...the believed certainty of uncertainty is in itself a contradiction in terms...whether believing is what specifically defines a Religion I personally have my doubts, since it is not a particular trait of Religions alone to believe in something we can´t be certain of...
This is lack of belief not belief i.e. the complete absence of belief.
Quote:This is lack of belief not belief i.e. the complete absence of belief.
You cannot establish the lack of belief without implicitly accepting there is something you must believe in...not believing requires a contrast between falsehood and truth, without which, not believing is in itself vacuous of any purpose...
This is the fuzziest of topics but here goes: let's have fun.
"Species DNA" does not propel SOME of us to have certain beliefs and others not. If it's a species trait it governs all of a species' members.
Another principle: Science rests, supposedly, on facts and Religion rests on myths. At times they may both generate--or fall upon--true and false conclusions--all of which are, historically speaking, provisional (e.g.,Nietzsche) and dependent on social consensus (e.g., Kuhn).
...but I'd like to think that a total lack of belief in beliefs is not a religion.
Quote:...but I'd like to think that a total lack of belief in beliefs is not a religion.
I am not saying it is a religion...I am saying that believing in the uncertainty of knowledge is itself a form of belief and a form of knowledge...
Every religion proven to be based upon a foundation of lies