sjcarpediem | Long reply to short questions

Current Mood: rational and sane
Current Location: japan

Entry tags:

jew,
observations

Long reply to short questions

Partly sunny, 7C (4C)

One of you (earthbound01) asked me something relatively simple :
Did you used to be an atheist? What changed your mind?

My reply got a little long for LJ's comment length limit, and I don't feel like breaking it up into multiple comments. I also think this is something more of my friends should read--in order to promote a richer mutual understanding and, hopefully, foster some discourse.

Here's my answer :
There is always a chance that someone knows something I don't--but actually in some areas, and with some ppl, that chance is much smaller than in others.

Hmm... did I used to be an atheist? That's a really good question. Maybe I was an atheist ; not entirely sure. But I was definitely strongly agnostic for a very long time.

Even in my earliest memories of learning about the world, it was so wondrous--both elegantly simple and blindingly complex that my instinct was that there had to be something beyond it or transcending it that directed that, even if that something was only "chaos" and the order was an accident that happened over and over again because of the nature of chaos ; I always recognized that the world was finite, was therefor created and that that creation had a common bond in having been made together and/or by the same force(s). Growing up I was never told, "yes, you're right" or "no, you're wrong" but instead always prodded to "look into it" and "figure it out for [my]self". I don't think I even heard the word "god" in the house until well after the time my family started watching TV in the house so that I could also [without breaking about a dozen rules], which was when I was around six or seven.

My father's mistress used to put me in frilly pink dresses to show me off at her church--which generally made me sick, but there's not much a seven-year-old can do about these things--and besides, the idea of god was only given lip-service there so it didn't give me any ideas about god persay so much as it gave me ideas about the people who talked about god. I was pretty disgusted, actually. There were many very ugly things about the world that I noticed and the more I learned about them the more I tried to ignore whatever was holding them all together because it was all just a little too emotionally overwhelming.

Some people did talk about what god was about, and I tried to listen to them carefully until, eventually, the ring became dull. Actually, in most places I found god mentioned they weren't really rationally talking about god or what god was/wasn't or what god did/didn't do--until I found myself in a Chabad house, that is. By then I was already 19. I recognized those conversations immediately as incredibly valuable and took about as much of it as I could stand for the next few years--which I know now was barely brushing at the surface. My priorities were such that it went to the backburner for a while. I didn't start digging more seriously--as a nearly-daily occupation--until maybe two-and-a-half years ago.

So, of course, I'm coming at most discourses on god from a perspective of "you call this transcendental thing that organizes the universe god, well god's got some 'splainin' to do". Of course, I have questioned the very existence of such a transcendental force but then absolutely everything becomes meaningless. I lived as a nihilist for a while ; there really is no point. Having stood in that vantage point and left it I know how silly and sad it is on a level that I find difficult to communicate. It's something a person must experience to their bones, I think, to really understand what that perspective is (just like you have to do to really understand anything, it seems...) ; and I don't see how any thinking, rational [sane] human being who has done that can possibly, honestly argue that it is correct or right [that there is no infinite ruling over finitude] in any way whatsoever. I can't really articulate why because it's just so obvious to me, from my experience with it, that I can't imagine anybody else not noticing it, also. You could probably understand enough of it even just imagining such a scenario, without even having to go through trying to experience it to gain the full appreciation.

I think a lot of ppl who claim they're living under this belief [that there is no infinite, no 'god'] are actually living under a series of unquestioned misunderstandings and failures to define or understand what questions they've asked and what questions they've answered. Usually they cling to science saying that's all they need [or want], but science is just another face of god--a mechanical face. It's like holding a box full of springs and tubes and wheels and circuit boards and saying you've got a robot. In a manner of speaking, yes you have every major physical component you need for a robot--but you've got to put it together and work out a few kinks before it's even rudimentarily recognizable as what we mean when we say "robot".

So science is one facet of understanding existence, but it's not complete and it's only the hows (and some whats)--nothing about the whys. Human life, like children's questions, is more about whys. Of course, the hows are also ~very important~ and we absolutely NEED the hows, science is an astounding aide to comprehending the initially incomprehensible ; but as a Jew might put it, the hows are not the ikur (the main thing). Ppl make science their religion and it's just pathetic to me. Why limit yourself like that? If you want the main thing, you need to talk about transcendence and order that encompasses even chaos (where chaos is a necessity and serves a purpose or a role), about infinite ruling over finitude, about ultimate truth and/or meaning : and that's god.

