Disclaimer This blog may contain material that is offensive to some viewers, viewer discretion is advised.
Hey guys,
So, normally I write blogs more inclined towards Brood War, but I just got thinking onto some philosophical ideas mostly because of schooling and what is taught. So, this blog will be focused on personal beliefs in general which will include my thoughts on spirituality, god and organized religion.
There is no telling if there ever was a god and if he still exists, there is no reason that points to there being an infinite being who safeguards men who are loyal to him. The notion of their being a god or not is one that is really, difficult to gauge because, humans can't see god, they can't communicate with him and so, basically have no interaction whatsoever with god. Now, our post-Renaissance french philosopher Pascal tells us that we should have faith in god aside from reason and we should never attempt to prove that such a being exists. Now, if it were left up to the variables assumed by Pascal, I would agree that everyone should believe in god just because it would make sense to. However, there are other factors that stand in the mix which make the choice not so obvious. If we look more deeply into this, we realize that we have no idea, assuming that god does exist, of what he wants. It's an absolute fool's errand to try and figure this out because it's simply impossible. How can you figure out what someone/something wants if you can't see them nor communicate with them. If there are many gods, it won't matter what you do, you'll have some for you and some against you. If there is a single god, then you really run into a very complicated scenario. For all any of us know, even if there is a god, he may not favor blind faith because it shows frailty and weakness, he may not favor organized religion because those are someone else beliefs which you as a person have just decided to follow, he may favor good citizens, he may be biased towards certain races, animals and/or just simply biased towards the earth and its cleanliness.We cannot tell the will of god, the best we can do is make due with what information we have and simple probabilities, though in the end it turns out that it is not very much of a gamble because doesn't matter what you do, if there is only one god, there is a very slim chance that you will meet up with his requirements if he has bias. And so, first of all, we're not looking at a good probability of their being a god, and if there is its an even smaller % chance that he would be biased and if he is biased, well it just doesn't matter what you choose because 99% of people are going to be fucked anyways (not good odds).
So, I'm not looking to tell you to believe in god or not, I disagree with what pascal wrote concerning his "gamble" because it just makes so many assumptions that it's not realistic. So, we set off with 3 different original outcomes, 1 god, several gods, no gods. Now, in outcome 2, you'll have gods on your side and gods against you no matter what you do, as listed above. With the third outcome you are fine no matter what you do obviously as long as its not human sacrifice just because, well... There's no god, you can do what you want, you have no divine being to please.
If we look at the first of those three outcomes, there is a single god, now the bracket expands, first of all, is he bias or not, if he is not bias, then it ends there, won't matter what you do he'll give you the same treatment as anyone else, if there is bias, then you have to open the bracket of what he's bias towards... which quite frankly, can be anything, if you choose any of those biases wrong, you end up that you're fucked...
Now, I come back to Pascal because he does have some reason to his text in the extract that discusses distractions and diversions where he suggests that man's natural state of life is miserable, though he mentions that man is easily distracted from this misery and this is kind of the point I want to make out of Pascal's writing about god as well. What he writes about god, I don't believe that he writes because he believes what he writes and I'm guessing that he knows he makes unfair assumptions. And you may wonder how this relates, why would he intentionally write something that is false or that he didn't believe in a published book, because he pretended to believe it as a distraction. So, what I'm saying is, don't go diving into organized religion and supernatural beliefs because you think its reasonable, do it because you want to and it gives you a sense of happiness to follow these beliefs and this is a bit as to why I'm bias against organized religion, because, I feel as though you gain more from inner spirituality and creating your own beliefs than to follow someone else. By all means, if you don't have the time to spend on creating your own beliefs or if you're already happy (busy), then organized religion is a great side distraction.
Like I said before, I hope this doesn't offend anybody being as it's a serious philosophical blog, it's just to say that if there is no proof of what god wants from us, then there is no correct belief and people should be able to understand each others beliefs and accept them as something that person uses as a distraction. Beliefs can be shared from person to person and no one should be offended by anyone else beliefs because there is no right answer and until proven otherwise, people should accept and consider everyone's beliefs within their surroundings, however, no one should be pressured into beliefs.
It's great to see that you have figured out that there is no way to discern which beliefs about the supernatural are true and therefore should be believed, but it's a bit disconcerting that your conclusion is that therefore you can "create beliefs" on your own. If there's no reason to believe something, you shouldn't believe it. Personal belief systems are just as crazy as organized belief. Your argument assumes that creating some kind of personal belief is better than traditional religion, but the very same argument began with the reasonable conclusion that you can't differentiate between any of these beliefs in the first place, because there is no way to discern if any of them are true.
It's a waste of your time to spend it on "creating your own beliefs" if those beliefs are just as kooky and evidence-free as traditional religion. The proper response is not to "believe in" anything without evidence to support it.
I don't see anything wrong with creating your belief, and despite being atheist in practice (though philosophically agnostic), I also see no reason why we should discourage people from making their own belief, since as the OP himself states: 'do it because you want to and it gives you a sense of happiness to follow these beliefs'.
