At the beginning of this young community, I thought it might be helpful to make a clear distinction between the definitions as they differ greatly in their explainability. Contrary to some opinions that can be heared, the statements a) there are one/more divine beings and b) no divine beings exist are logically equivalent.
We do. You just interpret and name it differently just like science does when it cant explain something. I am extremely intrigued by the quantum information interpretation. This site I linked is a true treasure trove. My whole way of thinking and my view of the world was strongly influenced by this interpretation.
That link is very interesting, and it seems to align quite well with some of my own ideas.
The foundation of an idea, is significant IMO. Especially when talking about religion.
A foundation of rigorous testing and evidence, is a good strong foundation. The foundation of someone unknown claiming something without evidence, is an extremely poor foundation.
Religion always tend towards the latter rather than the former.
You are absolutely right. But religion and faith are not the same. Faith is a personal view of the world. Religion, on the other hand, is more of a social construct, an association of people who share similar views. That is why they are also susceptible to problems that every social community has (corruption, power hierarchies, abuse of this power, …).
I agree on religion.
But similarly faith or belief, can be founded on baseless speculation or rigorous examination.
I hope you agree, that beliefs based on evidence and logic have higher value than beliefs that have none.
Of course, evidence-based beliefs are always preferable. But that depends on how detailed the foundations of your beliefs are. Religions tend to explain abstract things very simply and in a way that is easy for everyone to understand. They just give a different interpretation of the phenomena surrounding them, as we have done here. It really depends on how much information and how detailed your scientific basis is, because the simpler explanations often deviate greatly from reality.
In conclusion, however, I would say that what is really important is that every faith, be it atheistic, agnostic or theistic, leads to a good life for oneself and one’s fellow human beings.
Regarding the Quantum information interpretation he states:
"Even the smallest living things develop behaviors, sensing information about and reacting to their environment, "
This is absolutely true, even the most primitive living organisms have intelligence and a limited consciousness of their surroundings to interact with it.
But it goes further than that, because the same is true for atoms. The reason we can have intelligence in life, is that there is intelligence in Atoms. Atoms connect to molecules, based on which atoms they “prefer” to connect to, based on which connections create the more sustainable molecule.
I don’t think this is a very well known understanding, although it is IMO obviously true.
Nice take. The question really is: Where does it all end? And what does this say about “intelligence”? What is the fundamental concept of intelligence applying at the smallest scale of our universe? Could it be the drive to create information structures and order against entropy?
Yes we don’t know where it ends. But we do know that Atoms, electrons, neutron and protons, all have some pretty sophisticated behaviors. This continues into the quantum realm, where it seems even more complex. But I’m not well enough versed in quantum mechanics, to actually understand it at that level. And we can’t say for sure that quantum level is the final smallest level, it’s just the smallest we can detect.
Exactly. I can imagine that there is a fundamental mechanism that works in contrary to the second law of thermodynamics using the expanding space of the universe to create information structures.
Yes, I’ve believed that for some time, it seems there is still matter popping into the universe. There are also virtual particles that interact with real particles. Although these are theoretical, it shows the need in quantum theory to explain how information is passed between particles. But I’m getting a bit into deep water now.
BTW, the meaning of the second law of thermodynamics, is often wildly exaggerated. It’s not actually a law, but a probability. Also the “law” is in regard to a closed system, and I’m not sure it has been proven that the universe is actually a completely closed system.