On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: For a long time I walked the tight rope between Atheist and Agnostic, and I've never been a fan of organized religion of any kind (but that's not what this is about.) I've always done my research on religions and all that kind of stuff, because I'm not the kind of person who likes to be against something I know nothing about. Despite this, I had never heard of "deism" until a couple months ago, and I just attributed my beliefs to Agnosticism.
I believe that everything that is in the Universe, and all of the pieces that tie it together to make it what it is (physics, evolution, etc.), was created by something greater than the Universe, some higher power or being or something.
My reason for this, is that even though we have valid, evidenced theories about HOW the Universe was born, we don't know WHERE it came from. It seems like that is a question that very few scientists are even trying to answer.
Assuming a linear understanding of "time" as opposed to a circular one, you are always forced to question what was before whatever is commonly accepted as "the beginning." This is a question I don't think we'll ever truly know the answer to, and that is where I've decided to fill in the gaps with my own beliefs.
I believe that whoever or whatever was responsible for the creation of our Universe did JUST that, and then left it alone. No divine intervention, no divine miracles. That is not to say I'm entirely opposed to the supernatural (things such as ghosts) but I think if such things were real, there would be a valid scientific explanation for it, maybe something that we just haven't quite figured out yet.
The above beliefs make me a deist, and I didn't know it. I was just curious if there were other people here who had similar beliefs.
When you sa you've decided to fill in the gaps with your own beliefs, I just want to make the point that that is not new. Things unknown have often been attiributed to gods, until we pushed back the boundaries. Weather, earthquakes, diseases, the beginning of everything, etc. This is called "the god of the gaps".
It's easy to believe stuff because we don't have all the answers but want to act as if we do. Unfortunately we humans often prefer any answer (and I mean ANY answer) to no answer at all. What I say to people in such situations is that "I don't know" is a reasonable response. It is also the only true one.
My question to you is, do you not feel somewhat intellectually dishonest in openly choosing whatever belief appeals to you the most? I tend to examine and re-examine any thoughts i'd have on people, philosophy or religion repeatedly until the most rational answer is left to me. I would feel dishonest to my own mind to believe something like you have, because I would be being mentally lazy. So what are your thoughts on that?
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: This is a question I don't think we'll ever truly know the answer to, and that is where I've decided to fill in the gaps with my own beliefs.
It seems like you don't want to take 'this is an unanswerable question' for an answer, so you just grab a thought with no basis and cling on to that for one. As with traditional religion, I don't see any reason to think that this is the case.
On July 14 2011 16:37 ixi.genocide wrote: You could only consider evolution "god" if you think that god is a concept. If you think that god is a being than it is impossible for evolution to be a god.
I think he meant that God could be the cause or even controlling factor of evolution, not that evolution itself was divine.
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: This is a question I don't think we'll ever truly know the answer to, and that is where I've decided to fill in the gaps with my own beliefs.
It seems like you don't want to take 'this is an unanswerable question' for an answer, so you just grab a thought with no basis and cling on to that for one. As with traditional religion, I don't see any reason to think that this is the case.
I don't see why this has to be viewed negatively. Chances are there will always be gaps in human understanding of the universe. There is no harm in substituting your own personal ideas to fill those gaps. The only "trouble" comes when people refuse to let go of their ideas if scientific evidence shows up that contradicts it. Even then it's only a problem if such a person hinders science / society over their beliefs.
On July 14 2011 16:32 snotboogie wrote: When it comes down to it, the existence of life, consciousness and intelligence on an inhabitable planet is way too coincidental to be random. Yes, I believe in God.
This is one argument, that has never convinced me (don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convert you to atheism/etc. just stating my point).
There is a GIGANTIC, huge, mass of solar systems, planets, etc. out there, I think mankind is still unable to grasp how huge the universe indeed is (me neither, of course) - this exceeds our imagination. Now if we think of this as a given, then how "big" is the probability that on ONE planet, by chance, something like us emerges. Even if there are "only" as many planets as words having been written on the internet...ever...then the probability of intelligent life evolving on at least one of them is actually quite huge.
Unfortunatley i'm not very well read concerning astrophysics, quantum physics or any of the really interesting forms of science. However i've been frequently thinking about time and what time really is. I don't understand why a lot of people try to define time as something that "was created" at in a specific way when as i percive it time is only a measurement that actaully works on earth and is only a measurement we created to satisfy our need to be able to percieve things in relation to ourselves.
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: My reason for this, is that even though we have valid, evidenced theories about HOW the Universe was born, we don't know WHERE it came from.
Exactly. We don't know. So why substitute the clean and reasonable state of not knowing with belief in something that's completely made up and has no objective basis? The only solution to not knowing something is exploring and learning it.
As opposed as I am to religions, most of them make more sense to me than the concept of "Deism" - in the sense that it is understandable why people choose to follow those beliefs. Fear of death, hopes for afterlife, unhappiness with life and all the related stuff - we can all kind of understand the emotional reasoning behind that. There is actual motivation to follow a "standard" brand of religion - people believe they will benefit from worship, and everyone always wants to believe something good will happen to them.
Deism on the other hand is just absurd - you propose a belief in the creator of the universe, and then just "leave it alone"? What's the point? It's still a completely made up story anyway, and if you don't really feel any sort of emotional attachment to it, you don't expect anything from it and you believe that you can never truly learn its nature and it cannot (or will not) affect you - why not just stop believing in the made up story?
What I like about Deism is that it kinda illustrates the religion in its "final form" - the "bare bones" religion that remains once layers and layers of religious beliefs and superstitions have been peeled off and archived as mythology. It's the most glaring example of why beliefs in "higher" powers are pointless and absurd.
