]

You're allowed to be as closed-minded as you wish, but it is not scientific to completely and smugly dismiss any possibility you do not possess the data to to completely exclude.

You can rank possibilities according to probability, of course, but being completely closed-minded without proof is to be just as silly and superstitious as any religious fool, yo.

Perhaps with an additional decade of maturity and life experience you'll outgrow your factually unsupported idiot certainty, or you could read up and maybe accelerate the process.

It's really up to you.

atheism doesn't deny any of this stuff...

 

[Idontcare]

While I agree it is best to keep an open mind at all times, I think it is foolish to believe you need hard facts to dismiss unreasonable theories.

Alternatively one could entertain the question of why one seeks to dismiss anything in the first place.

I'm not looking to dismiss theories, am still plenty entertained by the pursuit of learning about new ones that I've never heard before.

The downselection process, wherein I begin culling and dismissing theories, is phase two and its scheduled to be my top priority once I'm dead

I'm immensly confident the answer will have then become self-evident post-haste!

atheism doesn't deny any of this stuff...

Doesn't it though?

a·the·ism
   /ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh

m] Show IPA
–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

 

[destrekor]

I guess, in the end, I share this "possibilianism."
I'm fairly vocal about my viewpoints on religion and why I'm view myself as an atheist.
However, I've also been fairly vocal about my beliefs that there's a realistic chance that some ancient cultures had gods of lore based on real visitors who interacted with them in some way. Or that we may even have been some kind of experiment.

But one thing that hasn't changed: my beliefs of possible gods stops at the notion of deified mortals. I don't find anything that suggests the creation of the natural laws of the universe and the universe itself is a result of a deity - be they a real god or yet another deified mortal with advanced knowledge and technology. They could have even seeded our Earth with the necessary chemical building blocks for life. And may have even participated in hunts to help make sure we had our opportunity to shine. Who knows.

However, I also don't quite expect that to be true. I entertain that idea, because it's entertaining and humbling to think about alien visitors where some were benevolent and some were malevolent in some fashion - sharing with us what they know, or enslaving us and generally amusing themselves through their interaction with us.
That, and it would really change our perspective on everything if we discovered any of this to be true. Until we find evidence of aliens, we're completely fucked and will never escape this rock. And that's probably why I do hope there is already evidence somewhere on Earth, and it's either remained hidden until now, or has been completely misinterpreted.
I mean, Easter Island anyone? Those damn stone heads are just too damned cool, and they look like they could have been friendly aliens - it was our way of paying thanks by making statues of them to stand there for eternity. :biggrin:

But other than hopeful delusions, in all likelihood, basic probabilities based on evidence, imho, suggests we are without gods. Awesome alien visitors, maybe... and we're definitely not alone, not based on probability at least - though whether any of we inhabitants of the cosmos actually have the ability to reach out to each other, across possibly billions of light years... that remains to be seen.

 

[slayer202]

*WOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
Your memory chip has just been loaded with a program simulating your entire life. Until this moment, you were an empty computer. All your memories are fabricated. Enjoy the rest of your "life"

 

[Malak]

atheism doesn't deny any of this stuff...

Atheism declares the existence of a god or gods to be impossible.

One of the most outspoken atheist and scientist, Dawkins, said a supernatural creator is possible. He leans more towards science that religious belief obviously.

 

[Perknose]

atheism doesn't deny any of this stuff...

Again, I really wish you'd read the OP. The neuroscientist David Eagleman begins his defintion of possibilianism with the FACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE statement that:

Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism,

And continues:

and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

It was all right there in the OP, as was this:

The possibilian perspective is distinguished from agnosticism in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others.

Possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity, testing, and tolerance for multiple ideas.

If your repeated inability to absorb what he's saying (don't worry, you have plenty of OT company) is possibly because of some emotional commitment to atheism, then put that aside for the moment and re-read exactly what he has to say.

 

[slayer202]

Atheism declares the existence of a god or gods to be impossible.

One of the most outspoken atheist and scientist, Dawkins, said a supernatural creator is possible. He leans more towards science that religious belief obviously.

sigh....no

 

[Locut0s]

I agree that this is the logical stance. However for whatever reason I remain a staunch atheist. Call me stupid if you will I just can't give any credence to religion. Another thing is I don't really think it's all that scientific to say religion is "possible" because the way most religions are defined they are immune to scientific scrutiny. Most religions are believed by their followers almost BECAUSE there is a lack of evidence for their existence. This is way "faith" is so important in religions, you must believe DESPITE a lack of evidence.

Besides all of this the reason I am an atheist is because to me personally I find it to be, sorry if I dip into religious territory here, a beautiful and concise world view. Seriously, I don't really want to live in any of the worlds any of the major religions posit. They are bland, and lack the natural awe present in a nonreligious world view.

 

[Malak]

But other than hopeful delusions, in all likelihood, basic probabilities based on evidence, imho, suggests we are without gods. Awesome alien visitors, maybe... and we're definitely not alone, not based on probability at least - though whether any of we inhabitants of the cosmos actually have the ability to reach out to each other, across possibly billions of light years... that remains to be seen.

Wouldn't angels technically be aliens?

 

[slayer202]

Again, I really wish you'd read the OP. The neuroscientist David Eagleman begins his defintion of possibilianism with the FACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE statement that:

And continues:

It was all right there in the OP, as was this:

If your repeated inability to absorb what he's saying (don't worry, you have plenty of OT company) is possibly because of some emotional commitment to atheism, then put that aside for the moment and re-read exactly what he has to say.

you must fucking LOVE solipism

I'm not sure what the appeal of this dude's bullshit is. atheism is a disbelief in god. It doesn't speculate and say there is 100% no chance there is any type of supernatural "thing" out there. We don't have any evidence for it, so there is nothing to believe in. Here is an important part...If someday we do discover something supernatural, we are free to accept it, however, it will cease to be supernatural.

What do you believe is out there? Obviously we know relatively nothing. But there is no god as we currently define one, or creator for that matter. That is all atheism denies. I think you're grasping at straws, and I'm not sure why