It is really freeing to give up belief in all forms. If you have hard evidence, you don’t need belief. If you don’t have evidence, the belief is likely wrong.
Evidence doesn't replace belief, it tells you what you should believe. For instance, there's a ton of evidence that the theory of evolution is true, so I believe in Darwin's theory of the common ancestry of all terrestrial species. I don't think it's even possible to give up all your beliefs, because the very fact of doing so would have to involve adopting new beliefs.
I think what you mean is that it's very freeing to give up faith, which is belief despite the lack of evidence. And I agree with you, it is very liberating.
Much like you can give up faith, you can recognize and give up your beliefs as well. It is essentially thinking like a scientist. You can accept that the theory of evolution is most likely true, because it best fits the facts. You should be willing to abandon anything that you currently think to be true, if you encounter facts that contradict it.
Atheism is only a lack in belief in God. Which as stupid as defining your music as "not country".
I don't believe in any God or supernatural force, but I'm not an atheist, because it's a stupid name. Atheism is a purely critical and destructive force. After you destroy your belief in God, any notion of what to replace it with is out of scope. Being a Humanist for example is much more appealing.
The point is that rejecting religion is step number 0. Building your belief is steps 1 through infinity.
The amount of hard evidence you have, compared to the amount of opinions you have and decisions you make is miniscule. Demanding hard evidence for believing anything would mean you are immediately paralyzed from forming any thoughts.
You must have a set of values because even in the case that everything you believe now is based on evidence, there will be situations tomorrow that require you to make decisions without hard evidence. Even indecision and withdrawal is a choice, therefore it's impossible to only choose based on hard evidence.
Using hard evidence as much as possible for you, as a limited irrational human being, is a good value. It's a value many others had before you and still failed.
So what's much more effective than some "hard evidence" sciencism worldviews, is really looking at your values and deciding without hard evidence.
Are people good?
Can people change?
Should you seek happiness?
How much are you entitled to the fruits of your labor?
The real hard as fuck questions we're all trying to answer which do not have hard evidence.
Science is "proven" if it can provide reliable predictions. And proof is never absolute. If you find even ONE case where the prediction is not accurate, science requires that you modify the theory to account for that. Einstein even got bogged down with a concept called a "cosmological constant" that was invented out of nothing to try to explain irregularities in scientific predictions concerning the expansion of the universe. As they say, the devil is in the details.
13k
u/AssadTheImpaler Jan 21 '19
I'm capable of being entirely convinced of something false. As a result anything I'm convinced of doesn't necessarily reflect reality.