Author
|
Topic: CoV & Agnosticism (Read 1147 times) |
|
falcox
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 21
Reputation: 7.32
Rate falcox
|
 |
CoV & Agnosticism
« on: 2006-07-17 14:38:22 » |
 |
First off.. Let me just say that I'm quite confused, mostly with myself and where my beliefs lay. And I hope I'm not about to post something that's been discussed to death already. But I hope to start a discussion that will clear some things up, and give me a little direction.
I've never been a religious or spiritual person. My mother is a nurse, no religion for her as she firmly believes that there is, was, and will be only the scientific method. My father is a Catholic that never really practiced or went to church. So I ended up un-baptised and completely free from a spiritual upbringing. I'd say today that I'm thankful for that, as I've never had religion forced upon me.
Events in my life have led me to flip-flop between an Agnostic & Atheist belief system (or lack there of). Sometimes I'm quite a biased atheist, and other times I think there could be a god, but I'll be damned to devote any time towards something of which I have no proof. But lately, I've found myself without any meaning or direction in my life.
I happened upon CoV a year or two ago, brielfy took in the information presented to me, but ended up caught up in my own life until now. I won't bore you with any details, as it would seem like whining, but I've made alot of huge changes that have collectively left me very confused, and almost empty inside. And here I've ended up, ready to call myself a Virian and join a community of intelligent individuals.
The idea of memetics is quite interesting to me, and I've got some reading to do on the subject, but I'd say that I'm ready to be infected with something useful for once... Rather than the "Thou shalt believe, or suffer the pitchfork in thine ass" dogma, I need something more rational to devote my time too. I'm ripe for the programming if you will..
Instead of wondering, "Is there a god, and to what end?" I'd rather say, here are my beliefs.. they make me happy. But I'm not sure where to go, or if it would be self-destructive to remain a biased atheist.
I would just like to prosper in this community, and actually do something productive for my fellow man, without having to sacrifice myself completely for the cause. I'm here because I don't want to end a mindless Christian giving my entire life to, and making excuses on behalf of "God".
I think it would be a good place to start by asking what I can do to help the CoV cause, and from there try to help others. I just need some direction and criticism to get my brain firing!
I look forward to any comments you all may have.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:CoV & Agnosticism
« Reply #1 on: 2006-07-17 15:29:53 » |
|
Woah. It sounds as if you are already doing really well. Your parents sound like wonderful people. I look forward to talking with you here.
I think that it is important to get one's terminology as right as possible in order to communicate effectively. Due to this, I suggest you look at the Virian Lexicon on the Virian wiki.
My thinking is that "belief" (irrational or religious) always requires an absense of sufficient evidence to compel acceptance; or even contrary evidence which would tend to compel rejection (or belief would not be required). As such, belief is pernicious as it always involves a rejection or denial of reason. Once accepted in one area, (irrational) belief invariably spreads into other aspects of one's thinking. This is one reason that I have completely rejected the use of "belief" in my life and instead recommend the use of "weyken" which incorporates the process of evaluation (usually of tangible evidence and probability) into its definition, rejecting all projection of confusion onto why I accept certain things as being very probably true - and other things as proven or likely untrue.
I think that it is important to differentiate between the kinds of atheism. Atheism means simply, "no belief in gods." There are many shades of it. Agnosticism (without knowledge of gods) means something completely different from what many people here in the US seem to think it means (possibly deliberately). According to its originator, agnosticism states that the nature of gods cannot be known to men. In other words, agnosticism does not mean that the question of whether gods exist or not is open (That position is contained in the position of weak-atheism) but speaks to the essential nature of god thingies.
I personally label myself as a weak atheist (there may be some thing which I might regard as a godlike being if I ever met up with it, although I have no idea of what capabilities it would need to demonstrate in order to convince me of the validity of its claim to godhood) in general, a strong atheist (iow holding the position that god-thingies cannot exist as they are self- or reality-contradictory) in respect of all god-like-things and attributes I have heard described (ie all formal religions) and harbor a strong antipathy towards the idea of gods - a sickness which has clearly caused and is still causing massive damage to mankind - irrespective of how helpful it may once have been to us (which is an open question).
Contrary to the assertions of believers:
- we need to understand "the good" before we can think about "the gods" (if such thingies could exist) in order to judge whether they are worthy. Thus "the good" is independent of "the gods" or belief in such ideas.
- Ethics are considered and are always superior to morals and religious precepts. IOW ethics do not require either "the gods" or belief in such ideas.
