A Critique on a Possibilian.

I've been thinking about Dr. David Eagleman's premise of being a "possibilian." He claims that the debate between there being a god and no god is a false dichotomy and that the real answer could be somewhere in the middle. The most benefit of the doubt I can give him is that he's simply trying to cow the people who are drunk off their own fantasies and hunches that there could be something out there. My take on the situation is that we should be giving absolutely no credence to the concept of a higher intelligence, creator or deity until someone actually comes up with some actual evidence instead of the same old baseless delusions we've been hit over the head with for centuries. The only cause to humor the possibility of such a flighty concept is a political one; to not piss people off.

Dr. Eagleman's book SUM, which contains descriptions of various afterlives and the lessons each teaches us, is full of imagination; it is a fine example of what we can come up with when we let our minds run wild. But just because it piques our fancy does not mean the ideas within it have any possibility of being real.

It is true that we do not yet know everything about the world. It is also true that it takes imagination to consider new ideas to test in the realm of science. It's also true that the outright claim of there being no god is quite presumptuous. But I am going to hold tight to that presumption anyways, knowing full well all of the unproved possibilities that I am denying without evidence against them, and wait for someone to prove me wrong. And while all the "possibilians" waste their time concocting ideas that assume a higher being (because Dr. Eagleman told us it was OK!) simply because it hasn't been proved wrong, I'll be over here in the corner that's making progress because we're not distracted by such self-serving vacancies.