In case you didn't notice from the last blog, I always quote the term "atheist" when referring to myself. Why? Well, it's debatable.
Here's my theory, which makes perfect sense to me.
A long time ago, the big bang happened, matter was created somehow, and out of nowhere our universe appears. Slowly, things start to happen. DNA forms, organisms begin to appear, and eventually humans come to think that the Earth is ours to abuse. Why? We're cognitive, that's why. Riiiight.
Anyways, SOMETHING started it all. Was it a vaporous man, woman, spirit being? Not too sure about the "spirit being" part, but I'm quite convinced that vaporous man or woman is out of the question. Engineers don't initially create things in their likeness, they create things with capabilities that are impossible for the designer. Sure, the engineer could develop something to resemble himself later on, but initially it just seems kinda pointless to me. Not a perfect reason, and I don't intend for this tidbit to convince anyone to believe anything. It's just one of those thoughts I ponder from time to time.
I have what I like to call a chemical view. We're all just giant balls of atoms-electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. We all want to get to a low energy state for some reason or another, and we want to take the easiest mechanism of attaining it. My "god' is the driving force behind our thermodynamic laziness, equilibrium, gravity, and "happiness" in general. Something is causing this big, beautiful, perfectly logical mess, and that force is my creator.
To me, the most basic human desires of companionship, motivation, and rest are linked with our desire to have a lower energy state- if we have a companion, we're much less vunerable or "excited" than if we don't. We all are motivated by the pathway with the lowest activation energy- who wants to work 3 jobs when you can win the lottery or mooch off Britney Spears for a living?
This view also leaves me torn on reincarnation. If when I die, I am composted (although something tells me this probably won't happen) my matter will become food for whatever organism, which will become food for the next, etc. and perhaps these subsequent things will recieve some of my energy in the form of electrons....thus affecting the organisms character.
As said before, I contemplate this a lot. I understand there are loopholes to be found in this view by the religious crowd, that it's weird, and that I'm definitely going to hell. But hey, at least I'll be able to mooch off Brit when I get there (according to those who tell me I'm damned, that is).
I understand where you're coming from and you make a valid point.
But, I mean why believe there is no God anyway. Isn't that just depressing? I mean for your sanity, why believe the worst when we'll never know. Why not believe there is a God and atleast be happy that maybe you'll be chillin in heaven? I mean, I don't know, I see your points but still I just think that believing in an afterlife is better for your psyche.
+mspin
No. I am agnostic and not believing in God is far from depressing. Why are you believing the worst when you'll never know? Being in Heaven singing and praising something that doesn't need to be praised, sounds like an utter waste of my time.
The reason believing in an afterlife is good for your psyche is it offsets your fear of death. That is a problem in the Judeo-Christian religion. The belief in an afterlife exists because people fear being dead. It is metaphorical than an actual truth from what I've seen.
"But, I mean why believe there is no God anyway. Isn't that just depressing?"
A) The truth has nothing to do with whether or not something is depressing.
B) For me, at least, no, it really isn't depressing...
I think that believing in an afterlife makes people waste time in this life, which I think is a shame.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I agree 100 precent completely with this oppinion. As children, we dont receive the right to chose what beleifs we inherit. For the most part children are raised with the beleifs that belong to their parents. I guess you could say im kind of stuck in the middle between what I beleive for myself, but i deffanitly have my doubts concerning weather or not there really is a big man upstairs controlling the way we live. I mean, every day we hear stories on the news of people killing people, killing children; People being raped, being beaten and being abused; Children are torn from their families only to turn up dead on some river bank 3 months later, stabbed or shot or beaten. And with all this sufferage and evil, people are expected to beleive that a man so powerful he created the earth we walk on today, has no control over the evil in our society? Something there just doesnt make sense to me.
Perhaps I just don't understand what you're saying. Perhaps I'm groggy this fine mid-morning. Or perhaps I'm too much of a bigot to see things your way. I don't know. But your explanation doesn't make sense to me.
It's my conviction that there is a God, Creator, because the natural world is just too intricate and perfectly engineered for it all to be a mistake. And yet, philosophy and emotion and thought process testifies that there is so much more than just the natural world. God seems to be the best explanation for it all.
Whereas you're saying, well, I'm not really sure what you're saying. You said, "Engineers don't initially create things in their likeness" but that blanket statement hardly seems strong enough to be the basis of something as important as belief about how the world started.