I believe in the divine nature of the multiverse and everything in it and that we are all part of one divine eternal conscience experiencing itself through our individual lives and sensations.
I also believe "God" is a construct of evil, manipulative men who themselves do not believe in one but are in essence just corporate executives.
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: My reason for this, is that even though we have valid, evidenced theories about HOW the Universe was born, we don't know WHERE it came from.
Exactly. We don't know. So why substitute the clean and reasonable state of not knowing with belief in something that's completely made up and has no objective basis? The only solution to not knowing something is exploring and learning it.
As opposed as I am to religions, most of them make more sense to me than the concept of "Deism" - in the sense that it is understandable why people choose to follow those beliefs. Fear of death, hopes for afterlife, unhappiness with life and all the related stuff - we can all kind of understand the emotional reasoning behind that. There is actual motivation to follow a "standard" brand of religion - people believe they will benefit from worship, and everyone always wants to believe something good will happen to them.
Deism on the other hand is just absurd - you propose a belief in the creator of the universe, and then just "leave it alone"? What's the point? It's still a completely made up story anyway, and if you don't really feel any sort of emotional attachment to it, you don't expect anything from it and you believe that you can never truly learn its nature and it cannot (or will not) affect you - why not just stop believing in the made up story?
What I like about Deism is that it kinda illustrates the religion in its "final form" - the "bare bones" religion that remains once layers and layers of religious beliefs and superstitions have been peeled off and archived as mythology. It's the most glaring example of why beliefs in "higher" powers are pointless and absurd.
Best post of this thread. <3
Usually I am not bothered to write that much about this topic, but thats exactly what I am thinking. Especially like the last paragraph.
'I don't know, but I see no evidence supporting any specific theory which leads me to believe that theory is correct' is a statement that sums it up for me.
I don't know how everything came to be like it is. I don't know what if anything was before the universe, or if it even makes sense to look at it that way instead of as time being a property of the universe and not existing outside of it.
But, I don't believe that me not knowing, means I have to make up an answer and infer that there 'must be' some sort of divine being or cause or whatever.
I am an atheist.
In that I see no reason whatsoever to believe in any sort of divine beings.
Doesn't mean I can prove the non-existence of such beings. Now that I can explain how the universe came to be (I don't like to say created, it implies something existed before, and made it).
To me it just seems to be a way of saying 'I believe there must be a cause, something that made it' without any sort of explanation. It doesn't make more sense to me than 'the tide comes in, the tide comes out' argument. Things I can't explain, means I can't explain it. It doesn't mean that I have to explain it - and therefore make up some sort of divinity just to make sense of it.
'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer. No need to take it any further.
I don't believe in a God but I believe that life can be created, because I remember reading in some magazine that some science person created a life. Does that make me religious?
In such situations it is not sensible to inject your instinctive explanation in place of the knowledge gap. The answer could be anything, we do not have it. That is where it ends. When we do, we will know. Until then, it is a bad idea to start guessing.
I don't necessarily agree with you that it's a bad idea. I'm not exactly DOING anything with my beliefs, I just think it's plausible. Keep in mind that I don't belief in some "image of man" type being responsible for everything. I just think maybe there was some sentient power or something responsible for it. But I could be wrong. And I'm not against that, either.
I'm just "filling the gap" like you said, and if/when the answer is found, I'll accept that without issue.
'I don't know, but I see no evidence supporting any specific theory which leads me to believe that theory is correct' is a statement that sums it up for me.
I don't know how everything came to be like it is. I don't know what if anything was before the universe, or if it even makes sense to look at it that way instead of as time being a property of the universe and not existing outside of it.
But, I don't believe that me not knowing, means I have to make up an answer and infer that there 'must be' some sort of divine being or cause or whatever.
I am an atheist.
In that I see no reason whatsoever to believe in any sort of divine beings.
Doesn't mean I can prove the non-existence of such beings. Now that I can explain how the universe came to be (I don't like to say created, it implies something existed before, and made it).
To me it just seems to be a way of saying 'I believe there must be a cause, something that made it' without any sort of explanation. It doesn't make more sense to me than 'the tide comes in, the tide comes out' argument. Things I can't explain, means I can't explain it. It doesn't mean that I have to explain it - and therefore make up some sort of divinity just to make sense of it.
'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer. No need to take it any further.
You're not an atheist! You're an agnostic! An atheist believes that there is no God (or equivalent); an agnostic simply doesn't know. I prefer the latter, although I truly hope there's more to our experience than just this life.
On July 14 2011 16:14 ryanAnger wrote: Assuming a linear understanding of "time" as opposed to a circular one, you are always forced to question what was before whatever is commonly accepted as "the beginning." This is a question I don't think we'll ever truly know the answer to, and that is where I've decided to fill in the gaps with my own beliefs.
I believe that whoever or whatever was responsible for the creation of our Universe did JUST that, and then left it alone.
But then where did God come from? Who created him? :>
As to my own believe I am what you can call an anti-theist. That is I do not only think there isn't a God but I feel it would be a bad thing if there was.
On July 14 2011 17:15 State wrote: You're not an atheist! You're an agnostic! An atheist believes that there is no God (or equivalent); an agnostic simply doesn't know. I prefer the latter, although I truly hope there's more to our experience than just this life.
I can't prove the non-existence of invisible little green men in my bathroom either.
Doesn't mean I believe they are there.
I don't believe there is any reason for believing there to be any sort of divine being, and as such, I call myself an atheist.
I am not going to say however that I 'know' there are no divine being, as that would require me being able to prove it.
Deities are a wonderful idea, especially as a plot device. I personally enjoyed writing about gods and heroes a bit before I devoted my work solely into science fiction.
EPT
