Don't get me started...
May. 24th, 2007 08:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnridleyThis is a rather long response to a thread on the GT list that I was responding to. I decided that I'd wandered too far off-topic to post to the list, but at the same time was pretty happy with what I'd written and didn't want to just throw the text away. I think I could keep going on this all day but I need to stop at some point...
(the previous statement in the thread was asserting the existence of complete lack of faith, stating that this was atheism)
I certainly agree with you regarding the existence of a state of complete lack of faith. My only argument on this point is that, in the sense I understand it, the word atheist is not completely defined as non-faith. I'd describe agnostic as non-faith. Atheist seems to be used mainly to refer to anti-faith, not non-faith, and the two are not the same.
Note that agnostic implies leaving the door open for gods; if proof of a transcendent being[1] was presented to an agnostic, they'd take it into consideration, and perhaps come to believe (though at that point, I guess it wouldn't be faith either; but belief can stem from either proof or faith). By contrast, [my perception is that] atheists have closed the door and are not willing to view evidence.
Note that I'm not even saying that there IS evidence. I haven't seen any. I've heard people say there's evidence, but the people saying it have a vastly different definition of "evidence" than I do. Testimony is not evidence, people are easily fooled, screwed-up brain chemistry can cause people to feel they're experiencing a transcendent experience, and lots of people hear voices in their heads.
If it's too hard to try to wrap your brain around and deal with the fact that the universe is just a random occurrence, the anthropic principle is a perfectly valid assumption[2], and this life is all we get (if you're miserable, you lose, end of story), then religion is an easy way to hand-wave your way out of all that uncomfortable reality. It's no wonder people don't mind being convinced of a greater existence than what they're experiencing.
Since the threat of divine retribution is a damned powerful tool for controlling the masses that I don't believe would go unwielded by the unscrupulous (a group of whom there is no lack), I think the development of religion is inevitable whether or not there actually is a transcendent being behind it, so the simple existence of religion proves nothing either.
At the same time, I see no point in closing the door on the presentation of evidence. That's just hard-headedness. But I don't really expect to see any evidence, either. Given all that, the "default position" seems to me to be the old joke about the militant agnostic: "I don't know, and you don't, either!!" In other words, I don't really believe that anyone has any real evidence. I'm willing to look, but I set the burden of proof for this really quite high.
As I've been saying, my understanding of "atheist" is certainly skewed; I get my opinion of atheists by looking at who's standing on a soapbox screaming "I'm an atheist" - just as many people's views of christians or moslems or whatever are defined by the stereotype of who's on late-night TV asking for money, or who's blowing up who and releasing videotapes from caves.
If I cared much about this, I guess I'd study it, but honestly, I don't. The semantics seem more interesting to me than the beliefs. I don't really care to make a study of atheism any more than any other set of beliefs or non-beliefs. All I really ask of a religion is that they do more good than harm. Even in the present day that sometimes seems to be asking a lot. I tend to gravitate towards religion as a fairly efficient delivery system for humanitarian efforts, as long as their views and actions aren't too onerous.
[1] Whatever that "proof" might be, since the very existence of such proof seems to me to deny the concept of transcendence. Therefore it may be that there can never really be "proof" of such a being.
[2] I think that denying the validity of the anthropic principle happens because people are unwilling to give up the notion that they hold a priviledged vantage point in the universe. This notion has always proved to be false, usually hides the truth, and must be avoided.
(the previous statement in the thread was asserting the existence of complete lack of faith, stating that this was atheism)
I certainly agree with you regarding the existence of a state of complete lack of faith. My only argument on this point is that, in the sense I understand it, the word atheist is not completely defined as non-faith. I'd describe agnostic as non-faith. Atheist seems to be used mainly to refer to anti-faith, not non-faith, and the two are not the same.
Note that agnostic implies leaving the door open for gods; if proof of a transcendent being[1] was presented to an agnostic, they'd take it into consideration, and perhaps come to believe (though at that point, I guess it wouldn't be faith either; but belief can stem from either proof or faith). By contrast, [my perception is that] atheists have closed the door and are not willing to view evidence.
Note that I'm not even saying that there IS evidence. I haven't seen any. I've heard people say there's evidence, but the people saying it have a vastly different definition of "evidence" than I do. Testimony is not evidence, people are easily fooled, screwed-up brain chemistry can cause people to feel they're experiencing a transcendent experience, and lots of people hear voices in their heads.
If it's too hard to try to wrap your brain around and deal with the fact that the universe is just a random occurrence, the anthropic principle is a perfectly valid assumption[2], and this life is all we get (if you're miserable, you lose, end of story), then religion is an easy way to hand-wave your way out of all that uncomfortable reality. It's no wonder people don't mind being convinced of a greater existence than what they're experiencing.
