So I was reading Principa Discordia last night...

[iheartbigbooty]

And I was thinking about religion and my personal beliefs. Last year I would say that I'm agnostic. But now I am more of an atheist. Maybe I should do some research to figure it out. But what would that really accomplish? I know what I am and what I believe, so would a name really be all that helpful

Comments

[nekochef]

you know I've heard the agnostic stance described in terms of flexibily and fence sitting. I'll also confess to having believed that at one point in time.

My position has evolved a bit to the point where I feel it is arrogant to state with any certainty and answer to the [Gg]od issue, or to claim to understand reality. It seems to me to be tied to the mapmaker paradox: a map maker often tries to make the Perfect map, but to make the Perfect map it would take as much space as the area it was trying to map. I believe it was in Count Zero where gibson described a group of people trying to view the shape of cyberspace... and to do so they had to duplicate all the information within. So it isn't that we aren't cognitivly incapable of understanding the world, rather that without being outside the world it would be impossible.

I've pondered the concept of being able to reduce reality to its consitutent "equations" in the image of chaos theory/fractals where a simple equation can expand to unlimited depth... but the counter arguement is that to be able to understand the sum of the universe with said simple equations would take expanding them/the data all the way out to the point where it would become unmanegable.

now I'm rambling :)