- Gods, and belief in them are not required to live a rational and glorious life, enjoying the Universe as it is, rather than as we wish it were. Indeed, my observation is that the idea of "the gods" tends to reduce from the delight of the things we can see, by attempting to create even more spectacular things we can't see - and makes us vulnerable to the silly idea of sacrificing the wonderful now for some imaginary future thing - the very definition of a con-game.
If you haven't already done so, in addition to reading the Wiki, try visiting our (outdated) web site (at http://www.churchofvirus.org) paying particular attention to the Virian Virtues, and then browse the FAQ section of the BBS. You may find some tasty mindfood in those locations. Feel free to discuss or disagree.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:CoV & Agnosticism
« Reply #2 on: 2006-07-18 02:46:04 » |
|
[Blunderov] Welcome Falcox. I hope you find here that which I did when I discovered Virus; a tremendous source of moral support which enhanced my own personal confidence, not to mention education, significantly.
It is not easy to be an atheist surrounded by believers. at least in my experience. Before Virus there were occasions when I wondered whether I was born deficient in some capacity;* how could it be that so much of the world believed in something I could not even begin to grasp?
I suppose it should not have surprised me as much as it first did to see that the Hermit considers himself to be a "weak" atheist. Upon reflection, this position is probably more properly scientific than my own position which is that of "non cognitive" atheism. To me the idea of "god" is analytically preposterous.** Ex nihil nihil fit.
Best Regards.
* Of course this might still be true, my discovery of Virus notwithstanding. Apparently though, I'm in good company - either way.
** If "god" is held to be some kind of metaphor, all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.30
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:CoV & Agnosticism
« Reply #3 on: 2006-07-18 11:24:02 » |
|
Welcome falfox,
I was in an equally ‘confused’ state when I stumbled across the CoV. I subsequently spent my time searching the archives, etc. whilst not participating in any debates.
The archive served as a second education for me, mostly the articulate and luminous offerings of the Hermit (thank you Hermit) on the scientific method, philosophy of science, etc. Thus, my suggestion would be a ‘me too’ to what Hermit stated in his post.
As for ‘belief’ – Hermit suggests ‘weyken’ and I am not in disagreement. He and I are both looking for a way to eliminate its use, and where he opts for “weyken” I opt to hold beliefs with embedded doubt – which I call “experiments”. So, I have experiments that my brain and body are exploring rather than beliefs I am holding onto to give me meaning. Admittedly, the two are impossible to separate completely. All my models, whether built on empirical experiment or sentimental belief, are still models.
Lastly, you say, “Events in my life have led me to flip-flop between an Agnostic & Atheist belief system” and I wonder if you are familiar with Agnostic Atheism?
Quote:The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one. (p.49)
If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other... (p.50-51) |
-- Robert Flint, Croall Lecture (1887-1888)
It is where I currently stand.
I suggest using the CoV as a valuable resource and playground for any model you may be experimenting with ... just proceed with caution if you are sentimental 
Kind regards,
- iolo
|
|
|
|
|
falcox
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 21
Reputation: 7.32
Rate falcox
|
|
Re:CoV & Agnosticism
« Reply #4 on: 2006-07-19 12:09:33 » |
|
Thanks for the insightful replies everyone. I learn best by bouncing my concerns off of others for a little productive-criticism.
Iolo:
Cheers for that Agnostic Atheism explanation, I believe I'll to fall into that category for the time being.. Seems to cover all the bases well when it comes to what I think about this whole god fiasco.
Hermit:
My parents are indeed a wonderful couple. They were strict, and kept me in line, and were 100% godless. Who could ask for a better upbringing
I found that just reading the lexicon on the main website gave me a huge understanding of what virus is about. With the lack of strict dogma, and stone carved rules, I can see that simply positive idea's fuel this group. I dig it!
Blunderov:
I find it easy to identify with your comment about being born deficient. I was never forced to believe anything, but its very difficult growing up in a world where theres nothing but "God this, god that". I really dislike our Christian predominant society, in that they are absolutely everywhere and absololutely intolerant to anything but their own dogma. But, lets not get me started on that.. I could rant forever.
In order for me to learn some of the new vocabulary here, I've got to really fight some of my pre-programming in regards to beliefs and religion. I like Hermit's desciption of Gods as "god thingies", really trivializes it to the point it should be. Also, in regards to "weyken", that seems to be a much more useful word that "believe". When I think about it, believe really doesn't say much more than "I'm lazy, so I'll take it as it is". I'm just not sure how to use "weyken" when describing a set of beliefs. I realize I sound a little simple, asking for a grammer lesson of sorts.. But I'm here to learn!