However I do have 1 proviso. People should be aware when it is a time to use rational reasoning based on evidence, and when it is ok to make decisions based on personal beliefs.
I think it is uneccesary and antagonistic to actively push people towards lack of belief, especially if they feel it enriches their lives. On the other hand people with these personal beliefs need to be aware that these beliefs are just that, personal. When decisions need to be made that effect more than one person, they shold not be affected by your personal beliefs because someone else's personal beliefs will be different and there will be no metric to judge which is better/more efficient and no way to falsify either beliefs, eg there is reasonable way to resolve a conflict of belief, whereas rational, logical reasoning can be compared and analysed. So when decisions effecting more than yourself need to be made, you need to be ready to leave your beliefs at the door and use the common language of reasoning: rationality.
I disagree with the first reply and I very much agree with the second reply.
To have one's own beliefs I feel makes that person stronger than another who doesn't have their own beliefs just because, it's easy to follow what someone else is already doing and find comfort in that, you don't have to think, you don't have to do anything. I like the idea of finding one's own morals and ideals concerning spirituality and every aspect of their life. It's a way to enhance their creativity as such and prove that they as a person can think critically about moral and philosophical issues.
I don't think it's against religion related topics as a rule, merely that alot of religion just have a tendency to turn into a giant melee of people flaming each other, and some of the topics are a bit touchy by nature.
So if it's well thought out, and doesn't turn into a flamefest later, I don't see why TL would ban it.
How do you come to believe something then? What is the process by which you come to believe in something that cannot be proven? Just because it feels good? Give me an example of something you believe that you came to believe on your own accord, and yet for which there is no evidence. Something religiousy, so we can skip all this charade about "believing in love" or some nonsense which isn't really what we mean by belief in something.
How can you separate out your beliefs from "rationality"? Why would you believe something that you know to be unfalsifiable and unrelated to the evidence-based world?
It's pretty clear that irrational beliefs creep into all other areas of a person's life. Just because there's not an explicit connection doesn't mean that it doesn't subtly influence the reasoning process.
On February 01 2012 17:02 IgnE wrote: How do you come to believe something then? What is the process by which you come to believe in something that cannot be proven? Just because it feels good? Give me an example of something you believe that you came to believe on your own accord, and yet for which there is no evidence. Something religiousy, so we can skip all this charade about "believing in love" or some nonsense which isn't really what we mean by belief in something.
How can you separate out your beliefs from "rationality"? Why would you believe something that you know to be unfalsifiable and unrelated to the evidence-based world?
It's pretty clear that irrational beliefs creep into all other areas of a person's life. Just because there's not an explicit connection doesn't mean that it doesn't subtly influence the reasoning process.
We're not talking about religion when we are talking about personal spirituality and personal beliefs, you can't say "gimme your beliefs that don't involve X and Y things".
For example of a personal belief though,
"I don't have to believe in god, if he does exist, he would recognize me the same way as he would recognize anyone else no matter what they do in life."
I don't really want to get too much more into that because it's not things that we need to agree on. So, you believe that organized religion is more valid then personal beliefs, that's absolutely fine, there is no issue there, however you should also accept that others feel differently.
"Knowledge is not going to solve our problems. You may know for example that there is reincarnation, that there is a continuity after death. You may know, I don't say you do; or you may be convinced of it. But that does not solve the problem. Death cannot be shelved by your theory, or by information, or by conviction. It is much more mysterious, much deeper, much more creative than that." - Jiddu Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, Chapter on Simplicity
I can't begin to tell you how to live your life, and no one else can. You should try and experience as much as you can, find the things that really make you happy, and of course be aware that you do live on this rock with other people.
He didn't say that, at all. He said personal belief systems are as unfruitful as organized belief systems. I don't completely agree with this. A personal belief system doesn't necessarily have to be about some diety. It can also be about how you view life and deal with other people in a spiritual way (philosophical approach) It would be kind of absurd to treat every interaction with an other human being on rational an empirical basis, this would take away the joy from interacting with eachother.
On February 01 2012 17:02 IgnE wrote: How do you come to believe something then? What is the process by which you come to believe in something that cannot be proven? Just because it feels good? Give me an example of something you believe that you came to believe on your own accord, and yet for which there is no evidence. Something religiousy, so we can skip all this charade about "believing in love" or some nonsense which isn't really what we mean by belief in something.
How can you separate out your beliefs from "rationality"? Why would you believe something that you know to be unfalsifiable and unrelated to the evidence-based world?
It's pretty clear that irrational beliefs creep into all other areas of a person's life. Just because there's not an explicit connection doesn't mean that it doesn't subtly influence the reasoning process.
Ok first I'm going to go into why i'm practically atheist, but philosophically agnostic, it's long but relevant, so bear with me:
First regarding the philosophically agnostic part, cos that better describes my 'belief' system. I believe the weight of evidence points away from any all powerful being in the sense that the major organised religions and alot of the less major religions of today propose, and I feel that this probably means that there is no God or equivalent. However, there is insufficient evidence, and never will be to prove this point of view, many of these religious beliefs are by nature unfalsible. Thus I can never be sure.