Ppl say, "there was the big bang and now we're here" and it screams to me that they've never actually thought about (or so much as tried, really, to think about) what the big bang is/was, or the distance between the big bang and us and all the intricate, miraculous whats and hows that've happened between them, not to mention they've never crunched the numbers (the numbers, for god's sake!) and have absolutely zero appreciation for any of the springs or tubes or wheels or circuit boards that they do have--and there's certainly no way in hell they can even begin to make them into a robot. It's completely unreasonable.

[This is what I've come to understand is the position of true atheism : there is no infinite (see above regarding the definition of god). I find it hollow, and, perhaps even more disconcertingly, insane. It's also almost entirely incomputable to me. Ppl who claim this are like ppl happily going about their afternoon tea in a burning building to me : they must be hurting themselves, living like this, or at the very least not getting as much as they could (allowing themselves to be cheated, or rather cheating themselves) and I hear wailing sirens, I feel like I am responsible, like I should do something--as a fellow human being--to help them get more out of their life ; because, frankly, it's already only barely enough to excuse the anguish of existing. It takes a lot of effort to restrain myself, sometimes! This is certainly a result of all the effort I've invested in understanding the situation and the ramifications of what conclusions I've come to--I used to be perfectly happy letting ppl delude themselves about reality however they liked and as much as they pleased so long as they left me alone with my constructs in return. Now I must invest much more energy in carefully defining and assessing reality itself, which has brought me to caring more about how others do it as well....]

I don't really blame them for never thinking about these things--it's not actually particularly easy and if you're a true nihilist it's not pleasant, either (if you're not a nihilist, it's still might make you pretty uncomfortable). I'm at a bit of a loss at that point in the conversation--I mean, where do I begin? With my own intellectual journey, with how I've just perceived them, with all the flaws in their thinking, where do you start!? I haven't figured out, yet, how to start when it's someone else... And not come off as a complete and utter creep, anyway. Then I remember that I was never told, "yes, you're right" or "no, you're wrong" and was instead encouraged to "look into it" and "find out for [my]self"--and I realize that this is the most that I can do... so I try to do it the best way I can.

And then they usually say something like "every time I meet someone smart who says they believe in god it surprises me". Well, maybe they should think about that--smart ppl don't just "believe" stuff [at least not smart ppl with so much as a whit of integrity!], they think it out and come to a logical, intelligent, integrated solution and if those ppl (who they clearly admire) say "I know there is a god" maybe they seriously should ask themselves whether they know there isn't. And be sure to also ask Why.

But first, I think most ppl need to decide what god is, before they can even begin to ask these other questions--which I feel every life worth living must answer. Maybe it's hard for me to pass what I've learned in this arena over to them because the overwhelming bulk of my quest has not been to prove or disprove god itself so much as it's been to come to clarity about what god is, precisely.

Maybe that sounds like I'm working backwards--like I've already decided there's a god and I'm just trying to find a definition that fits ; but that's not how it's been. I can say so with confidence because I've lived in that place where nothing has meaning--including whether or not there's a god--which is perhaps why the existence of god was only a real question for me for such a comparably short time. That and I was also able to access the relevant data relatively quickly and painlessly to make my judgment. Answering that has taken far less energy and effort than really understanding and coming to grips with the answer.

...I suppose that would be the answer to your second question.

=====Side note :

Ppl who blather on about privilege and simultaneously fail to critically examine and recognize their own paradigms and how those relate to others' are also problematic for me.

Enough of the heavy, I think I'll watch some anime and start sorting through this nonsense physicality that is the fillings of my apartment... ;-P

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, maybe nothing relates to this post, but a Canadian who's a Christian once questioned me about my religion and was shocked to find out i have none. I do agree there is God but I think I never really bother to know its definition. God is praised/prayed to when people need help and that makes me feel disgusted. I have always wondered God only exists inside a person when their wishes are fulfilled. And to pray to God about how grateful one's about who they're today is just because they don't want what they have to be taken away. But then, this might be just my shallow perception to you. It's interesting to read your thoughts on God, though.

Certainly, there are plenty of ppl who only appeal to "god" as a last resort--like its some fairy king that can set that individual's world right--fairweather johnsons, they're in as long as it serves them. I can't blame them but I think it's childish and hope that eventually they can look on it as a phase. I wonder why you react so strongly to it.... Ppl always want, are always experiencing some kind of hurt or discomfort...