I ran out to the bookstore the other day, my goal was to buy a book regarding programming design patterns, and I ended up purchasing "The Selfish Gene", as I remember seeing it on the booklist. I'm going to dive right into that. Although I'm not sure how it happened that I didn't get the book I was intending to get I'm obviously letting CoV sink in!
I look forward to learning!
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:CoV & Agnosticism
« Reply #5 on: 2006-07-20 01:48:49 » |
|
<snip>
[falcox] In order for me to learn some of the new vocabulary here, I've got to really fight some of my pre-programming in regards to beliefs and religion. I like Hermit's desciption of Gods as "god thingies", really trivializes it to the point it should be. Also, in regards to "weyken", that seems to be a much more useful word that "believe". When I think about it, believe really doesn't say much more than "I'm lazy, so I'll take it as it is". I'm just not sure how to use "weyken" when describing a set of beliefs. I realize I sound a little simple, asking for a grammer lesson of sorts.. But I'm here to learn!
<snap>
[Hermit] A 'weyken system' would be equivalent to "A group of supported, coherent, related and mutually consistent weyken."
[Hermit] Notice that a set of beliefs could be (but probably are not) a weyken system, thus most belief systems are (probably) not weyken systems.
[falcox] I look forward to learning!
[Hermit] Are we not all. I hope we can be mutual facilitators in this process.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
falcox
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 21
Reputation: 7.32
Rate falcox
|
|
Re:CoV & Agnosticism
« Reply #6 on: 2006-07-20 11:10:22 » |
|
Thanks Hermit, it takes me a little while to wrap my head around new terms like that.
I'll use what I know to make a statement.
I weyken that there is no "God", no diety worth my time, and that there could not possibly be some magical thing in existance. Although I wouldn't disagree that there could be some kind of previous singularity that put us all here in the first place, or that some alien race "seeded" the planet millions of years ago. To me that seems more likely than some god working for 6 days and wishing the world into existance.
I can't remember where I read it, but it was something along the lines of "According to most creationists, the world was created sometime during the most recent ice age." Statements like that are just funny. Pretty much sums up the ignorance of those types.
My position should be clear at this point. I think creationists, and religious fanatics of all types are just plain stupid. (Sorry if I offend anyone, however, something tells me I won't)
I do however want to limit myself. Richard Dawkins puts it "There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." I want to build a solid memeplex that I can call my weyken system, so that I may prosper in this world.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:CoV & Agnosticism
« Reply #7 on: 2006-08-02 20:35:20 » |
|
Sounds like a marvelous ambition.
I don't know about most creationists, but do know the age of the Universe to an astonishing degree of accuracy (see the TimeLine FAQ on the BBS). I also don't think we should bother too much with "seeding" unless some strong evidence arises indicating that this was the likely life trigger mechanism, as this simply passes the "genesis of life" issue to some other location, less accessible to us than the fairly well understood evidence of the processes which occurred on planet Earth which has lead to good (strong) hypotheses which don't need any external involvement to explain the transition from chemical adaption to primitive life (see e.g. http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm).
As a suggestion, be careful of terms like "before" when they relate to our Universe. The current (strong) scientific consensus is that the Universe was instantiated in the Big Bang. The (weaker) consensus is that the the Big Bang was triggered by a fluctuation in the quantum flux. A few moments later, our Universe, including space-time was instantiated. Since there was no time before matter existed, so there can have been no before. Discussing causation under such circumstances is a little like asking what comes 3 hours after purple (i.e. it makes no sense whatever).
A useful piece of god-probability-obliterating information is that as far as we know (and we know rather a lot about elementary particles these days) no thing which is not baryonic (the class of particle (matter) of which our Universe is assembled) can interact with a thing which is baryonic in any meaningful way without breaking an awful lot of fairly well established laws (predictive hypothesis founded in observation) about information (e.g. Heisenberg). So the probability that anything from "outside" our space-time (another meaningless concept as the act of describing it would instantiate it within our Universe) could interact with objects within our Universe without resulting in the evaporation of the Universe appears to be from minuscule to non-existent. Which doesn't leave much space for magical thingies.
The above are reasonably accessible physics concepts, surprisingly comprehensible to most people prepared to expend just a little work, and I'd certainly recommend you give it a try. A time-line is available in our FAQ section, and Wikipedia is developing a very comprehensive set of documents exposing current and historical cosmological thinking. I suggest you begin by reading in Wikipedia under "cosmology" and then, if you want to pursue this interest further, dig on the BBS for reading recommendations.
Good Luck
Hermit
PS In my opinion, amongst our currently active members, Rhinoceros, Walter Watts and Blunderov stand out as having provided a great deal of useful and accurate writings on cosmology on our BBS. That doesn't mean that other people haven't done the same, just that those came to mind.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
