Each paradign uses the tools with which they are accustomed to fortify their own beliefs experientially, sometimes to the detriment of others. Each paradigm - even those whose ostensibly is the absence of belief - is mutually exclusive to a degree, if taken to their natural conclusions.
We've done it since for as long as recorded history, and we'll likely do it until we are no more, unless we make a conscious effort to focus on the elements of our respective theoretical frameworks that we share in common, instead of those which currently divide us, as sadly demonstrated in this thread.
Best Salaams
Hi, OCaptain.
I agree with you that each uses the tools to fortify their own beliefs. But I disagree that these tools are different.
In fact they all amount to the same mechanism: Confirmation Bias.
If one has a preconceived notion and wishes to believe it, one will simply look for things that affirm that belief. Regardless of whether or not those things are rationally sound arguments.
It is for this reason that the scientific method was developed as a tool to counteract this bias. We know this works because of all the things we have learned using it. Things that we can independently verify and experimentally disprove.
When it comes down to the idea of god, it seems that every "hypothesis" that proposed has either been shown to
1.) Not require god or not found god (e.g., diversity of life, bugs from decaying meat, God being in the "heavens"...)
or
2.)be untestable.
In fact, the only positions I see that do not violate this confirmation bias problems are either the Deist position or the atheist position.