Especially recently, I find myself praying much more throughout the day--I am grateful for this, wow that is really wonderful, please help and protect me, please help me live more of life, and so on. It's not that I expect these prayers to be heard as much as I expect them to help me accomplish what I'm after by putting me in a proper mindset to get done what needs doing. And it doesn't hurt to communicate with something that *might* be listening, I suppose. :-P

Lol I really hope everything turns out well for you. :)

LoL--same to you!

i feel similarly, in a lot of ways. i think heschel "sums" it up beautifully, when he talks about radical amazement.

Radical amazement sounds about right... :-)

You know, a funny thing: my own atheism is such a tiny thing in the scope of my overall philosophy, I sometimes find it weird that I wind up debating over it more than anything else. I *think* it's because people have such a repulsive reaction to it that causes me to feel the need to defend it. To that end, being an agnostic (which was for a long time) is easier to deal with because people seem more forgiving of fence-sitting than outright rejection.

But really, I find the difference between the two to be a matter of how the question is asked: "could god exist?" Vs. "Is there are reason to believe god exists?"

Edited 2010-12-27 00:46 (UTC)

Those are both very compelling questions. The first, logically is simple enough. Almost too simple. Possibilities are great fun to imagine but when it comes to something like god, I don't really care what's possible or impossible according to wherever I am at the moment--I care about what is. "Does god exist?" Which is also an astoundingly simple question--nearly scandalously so (depending, I suppose, on how you define "god", that is...).

The second is more of a personal thing, I suppose. But, really, once you have the first answer the second is totally moot. There are at least as many reasons to believe as to disbelieve or vice versa--depending on my mood on any given day or in any given hour one side might have one or two reasons more than the other. At any rate, the question of "belief" is really very heavily Christian-dogma-influenced, and it takes that from it's pagan ancestry. I'm not looking for belief--I want knowledge. God's existence isn't going to change depending on whether I "believe" in it or not--god is not Tinkerbell, and Tinkerbell is not god.

For reference, when I talk about God, here's how I'm defining it: A sentient being with some kind of infinite quality with at least some role in forming existence itself as we know it.

I think including other definitions really only serves to confuse the conversation. You can say the cosmos itself is "God." OK. Why not just call it the "cosmos" instead of labelling it with the term used for the divine creator of religious doctrine that acts and thinks and has a behavior pattern?

Here's my take on those two questions:

Imagine that there's a rumor there's teapot in orbit. There are no pictures of the teapot. Nobody knows exactly where the teapot is in orbit. There is no record of exactly how the teapot got there. But lots of people believe it's there.

You could ask: Could the teapot exist? Well, of course it COULD exist. If that question is your approach to the teapot's possible existence, then you're a teapot agnostic.

You could also ask: Is there a reason to believe the teapot exists? Well, considering that there's no evidence for it and just the world of a few people who can provide no evidence, then no, not really. Then you're a teapot atheist.

Then apply that question to "God."

I think that's the only real difference between an atheist and agnostic. When the question of something's existence comes up, do you ask "could it?" or "Is there a reason to believe in it?" Otherwise, we're really don't have that much in difference.

So, to me, if I'm asked if I believe in God, it's kind of like asking me if I believe in unicorns. My answer's going to be "no." Not because it can't exist, but because I have no reason to believe it does.

Edited 2010-12-27 03:37 (UTC)

Wrench : teapot is finite, god is infinite.

Finite has to come from somewhere--the only possible end-source for finite is infinite.

I think that wrench is based on an assumption.

There are mathematical proofs for infinite things. There are no proofs, mathematical or otherwise, for God.

I just realized what I said can be easily misunderstood, since infinity is an abstraction, it's just functional.

Let me put it this way: What are you basing the idea that "the only possible end-source for finite is infinite" on, and why is this a reason to accept God's existance?

I do not understand this : "since infinity is an abstraction, it's just functional"

Q. What am I basing this idea on?
A. Logic. Finite things cannot make finite things--they can reshape them or re-purpose them or utilize them or whatever but they can't actually create [physically]. The only thing that can physically create finitude, the only place for finite things to come from, is infinity.

Q. Why is it a reason to accept the existence of god?
A. Um... because it logically follows that if god is defined as an infinite, transcendental force driving the universe that once the existence of such a force has been proven [thus a truth] only someone either insane or completely dishonest would outright reject the truth and since that force is also the definition of god that means either (a) accepting the existence of god [as a truth], or (b) accepting being either insane or completely dishonest.

Point by point:

- Infinity is an abstract idea that functions mathematically but has never been observed. Pi functions. Calculus functions. But cosmologists consider the question of boundless volume in the physical universe to be unanswered.

- What do you mean by "create physically?" Do you mean to manifest out of a vacuum? What makes you sure anything has ever been manifested out of a vacuum?