$0.02
I have only one question. If the natural world is perfectly created, why do people have appendix's?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Probably because humans were originally intended to be vegetarians, but we eat meat because of the Fall. (My own personal theory.) Humans are the only carnivores with appendixes.
Or maybe we just haven't discovered why appendixes exist, but God is watching us laughing that we haven't figured it out yet.
Well, then, why is our retina inside out? Why does our eye have a blind spot? Just to name a few.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
When I figure it out, you'll be the first person I inform.
If you'd like a more satisfying answer: the blind spot is a necessity to the construction of our eyes, and yet the way the eye was constructed, we usually can't even tell the blind spot's there. That seems to be a testament of intelligent design, not a blow against it.
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Why is the blind spot necessary at all, if that is the case?
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the blind spot, but the reason it exists is because of a nerve that attaches the retina to the brain. Which is somewhat necessary. And yet the fact that the blind spot is completely disguised and unnoticeable unless you're looking for it seems to be a testament to intelligent design.
I'm not trying to justifying anything to myself though. I just thought you might like to know. *shrug*
Meh, I don't see how that is a testament.
"When I figure it out, you'll be the first person I inform."
:dances:
"the blind spot is a necessity to the construction of our eyes, and yet the way the eye was constructed, we usually can't even tell the blind spot's there. That seems to be a testament of intelligent design, not a blow against it."
No, actually, it's pretty against ID. You see, why would an intelligent creator need to create our eyes with a blind spot? Why couldn't he create eyes that function the exact same way except without said spot?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Can you create one of those perfect eyes through evolution? Or are they only a product of your imagination?
Why don't we have 'fly eyes' while you are asking?
The answer is you just don't know.
You do not have to go any further than that.
These illusions of imperfection are everywhere if you look for them. Most of the 'flaws' of the world we live in look flawed from a very self-centered view. From a universal view on the other hand...
It's ALL good.
It certainly is the only universe that we have so you will be better off if you are thankful for the perfection of reality, than you will be crying about how it is not like it 'could have been.'
"Can you create one of those perfect eyes through evolution?"
No, which is kind of the point. The other point is that an omnipotent god could.
"From a universal view on the other hand...
It's ALL good."
Or rather, it all is. The fact that our 'flaws' don't bother the Universe on the whole doesn't suggest that they fit into some universal scheme (as you seem to suggest), but that the universe doesn't 'concern' itself with our problems. We are as unimportant on the universal scale as our 'flaws' are. This suggests the absence of a deity, at least one who would send his only son to die for our insignificant little sins.
And, I have no complaints. I merely suggest that the "could have beens" are an argument against creationism.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"The other point is that an omnipotent god could."
You are right. How could you conclude that millions of varieties of eyes do not exist from the tiny bit of data availiable on this speck of a planet in the corner of a small galaxy?
One point is that the goal, or application would determine the suitability. So if you are unaware of the goal (assuming that you are not omniscient as I am not) how can you know it is not perfect? Wouldn't you have to assume that your own purposes were the only or ultimate ones?
---
"We are as unimportant on the universal scale as our 'flaws' are."
Good! That is the main point! We are not only insignificant to reality, we are subordinate parts of it. You were created by reality. Everything you need to survive and thrive is provided by reality. The Son of a Deity you refer to said the most important spiritual act was to "love the Truth with all your heart."
If you narrow your definition of a deity into a few dubious attributes your leap of faith from our insignificance to the nonexistence of God is not entirely foolish. If you broaden your definition to one that is vast enough to have created the entire universe the realization that we are not capable of fully comprehending the nature of something so vast and complex is an easier leap.
---
P.S. Here is a link to a .torrent of the complete works of H.P. Lovecraft:
http://www.mininova.org/get/1574223
You will need a BitTorrent client installed
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
I think the general issue is that your 'god' has an incredibly broad defenition. While I'd be happy to discuss your god, that is not really the god that is being discussed. The Christian god (and the Jewish god and the Muslim god) are all described in their various holy books. There are ideas that are presented as truth or fact. One of those is that we are created in the image of god. That we are the height of his creation. While you may not believe that, those are attributes a great many people hold as truth. They are parts of the three montheistic faiths (at least Christianity and Judaism. I know much less about Islam).
I have no problem (intellectually speaking) with my lack of comprehension of the Universe. But to say that god could or does exist but we don't comprehend him is odd. How, if we cannot or do not comprehend god's existence, can we except that existence as fact? If something happens that causes me to comprehend the existence of god, I will discard my disbelief, but without comprehension, there is nothing for me to accept as truth.
