More thought leads to less certainty...?
May 16, 2011 at 3:39 am
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2011 at 4:00 am by inflectious.)
Fellow forum members,
I hope that I have not offended any of you by posting my inaugural thread in this subforum. This will be an extremely long winded post; I apologize. I shall try in earnest to tread within the boundaries imposed upon writing which aspires to clarity and brevity. My pronouns will be in the masculine form due to the flaws of the past and my own laziness, not misogynism.
My hypothesis is that the more thoughtful and open minded among us find more faults within our own belief systems. That is: an open minded and thoughtful religious person doubts his own faith more than a hell-fearing zealot and an open minded and thoughtful atheist doubts his own lack of faith more than a pseudoscientific hack who is angry at his overbearing parents.
Preliminaries:
The First: I am not a religious person. If you do not take me at my word this post will come across as the brainchild of a "sheep in wolf's clothing" with the intent to convert the heretic masses. This is not my goal. For obvious reasons, the majority of this post will consist of an attack on atheism. After all, what good is accomplished by advancing a hypothesis to a group which is likely, if not guaranteed, to agree with it?
The Second: I was raised in neither an overly religious nor an overly irreligious household. My mother deeply distrusts the clergy (attributable to her Catholic upbringing and an incident that, thankfully, did not involve her). My father is a practicing Protestant.
The best friend I have in the city which I call home is an ex-Jehova's Witness... needless to say he isn't exactly enthralled with religion. On the other hand, my father has never once thumped a Bible in someone's face, yet he gives more time than required by most "guilt cleansers" every week to help those in need, and this is not in some vain attempt to escape hellfire. Currently this involves spending time (biking, coffee shops, etc.) with an advanced Alzheimer's sufferer whose only real remaining friend is out of the state for several months.
The Third: I believe that, just as in politics, the debate between theism and atheism is burdened by the fact that a person on a certain side of the fence will be supplied with information mostly consisting of the follies of the opposition. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talk about liberals; Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow talk about conservatives. This forum has more posts in the Religion forum than in the Atheism forum. I contend that modern rhetoric has taken this format due to the fact that every position available to us is built upon dubitable foundations.
I would even go so far as to suggest that the a/theist debate has been usurped and absorbed by political debate and that it has become a crude mockery of legitimate philosophical discussion (after all, politicians aren't interested in convincing the 145+ IQ portion of the population... simple and inflammatory arguments will do).
Forumlation and implications of the hypothesis (along with some anecdotal evidence):
Faith and the lack thereof alike are based upon belief. Science is unable to state anything conclusive in support of either. In anticipation of rebuttals concerning the 6,000 year old earth theory or Noah's ark: The literal, fundamentalist interpretation of these facets of theism which is commonly lambasted is but one of many interpretations. Jewish and Christian mysticism are aesthetically more similar to Buddhism and Hinduism than to fundamentalist Judaism or Christianity.
A universe based upon Sacred Geometry which begins with a single point and expands into a pattern of circles actually has a lot in common with modern physics... i.e. a singularity expands into a physical space in which every phenomenon must be explained in terms of a phase angle (the energy levels of quanta and hence the likelihood of quantum events occurring is based upon the rate at which an abstract vector processes around in a circle). I am not trying to convince you of the reality of Sacred Geometry or mysticism of any form... but rather attempting to show that a limited view of theism leads to a limited (and insufficient) argument against it. Likewise, the confluence of the Abrahamic religions and the more ancient, polytheistic religions can be interpreted as a strength as easily as it can a weakness. I won't digress at present.
Another point of contention is that many atheists shy away from religion due to skepticism but fail to take skepticism all the way. Skepticism is a difficult beast to tame. To be skeptical of a god or gods is reasonable. To follow this skepticism only to the point of doubting a god or gods is not. For more info do some research on Cartesian Doubt/Solipsism, that is, the place that skepticism will take you if you follow it to the bitter end (and no, I do not endorse Descartes' argument that God must be the only escape from the Doubt).
The following point is purely subjective. I notice both a major similarity and a major difference between what I would call zealous theists and zealous atheists. The similarity is obviously that both groups are extremely condescending towards one another. Whereas a fundamental Christian may shake his head at an atheist due to his "knowledge" that the atheist is an impious fool on the fast track to hell, a conceited atheist would look at a Christian or Jew and snicker with his friends while making comments about "stupid sheep" based on his "knowledge".
The major difference is that zealous theists appear to be naive while the zealous atheists seem immature. For example, many fundamentalist Christians have never even questioned their beliefs. It also seems much more likely to stumble upon a group of atheists discussing how (insert attack on intelligence here) all people of faith must be, despite the fact that throughout history many good folks of faith with much higher intelligence than said atheists have existed.
With such thoughts in mind I have come to the conclusion that the more a person honestly ponders something the less certain of his own position he becomes. Only by remaining in an echo chamber with like-minded individuals does one's position become effectively cemented.
I could go on, but I'd like to see some replies first... perhaps we can get this thing focused. And, again, I am not a person of faith... I simply choose to apply my skepticism to everything. Being limited to a subjective viewpoint can, at times, be a real bitch.
TL;DR - Don't reply.
Edit: The post with the "Can't nobody do me like Jesus" video seems to support my immaturity hypothesis.