- Are you using the word "transcendal" in the spiritual "above the universe" sense or non-algebraic sense?

-Of course, infinity cannot be observed because we observe things based on their limits/limitations and infinity has none. One should not expect to "observe" infinity. I'm leaning towards the universe having bound volume--it is the universe, after all, not god.

-I don't want you saying : look at computer programs, ppl ( who are finite) create computer programs! So I threw in "physically".

-I'm using it in this sense :

tranÂ·scenÂ·denÂ·tal
â‚ â‚/ËŒtrÃ¦nsÉ›nËˆdÉ›ntl, -sÉ™n-/ [tran-sen-den-tl, -suhn-]
â“adjective
1. transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
2. being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
3. abstract or metaphysical.
4. idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5. Philosophy .
a. beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge. Compare transcendent ( def. 4b ) .
b. pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
c. Kantianism . of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge. Compare transcendent ( def. 4b ) .
(from dictionary.com)

Honestly, Steph, I care about your opinion (obviously, or I wouldn't be engaging you.) But I think we're talking past one another. I don't see any reason to believe finite things require an infinite, unknowable force to create it.

Ah well. We tried. :)

I understand that you don't see any reason to believe--I'm saying whether you see a reason or not, whether you believe or not is basically irrelevant. It is what it is. And I agree, I think we are talking past one another. Maybe some other time, in some other conversation, we'll be able to connect.

You bet it is!

Our definitions of god must be different. I'm not talking about a cult figure. I'm talking about an infinite, transcendental force which drives the universe.

That brings me to my earlier point. Why not just call it infinity? Why call it "God?" Won't that just serve to confuse people?

I'm not confused. Infinity is a quality, god is a concept.

Right, an infinite transcendental force.

How about this: Give me an example of that force.

Are you being facetious, here? An example of that force is god. Unfortunately, I know of no others.

I'm not being facetious. I'm trying to get a grip on what you're talking about.

Now I've run into what looks like circular reasoning.

What's god? An infinite, transcendental force.

What's an infinite transcendental force? God.

Well, OK then.

Looks more like a definition to me since there's no logical process at work in either of those statements beyond a simple equivocation (which is a definition).

I'm concerned I might be wasting your time (and mine) since I'd just be re-iterating the points which are better-stated in them, so allow me to recommend two pieces of free media (both from Jewish sources, you you know the bias is that these are not from atheist sources) :

1. Article on whether god is necessary in the creation of the universe (http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Stephen_Hawking__God.html)
2. Search for class # WN 781 A (http://www.aishaudio.com/search/results.php)

There are two more which are excellent for expounding more on the philosophical-logical aspects of the existence or non-existence of god, but they're not free.

OK. I'll try and check those out some time in the near future.

For what it's worth, I've argued this topic a lot over the years and I've run into similar infinity-begets-finity stuff before and it only ever seemed like illogic and the stuff of rationalization to me. Everything I've run into for as long as I've been considering the question has only made me more of an atheist. ;)

But I also feel like I've been barraging you with questions. Feel free to ask me anything if you care to as well. :-p

Thanks.

No particular queries. You're smart ; and I'm not saying ppl *have* to acknowledge there is a god to have good, happy, productive lives or to be decent ppl that I want to associate with--I am saying I think they could have it better, that they could have more integrity for critical evaluation in my eyes. Maybe in another twenty years I'll think differently, again.

All the arguments I've heard from self-avowed atheists have only ever made me think more strongly that they're narrowing their field of vision too much, or not thinking deeply enough, or not asking the obvious next question for whatever reason--I've decided to try to think more about what specifically I think is missing there before I ask any more questions of them.

Yeah, my general thought on that is that when people see something they don't have an answer for, they tend to just fill it in with "God" until it's disproven one way or another. And that's the pattern my personal critical evaluation of history and science has demonstrated to me.

But you probably figured that. :-p

Yeah, I get that.

And I've seen it a lot, too. It's really irritating. And I think even ppl who know better still refer to god in terms that are a little too figuratively human sometimes....

Going back to your earlier question about why not just call god infinity, I think there's a difference between an infinity that just exists (let's imagine the cosmos are infinitely voluminous...) and an infinity that creates or is active in any way other than simply existing [perhaps an infinity that is a source of finite] so I think that differentiation is necessary--but it does lead to some trouble because infinity is really hard, well, impossible, to imagine and a lot of the time ppl just give up on being clear that god is infinite and move right into thinking of god as a loving uncle (which is incorrect)...