And all I'm really missing is the poetry, which I'm a little less than anxious to read, but thanks. :-)
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Yes my view of things does not match everyone you are addressing. I always enjoy discussing it with you though.
The lovecraft is just something I found as I was adding to my e-book library. You are the biggest fan I know. I read Call of Cthulu decades ago, but not much since.
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
I, as well.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
..since all I.D. arguments rely on a premise (i.e. the exitence of the "intelligent designer") for whose existence there is no actual, objective evidence at all.
These illusions of imperfection...thankful for the perfection of reality
The problem with arguments about "perfection" vs. "imperfection" is that the only way to tell how "perfect" something is, is to compare that something to a standard of some sort. The problem with I.D., is that its "standard" (and like ALL religious arguments...and let's be frank, I.D. is nothing but a religious argument painted over with some pseudo-scientific terminology) is both subjective and imaginary.
To be fair, however, the other side is being a little subjective, here, as well...since arguments of functionality aren't generally applicable in terms of absolutes. A particular evolutionary solution may be more useful to an organism, or less useful, and to call those solutions "perfect" or "imperfect" is really more of a subjective value-judgment that it is an objective measurement of "perfection."
Since I.D. presents itself as a scientific theory, then the onus is on its proponents to produce actual, objective evidence in support of that theory's claims. To date, no proponent of I.D. has done so in a scientifically credible manner, which is why the vast majority of scientists reject its validity.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"I think it is interesting that you asked for evidence...
..since all I.D. arguments rely on a premise (i.e. the exitence of the "intelligent designer") for whose existence there is no actual, objective evidence at all."
Yes, the same evidence that exists for any "out of nowhere" type origin. The evidence that we have is simply existence. That alone does not indicate that a creation had to happen, or how, but does invite endless speculation.
---
"The problem with arguments about "perfection" vs. "imperfection" is that the only way to tell how "perfect" something is, is to compare that something to a standard of some sort."
That problem does not interfere with the simple obviousness of the perfection of reality, since the only standard by which it is not perfect is fantasy.
---
'A particular evolutionary solution may be more useful to an organism, or less useful, and to call those solutions "perfect" or "imperfect" is really more of a subjective value-judgment that it is an objective measurement of "perfection." '
Excellent point. Variety is one of the benefits as well. Conditions vary, and a single solution cannot be ideal for every circumstance and environment.
---
I.D. is just as baseless as any other theology, including Atheism. Your own arguments make use of "vast majority of scientists" as though majority opinion was indicative of fact. Which you apparently think it is when it matches your own current prejudice.
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
Yes, the same evidence that exists for any "out of nowhere" type origin.
This is a common viewpoint among uneducated (or at least poorly educated) theists. I would propose that your characterization of non-theistic origins to the universe as "out of nowhere" to be a rather remarkable misstatement of the actual contents of those theories. In the (probably in vain) hope that you will perhaps take the opportunity to educate yourself as to what those theories actually contain, I offer you the following...
Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking (1 of 5)
Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking (2 of 5)
Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking (3 of 5)
Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking (4 of 5)
Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking (5 of 5)
the only standard by which it is not perfect is fantasy
The problem is that your standard is subjective, i.e. based purely on opinion. Like all theistic assertions, your view of "perfection" is conveniently abstract.
I.D. is just as baseless as any other theology, including Atheism.
Factually incorrect. Or to be a bit more generous, you are comparing apples and oranges. Theism is a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief.
Your own arguments make use of "vast majority of scientists" as though majority opinion was indicative of fact. Which you apparently think it is when it matches your own current prejudice.
I always find it humorous the way that theists assume that a refusal to claim absolute knowledge somehow represents a flaw in one's reasoning, when in fact the converse desire to make such claims is one of the central flaws in their own positions. The fact that the vast majority of scientists is not in an of itself a measure of truth, but it is an indication of the relative weight of arguments used in the defense of scientific positions. Science represents an area of specialized knowledge, and the reliance on expert opinion is an unfortunate necessity when laymen decide to discuss this topics.
Which you apparently think it is when it matches your own current prejudice.
Considering the fact that it is you, not I, that has to expend great effort to find a credible scientist that would agree with your point-of-view, I would suggest that it seems more likely that you are the one who is inflicting a personal prejudice onto the body of scientific knowledge as it exists today.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"I would propose that your characterization of non-theistic origins to the universe as "out of nowhere" to be a rather remarkable misstatement of the actual contents of those theories."