While, since these religious beliefs are not falsible, they are not scientific theories, however I choose to apply the scientific method to their null hypothesis, so philosophically I choose to keep an open mind about possibilities that the lack of a God can be disproved.
So between the uncertainty and the forced open mindedness consistent with the scientific method I am agnostic, as I believe the issue is unresolved or unresolveable.
On the other hand, and to the crux of the issue, I am in practice an atheist, primarily due to judicious use of Occam's razor, which you were advocating in not so many words. That is to say, I choose to act as if there were no god, despite philosophically being unsure.
My reasoning is such:
a) The weight of evidence seems to point against any deity that have been described to me so far, if my understanding of the universe is flawed and in fact one of the theories are correct, then to be honest, the deity sounds like a dick(no offense religious people) and I would deem him(or Him, or her, whatever) to be unworthy of my personal worship.
b) There may be a god(s) that merely observes and doesn't interfere, or is at least unobservable by us.
c) There isn't much agreement to what exactly constitutes God, or a god. Some people, like Einstein, attribute what is essentially the sum of all phenomena in the universe to be God. It is merely a semantic argument, but in the end I cannot refute it, and it may indeed be unrefutable.
a) Points me towards living as an atheist because i believe that has by far the greatest chance of me living the 'correct' way.
b) and c) I ignore due to Occam's razor, and this is fundamentally where I answer your question. I ignore them in in the sense that I don't act on them as whether or not they are true, they don't change the effectiveness of my universal model of how things work, and therefore have no utility. This however does not mean I rule them out as impossible or believe they are not true, my beliefs still remain at 'I am unsure, or there is no way for anyone to be sure'.
I think the main issue is that people misapply Occam's razor so much. Occams razor gives you the preffered, simpler model, not nessecarily the more true model. While we would prefer to use a theory that does satisfy Occam's razor because it is a simpler, and therefore better tool, it does not make 1 model more correct than another.
On February 01 2012 15:59 Eywa- wrote: So, what I'm saying is, don't go diving into organized religion and supernatural beliefs because you think its reasonable, do it because you want to and it gives you a sense of happiness to follow these beliefs.
100% disagreed. Every belief/religion makes truthclaims about the universe. You need good reasons to believe something is true - you can't just believe something because it makes you feel good.
On February 01 2012 15:59 Eywa- wrote: There is no telling if there ever was a god and if he still exists, there is no reason that points to there being an infinite being who safeguards men who are loyal to him. The notion of their being a god or not is one that is really, difficult to gauge because, humans can't see god, they can't communicate with him and so, basically have no interaction whatsoever with god.
Is this part of your personal beliefs too? Or do you consider this facts? If so, why? Is it from logic reasoning alone without relation to the physical world or is it because you have no personal evidence of a deity? Also; do you distrust the evidence coming from other people if you have not experienced the same yourself?
It feels to me that you start off with quite big assumptions for a philosophical approach. At least from what I can tell... Please elaborate though. ^^
"I don't have to believe in god, if he does exist, he would recognize me the same way as he would recognize anyone else no matter what they do in life."
That's not really a belief about much, if anything.
I don't think philosophical perspectives are "beliefs." They are just perspectives, viewpoints, opinions. Beliefs are things that you believe to be true. It's not coherent for me to say that I "believe in" the golden rule, or that I "believe in" natural rights. While that makes grammatical sense, it is more akin to saying that I think people should treat each other a certain way. I'm not making a statement about the golden rule's truth value, whatever that might mean.
Since you didn't read my previous posts and apparently only made this blog to celebrate your having come to the conclusion that people should believe whatever they want to believe, I probably shouldn't expect you to read this either. You didn't answer how someone comes to believes certain things over others or how one should go about doing that in a rational way. Probably because it's not possible for someone to go about it in a rational way and so you don't know how to answer it.
"I don't have to believe in god, if he does exist, he would recognize me the same way as he would recognize anyone else no matter what they do in life."
That's not really a belief about much, if anything.
I don't think philosophical perspectives are "beliefs." They are just perspectives, viewpoints, opinions. Beliefs are things that you believe to be true. It's not coherent for me to say that I "believe in" the golden rule, or that I "believe in" natural rights. While that makes grammatical sense, it is more akin to saying that I think people should treat each other a certain way. I'm not making a statement about the golden rule's truth value, whatever that might mean.
Since you didn't read my previous posts and apparently only made this blog to celebrate your having come to the conclusion that people should believe whatever they want to believe, I probably shouldn't expect you to read this either. You didn't answer how someone comes to believes certain things over others or how one should go about doing that in a rational way. Probably because it's not possible for someone to go about it in a rational way and so you don't know how to answer it.
Satisfaction, feeling secure, it doesn't even matter why they feel the way they do. The mind will find a way to rationalize until its satisfied. You can even change your mind later O.O if that satisfies you...
how is a belief not a perspective? and how is a perspective not a belief? certainly all perspectives have beliefs that guide them, and perspectives in turn make beliefs?
EPT
