60-40 Rule part 7: theists and atheists

Quantum physics is a very useful tool for thinking about what is and is not true. It has shown that the results of experiments on particles/waves bring back quite different results depending on which set of variables is tested for. Thus one experiment says you are looking at a wave while another experiment shows clearly that you are looking at a particle.

We have already mentioned the problem of the infinite amount of data. Whether we are speaking of the phenomenal universe or of divine truth we can be quite certain that we have not and cannot examine all data, only selected data. The data we select in any single instance determines the conclusions we are able to reach. The selected data will reliably support particular conclusions. But the data we examine is not comprehensive or exhaustive; no set of data can be comprehensive. Even if it were, we can't examine comprehensive data - not enough people, not enough time, not enough creative investigative ideas.

Theists and atheists are selecting different data and so coming to different conclusions. Where some see particles as the truth of the universe, others see waves as the truth of the universe. We've learned to accept the experimental conclusions when it comes to waves and particles. We're not so good about applying these lessons to other parts of our thought systems.

But we are very good, both theists and atheists, about lumping together all sorts of reliable, verifiable information and knowledge with other less reliable and much that is just our own loose impressions and ideas that change on a daily basis. Thus we must come to the logical conclusion that everything we believe is at least partially wrong. Nothing can be 100% right.

You will argue that in this case one cannot say that both the existence and non-existence of God are true because either God is or is not. So here is how I get to the 60% and 40% with such a binary true/false data set.

We have to start from the fact that no one can be 100% right. We are therefore presuming that everyone is partially right and everyone partially wrong about everything they think and believe. It's always going to be a mix of right and wrong. Like fractals, it is partially right and partially wrong all the way down to whatever infinitesimal degree you want to break it down.

In a binary situation such as theists versus atheists, there is at least a 50-50 chance for either the theists or the atheists to be respectively right and wrong. This means that the relative probable rightness and wrongness of each side can be 50% right and 50% wrong.

But I am an optimist. And so I've increased the rightness factor somewhat because I really do believe we humans as a totality come out right more than we come out wrong - just not by much! And in the arguments of the atheists and theists, I find the assumptions, reasoning, experiential perceptions and conclusions for both sides to hold together well enough that I'll give both sides 60% on the rightness scale.

You say there is a God? You're 60% right and 40% wrong. You say there is no God? You're 60% right and 40% wrong.



So let's move on to the next topic on the list: the evolutionary basis for morality.