Since the threat of divine retribution is a damned powerful tool for controlling the masses that I don't believe would go unwielded by the unscrupulous (a group of whom there is no lack), I think the development of religion is inevitable whether or not there actually is a transcendent being behind it, so the simple existence of religion proves nothing either.
At the same time, I see no point in closing the door on the presentation of evidence. That's just hard-headedness. But I don't really expect to see any evidence, either. Given all that, the "default position" seems to me to be the old joke about the militant agnostic: "I don't know, and you don't, either!!" In other words, I don't really believe that anyone has any real evidence. I'm willing to look, but I set the burden of proof for this really quite high.
As I've been saying, my understanding of "atheist" is certainly skewed; I get my opinion of atheists by looking at who's standing on a soapbox screaming "I'm an atheist" - just as many people's views of christians or moslems or whatever are defined by the stereotype of who's on late-night TV asking for money, or who's blowing up who and releasing videotapes from caves.
If I cared much about this, I guess I'd study it, but honestly, I don't. The semantics seem more interesting to me than the beliefs. I don't really care to make a study of atheism any more than any other set of beliefs or non-beliefs. All I really ask of a religion is that they do more good than harm. Even in the present day that sometimes seems to be asking a lot. I tend to gravitate towards religion as a fairly efficient delivery system for humanitarian efforts, as long as their views and actions aren't too onerous.
[1] Whatever that "proof" might be, since the very existence of such proof seems to me to deny the concept of transcendence. Therefore it may be that there can never really be "proof" of such a being.
[2] I think that denying the validity of the anthropic principle happens because people are unwilling to give up the notion that they hold a priviledged vantage point in the universe. This notion has always proved to be false, usually hides the truth, and must be avoided.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 01:42 pm (UTC)Atheist is "without God". Most would hold this view from their current view of the "facts", for some definition of facts.
In practice in the U.S. most agnostics tend to have moral views that heavily overlap with Christian core moral views without the justification of Christian religious texts. Atheists range from "I don't believe in a God, end of conversation" to "you're absolutely crazy to believe in a God and I'm going to treat you as a psychopath for doing so". It's funny when you get atheists as rabid as most of the rabid religious people.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 01:54 pm (UTC)That is, they're getting peeved that teachers are telling their kids about their Invisible Powerful Friend, and in some cases, negatively impacting those kids who don't toe the line. As a result, the parents are having to fight back on their kids' behalf.
I would like to live in a world of, "Believe whatever you want; keep it to yourself." That's not going to happen when ten of my 150 channels are overtly religiously connected, and I suspect that the History Channel is a cover for religious education as well. It's most annoying when folks start saying, "Hey, they found the archaeological evidence for the Battle of Jericho. God *did* throw down the walls! It must have happened just like in the Bible!" I want to respond with, "Yeah, they found the site of Troy, too. It happened pretty much like Homer said, which means that the Gods of the Greeks really existed!" ("The Bible is the Inspired Work of God, while The Iliad is Historical Fiction." Huh?)
Meditation is physiologically indistinguishable from prayer. The only difference is focus: Internal or external? Personally I think that meditation is more honest; no one is pretending that any other being exists. OTOH, pretend all you want; just be honest in your pretending.
And I say this while knowing that my personal pretending has paid off. I have gotten hints and urges while meditating that solved genealogy puzzles and personal crises. Did God intervene? I don't know. I might be willing to make a case for Interested Ancestors, though!
Meanwhile, I really do want there to be less Evangelism in the world. Your belief system is working for you? Cool. Keep it to yourself, and don't teach my kids about it unless they ask. Don't ask them to ask!!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 03:18 pm (UTC)[2] I think that denying the validity of the anthropic principle happens because people are unwilling to give up the notion that they hold a priviledged vantage point in the universe.
The anthropic principle says that we DO hold a priviledged vantage point.
Anthropic selection effects, (weak interpretations), say that we do not, but you have to prove that more than one universal configuration is even possible, before you can use it to supercede the observed "specialness". Speculative and unproven or non-evidenced *plausibilites* are valid counter-arguments to equally non-evidenced causes, like, "god" or ID, but they cannot be used as "proof" of anything.
This notion has always proved to be false
No, your statement is what is false.
Where is this "list" that you mention?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:EEk! It's all my fault...
Date: 2007-05-24 11:13 pm (UTC)Re: EEk! It's all my fault...
From:It was not a bad thread, as threads go.
Date: 2007-05-25 05:01 pm (UTC)Seriously though, I think the bulk of it is just
sorting out what the words mean. We all seem to
use them in such different ways that we cannot
pick nits until we get a common lexicon.