Actually I was quoting this blog directly, and paraphrasing you very closely. I am glad to see that you have gained enough knowledge to see how wrong you were when you claimed "from nowhere" to be a place anything came from according to science. The most common use of Quotation marks IS to quote someone other than yourself. You certainly can misunderstand the simplest things when you want to.
---
"The problem is that your standard is subjective, i.e. based purely on opinion. Like all theistic assertions, your view of "perfection" is conveniently abstract."
Right and wrong. I have given you no opinion or judgment concerning any specific of reality. It is what it is. The statement: "reality is perfect" is true in an entirely abstract context simply because Reality has no alternative.
---
"Considering the fact that it is you, not I, that has to expend great effort to find a credible scientist that would agree with your point-of-view, I would suggest that it seems more likely that you are the one who is inflicting a personal prejudice onto the body of scientific knowledge as it exists today."
Naturally you think you are right. Which position of mine do you refer to?
--
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
...and have once again bumbled your way into yet another unsupportable (and I think intentional) misrepresentation of the facts. I hope that everyone takes the time to follow your link and to read that thread, as it exposes your lack of knowledge (and honesty) regarding how that particular phrase was used in the context of that previous discussion. My position on this matter has not changed at all, which a close reading (and a review of the videos offered) should have made clear to you.
I will go further to clarify for our readers (since you are a lost cause) to point out that even Stephen Hawking refers to the concept of "from nowhere" in his lecture, and points to essentially meaningless nature of the very challenge that you propose. The need for an explanation is similar to the man who, upon being told that the world is round instead of flat asks, "but what happens when you walk off the edge of the earth?" (and thanks to Mr. Hawking for such an excellent metaphor).
TTFN,
Blackout
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. There is however something very wrong with refusing to exchange ignorance for knowledge, when the opportunity presents itself." ~ Dr. Patrick Spurgeon
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"I understand there are many loopholes to be found in this view, that it's weird, and that I'm definitely going to hell."
If there are many loopholes to be found in the argument/view, then perhaps you should find a way to make it stronger.
and p.s. I don't think that as an atheist you can say that you're definitely going to hell, since you don't believe that there is a hell, or heaven, or God.
The definitely going to hell thing was just a sarcastic note to avoid all of the "You're going to HELL!" responses. I am satisfied with my own view and cannot find loopholes in it, but no argument is perfect. I'm sure someone can find something wrong with it, so I like to acknowledge the idea.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
Pondering is great, but if you are going to devote time to this line of thought, why not browse some of the vast array of previous thinkers?
I had been reading a little W. F. Buckley Jr. lately (he recently passed away) which led me to a freind of his...
'Something Beautiful for God' By Malcolm Muggeridge was a thought provoking read about the life of Mother Theresa of Calcutta. There are surely hundreds of other options, but that one really touched me recently so I have to reccomend it.
If you think we are all here to be, and have a drive to be, lazy...A little inspiration may be of benefit to you.
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
Ive read quite a few, but I prefer to read things with a more factual outlook than an "inspirational" one. I feel pretty inspired just to bring about change in the world for pure altruistic reasons and for the selfish reason that it makes me feel good, but I don't really seek inspiration regarding religion or spirituality.
I also don't think that we are here with a given purpose. I think we're here as a result of chance, and we give ourselves purpose based on our perception of the world and the influence of others. The "laziness" of our chemistry, to me, is just part of what gives us our desire to do things the easy, short term way, or the hard way. It's like climbing a short mountain with a sleeping bag to rest upon on the other side, or climbing a very, very, very tall mountain with a big fluffy bed to rest upon. Most would have the hard time seeing the advantage in choosing the tall mountain, but some would see it and go the hard way.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
I agree that we are most basically a "movement" of excited states releasing energy to reach calm states. However, I think that no separate from that movement is the agitation/ building up of excitation so that it can be expelled. We are in constant fluctuation between the two components of that movement. I think through tension we build ourselves up into excitement (into form) and then through release we break that rigidity and reach a state of calm. I think it is human nature to yearn for the experience of that release of excited energy, but that experience is impossible if (1) we have incurred such a release as to negate any possibility of building back up (i.e. death) or (2) we refuse to mount the tension by building a new form of agitation/ excitement.