I hope that I have not offended any of you by posting my inaugural thread in this subforum. This will be an extremely long winded post; I apologize. I shall try in earnest to tread within the boundaries imposed upon writing which aspires to clarity and brevity. My pronouns will be in the masculine form due to the flaws of the past and my own laziness, not misogynism.
My hypothesis is that the more thoughtful and open minded among us find more faults within our own belief systems. That is: an open minded and thoughtful religious person doubts his own faith more than a hell-fearing zealot and an open minded and thoughtful atheist doubts his own lack of faith more than a pseudoscientific hack who is angry at his overbearing parents.
Preliminaries:
The First: I am not a religious person. If you do not take me at my word this post will come across as the brainchild of a "sheep in wolf's clothing" with the intent to convert the heretic masses. This is not my goal. For obvious reasons, the majority of this post will consist of an attack on atheism. After all, what good is accomplished by advancing a hypothesis to a group which is likely, if not guaranteed, to agree with it?
The Second: I was raised in neither an overly religious nor an overly irreligious household. My mother deeply distrusts the clergy (attributable to her Catholic upbringing and an incident that, thankfully, did not involve her). My father is a practicing Protestant.
The best friend I have in the city which I call home is an ex-Jehova's Witness... needless to say he isn't exactly enthralled with religion. On the other hand, my father has never once thumped a Bible in someone's face, yet he gives more time than required by most "guilt cleansers" every week to help those in need, and this is not in some vain attempt to escape hellfire. Currently this involves spending time (biking, coffee shops, etc.) with an advanced Alzheimer's sufferer whose only real remaining friend is out of the state for several months.
The Third: I believe that, just as in politics, the debate between theism and atheism is burdened by the fact that a person on a certain side of the fence will be supplied with information mostly consisting of the follies of the opposition. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talk about liberals; Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow talk about conservatives. This forum has more posts in the Religion forum than in the Atheism forum. I contend that modern rhetoric has taken this format due to the fact that every position available to us is built upon dubitable foundations.
I would even go so far as to suggest that the a/theist debate has been usurped and absorbed by political debate and that it has become a crude mockery of legitimate philosophical discussion (after all, politicians aren't interested in convincing the 145+ IQ portion of the population... simple and inflammatory arguments will do).
Forumlation and implications of the hypothesis (along with some anecdotal evidence):
Faith and the lack thereof alike are based upon belief. Science is unable to state anything conclusive in support of either. In anticipation of rebuttals concerning the 6,000 year old earth theory or Noah's ark: The literal, fundamentalist interpretation of these facets of theism which is commonly lambasted is but one of many interpretations. Jewish and Christian mysticism are aesthetically more similar to Buddhism and Hinduism than to fundamentalist Judaism or Christianity.
A universe based upon Sacred Geometry which begins with a single point and expands into a pattern of circles actually has a lot in common with modern physics... i.e. a singularity expands into a physical space in which every phenomenon must be explained in terms of a phase angle (the energy levels of quanta and hence the likelihood of quantum events occurring is based upon the rate at which an abstract vector processes around in a circle). I am not trying to convince you of the reality of Sacred Geometry or mysticism of any form... but rather attempting to show that a limited view of theism leads to a limited (and insufficient) argument against it. Likewise, the confluence of the Abrahamic religions and the more ancient, polytheistic religions can be interpreted as a strength as easily as it can a weakness. I won't digress at present.
Another point of contention is that many atheists shy away from religion due to skepticism but fail to take skepticism all the way. Skepticism is a difficult beast to tame. To be skeptical of a god or gods is reasonable. To follow this skepticism only to the point of doubting a god or gods is not. For more info do some research on Cartesian Doubt/Solipsism, that is, the place that skepticism will take you if you follow it to the bitter end (and no, I do not endorse Descartes' argument that God must be the only escape from the Doubt).
The following point is purely subjective. I notice both a major similarity and a major difference between what I would call zealous theists and zealous atheists. The similarity is obviously that both groups are extremely condescending towards one another. Whereas a fundamental Christian may shake his head at an atheist due to his "knowledge" that the atheist is an impious fool on the fast track to hell, a conceited atheist would look at a Christian or Jew and snicker with his friends while making comments about "stupid sheep" based on his "knowledge".
The major difference is that zealous theists appear to be naive while the zealous atheists seem immature. For example, many fundamentalist Christians have never even questioned their beliefs. It also seems much more likely to stumble upon a group of atheists discussing how (insert attack on intelligence here) all people of faith must be, despite the fact that throughout history many good folks of faith with much higher intelligence than said atheists have existed.
With such thoughts in mind I have come to the conclusion that the more a person honestly ponders something the less certain of his own position he becomes. Only by remaining in an echo chamber with like-minded individuals does one's position become effectively cemented.
I could go on, but I'd like to see some replies first... perhaps we can get this thing focused. And, again, I am not a person of faith... I simply choose to apply my skepticism to everything. Being limited to a subjective viewpoint can, at times, be a real bitch.
TL;DR - Don't reply.
Edit: The post with the "Can't nobody do me like Jesus" video seems to support my immaturity hypothesis.
) was french: i have even less love for him than most Solipsists. Less than none did I say? Inaccurate, but let's be colloquial for a moment and simply say that I hate the man and everything about him. Especially his hair, he could *NEVER* get it right, and was always messing with it, 
Solipsism is also a halfway argument... and also falters where it should have gotten it's collective heads together and accomplished interesting philosophical content 
