Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 07-03-2006, 05:01 PM

Some interesting thoughts, pigglet.

First off, I'm a bit confused as to your distinction between atheism and reductionism. Perhaps I'm simply using a seperate definition than you are, but I tend to view atheists as those who define their faith as a lack of spirituality. Atheists are, as I understand it, those who do not ascribe a higher power or spiritual meaning to life. This distinguishes them from, say, the hare krishna who (again, as I understand it; I'm not above admitting I could be wrong about any of this) believe that everything and everyone are all a part of 'God,' as they view it. As Heinlein eloquently put it, "thou art God."

Both of these views are distinct from my own agnosticism in that I simply profess a lack of knowledge. I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the universe and, as a strong agnostic, do not believe they are ultimately knowable. It's worth noting that this does not invalidate the search for truth; it's entirely valid to strive to be ever closer to perfection while knowing one will never actually achieve it.

In terms of my theistic views, I like what you've said about putting the cart before the horse; I can see how that makes sense. Do you think, then, that a Catholic man is Catholic before he questions? Assuming, of course, that we accept any questioning as a part of faith. One cannot ascribe to a belief I don't think without first considering the alternatives. It almost seems to me as though it's a chicken and egg issue. Does the faith spring from the theism, or does the theism spring from the faith?

Your personal beliefs intrigue me. You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions on why we're here. However, does that mean that you discount the idea of the butterfly effect? I really take it as fact that small actions can have large consequences. Is that an idea that you're discounting in it's entirety or am I simply reading too much into what you wrote?

Your final observation raises an issue that I should've adressed. Indeed, I thought I had, but on reviewing my posts I see that isn't the case.

A man without faith finds himself in an interesting position. I began questioning the nature of my existence at about 11 years old. Of course, I eventually came to the Descartian conclusion. My senses are fallible and can be fooled. Memory is malleable and changes constantly. My thoguhts are always flowing forward. None of these things provide a constant base from which to ground any sort of useful theory. The only thing, then, that I can know for certain is that I exist, for if I didn't I wouldn't be able to ask the question in the first place.

So where does one go from there? I can't be certain of anything in my life, but I still suffer from the same mortal pangs as the next man. I have to eat, I have to have shelter. I have the same basic needs as anyone else does. This is where the concept of a useful assumption comes in. In a theoretical sense I may question the nature of being and whether or not the existence I know is truly what is or is simply the shadows on the cave wall. However, practicality demands that I accept certain aspects of my being as they are in order to survive. And so I will make useful assumptions in order to get by in the world. There's no proof that I will die if I don't eat, nor is there proof that I have to have a job or a roof over my head. I have no way of knowing anything at all, really. I do, however, know that if I go hungry I find myself in a state of discomfort and that I do not wish to live without a bed to sleep in. So I go about my day as if these things are fact, whether or not I know that to be the case. I suspect that many true agnostics function on a similar level. I may not know that I have to do these things or that there's any real purpose to it at all, but I have no desire at the moment to put that into practical test.

07-03-2006, 05:01 PM	#11 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Some interesting thoughts, pigglet. First off, I'm a bit confused as to your distinction between atheism and reductionism. Perhaps I'm simply using a seperate definition than you are, but I tend to view atheists as those who define their faith as a lack of spirituality. Atheists are, as I understand it, those who do not ascribe a higher power or spiritual meaning to life. This distinguishes them from, say, the hare krishna who (again, as I understand it; I'm not above admitting I could be wrong about any of this) believe that everything and everyone are all a part of 'God,' as they view it. As Heinlein eloquently put it, "thou art God." Both of these views are distinct from my own agnosticism in that I simply profess a lack of knowledge. I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the universe and, as a strong agnostic, do not believe they are ultimately knowable. It's worth noting that this does not invalidate the search for truth; it's entirely valid to strive to be ever closer to perfection while knowing one will never actually achieve it. In terms of my theistic views, I like what you've said about putting the cart before the horse; I can see how that makes sense. Do you think, then, that a Catholic man is Catholic before he questions? Assuming, of course, that we accept any questioning as a part of faith. One cannot ascribe to a belief I don't think without first considering the alternatives. It almost seems to me as though it's a chicken and egg issue. Does the faith spring from the theism, or does the theism spring from the faith? Your personal beliefs intrigue me. You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions on why we're here. However, does that mean that you discount the idea of the butterfly effect? I really take it as fact that small actions can have large consequences. Is that an idea that you're discounting in it's entirety or am I simply reading too much into what you wrote? Your final observation raises an issue that I should've adressed. Indeed, I thought I had, but on reviewing my posts I see that isn't the case. A man without faith finds himself in an interesting position. I began questioning the nature of my existence at about 11 years old. Of course, I eventually came to the Descartian conclusion. My senses are fallible and can be fooled. Memory is malleable and changes constantly. My thoguhts are always flowing forward. None of these things provide a constant base from which to ground any sort of useful theory. The only thing, then, that I can know for certain is that I exist, for if I didn't I wouldn't be able to ask the question in the first place. So where does one go from there? I can't be certain of anything in my life, but I still suffer from the same mortal pangs as the next man. I have to eat, I have to have shelter. I have the same basic needs as anyone else does. This is where the concept of a useful assumption comes in. In a theoretical sense I may question the nature of being and whether or not the existence I know is truly what is or is simply the shadows on the cave wall. However, practicality demands that I accept certain aspects of my being as they are in order to survive. And so I will make useful assumptions in order to get by in the world. There's no proof that I will die if I don't eat, nor is there proof that I have to have a job or a roof over my head. I have no way of knowing anything at all, really. I do, however, know that if I go hungry I find myself in a state of discomfort and that I do not wish to live without a bed to sleep in. So I go about my day as if these things are fact, whether or not I know that to be the case. I suspect that many true agnostics function on a similar level. I may not know that I have to do these things or that there's any real purpose to it at all, but I have no desire at the moment to put that into practical test. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame