With regards to gravity as an example, gravity itself is a fictitious force. Gravity does not exist. Gravity is a result of spacetime warping.
[doesn’t stop ppl from looking for gravitons still, but I tend to think that Einstein got this one on the mark]
But that’s a digression:
Let me make the equivalence again and yes, I think it might be due to some baggage attached to how we usually use the term faith:
“A mild view of God, a Theosophical view of God/Universe, random fluctuations in spacetime due to indeterminate quantum states, are no different from each other. All magical thinking.”
Here is an example of a mild view of God.
“There’s something more than what we can fully describe yet but it’s there and it works. I call it God”
Theosophical view of the Universe/God, “The Universe does what it does and we’re a part of it”.
Random fluctuations, “We can’t measure randomness but it’s there and does what it does”
These are my own off the cuff definitions but I hope it conveys the ‘gist’ of my argument.
In other words, strip away the baggage and you’re leading a normal everyday life. Three identical people can the same thing by three different names:
One says God. One says Universe. One says Randomness.
None of them put any more power into it than covering up the “I don’t know”.
Of course there’s further distinctions possible. But I don’t have a problem with a mild view of God, a mild view of “the Universe/Nature”, a mild view of “it’s random” being equivalent.
I’m not speaking of theologians (case 1), prophets (case 2), statisticians/quantum theorists (case 3) but rather the attitude of the everyday joe.
Being “magical thinking” doesn’t necessarily make it a bad thing. I’m not talking unseen pink farting unicorns in the bathtub of gold. But rather, everyday magical thinking, a view that doesn’t make much of a difference to one’s life either way, but it helps place a small filler in the uncertain gaps so we can get on with our lives.
It’s a bit of a blanket statement to say that ” Religion bolsters faith by never changing its tenets. “
Of course they do.
Not all do, but reasonable religions change their tenets upon the face of evidence that maybe they were going about things the wrong way.
Even in Science; Science doesn’t GENERALLY throw away a basically good idea but rather refines it. There’s a few drastic examples of throwing away a totally bad theory but a generally good one just gets refinement.
Example: Newton. Generally great stuff. Good for many purposes. We got to the moon and back on Newton rather than Etinstein.
But Einstein in one sense, made Newton wrong. One could easily throw away much of Newton. But why throw away when you can refine the definitions?
In religions beliefs, God or Gods is a given. In the Sciences, the Scientific Method is a given.
Challenges to scientific method (among philosopher of science for example) are met with scoff and skepticism from practitioners of the sciences.
Challenges to God/gods is met with scoff and septicism among practitioners of religions.
Questioning Logic to a Philosopher might be another example.
First three centuries of Christiandom showed refinement of the system. Modern Science does much the same.
Better explanations for what are considered underlying principles in each of the systems are always coming, always changing, hopefully improving.
Move away from the extremes and towards the middle of the road. Look for the convergence rather than the divergence. It’s there.