I don't think just using "infinity" would change that basic confusion which stems from a failure to really understand that infinity is basically incomprehensible to us, and I think it ~would~ lose the differentiation from infinity (as an endless cosmos would exemplify) as a quality and god as the concept of an active- or source-infinite.

And I'm probably losing a bit of clarity by resorting to "active" as a descriptor, but it's the best I can just just now...

I'm gonna jump into the convo right here- I think the absence or presence of a deity in a person's understanding of the world is a matter of perception, and not a matter of choice. I gave believing in a transcendent spirit more than a fair try, but it didn't fit. The concept was a square peg, and my mind is a board of round holes. I don't want to debate you on the presence or absence of said deity in objective space, as that's been pretty well done through, but it does hurt my feelings a little bit that you think my math is bad. :)

Well, for what it's worth, I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt.

It doesn't change anything, though. If anything, it just means that we should avoid doing math together if we want to prevent hurting your feelings. ;-)

There's a lot that really struck me as wrong in this, but I don't think we're likely to even find common language. As an adult I've probably spent about even amounts of time as some kind of theist or some kind of agnostic, but I've not been an atheist since around the end of high school, if then. However, I'm positively shocked by what feels like contempt for those who's minds, frankly, WORK with very different assumptions than yours. You come across as someone who's been made more and more shallow the more you've thought about the subject. And, honestly, I do really respect your intelligence, and the work you've obviously put into your considerations. But you've seemingly done it at the cost of being able to conceive of a different viewpoint from yours as being possibly valid, combined with an assumption that you "get" those other viewpoints (and, while you might indeed understand them, your patronizing straw man oversimplifications don't make it seem that way to me).

Ok, rant off. I'm going to cool down before I start sounding truly stupid. Or, perhaps, something ELSE truly stupid, take your pick.

Hi! It's been a while! I hope you're well!

Well, put it this way--you know 1+1=2 ; how warm of a welcome do you give the "different working minds" that insist it's 3, or 4.5? And is that welcome any cooler when you're trying to figure out your taxes? It's something like that. The better you know something the less likely you are to tolerate what you know to be incorrect. I don't think I'm due to have contempt for atheists any time soon, but it's something I am on the lookout for already because that is a natural outcome. Afterall, I am neither god nor the messiah. It's not that I can't conceive of a different viewpoint--it's that, most likely, I've already examined and discarded whatever viewpoint your referring to. I hope you can appreciate the difference.... (BTW, you say patronizing straw-man oversimplifications, I say metaphor ; but wtvr, to each his own.) I think this is what you mean by shallow, anyway. Shallow by what standard, though--building an island from the ocean floor up to the surface of the sea is, indeed, a shallowing process ; would it be better that I left such matters in murky depths? I think not. And it should be obvious that if I've decided to invest the energy and effort into raising them so that I can see them that's a decision I made for compelling reasons and it ought to be easily perceived as very highly likely that I think those reasons are pretty universal and would therefore have a possibly unfavorable disposition to those who've not accorded the same or similar effort into at least deciding that much. Yeah, I'm a human being.

What I don't know as certainly as that 1+1=2 or that there is a god, however, is how much what I know does or doesn't matter and in what ways. There are so many possible interpretations it'll probably take some time before I'm really totally clear on that! There are plenty of things I'm unwilling to weigh in on because (a) I don't see how my ideas mesh with thousands of years of critical philosophizing and (b) I haven't developed a similar level of clarity and certainty with them. And there are plenty of ideas that I don't discuss with just anybody because I have enough on my hands with the ideas themselves, I don't need to worry about being misunderstood as much as I should in order to discuss them on top of that.

I wouldn't say that anything you wrote was stupid. I would call it a vague, one-sided, unfriendly impeachment which is--unfortunately for me--not in a spirit of exchange wherein rational minds attempt to meet one another. I appreciate you think me illogical (strawman arguments==illogic), un-compassionate, exceedingly judgmental, narrow-minded, shallow, etc. In my defense, I have other strengths, too, though--ones that most ppl do not find so offensive! I also appreciate that nobody needs that kind of person (illogical, un-compassionate, exceedingly judgmental, narrow-minded, shallow, etc) in their lives : hon, you ought to know where the delete button is. Since you don't even want to try finding a common language, or even just point out the error of my thinking according to you but instead bombast me with mussar (at least that's what it seems like from my chair) that doesn't really point to me becoming a better person [as far as I can tell], as a past-friend I have to recommend you use it.

Godspeed in grace!

Before I even evaluate whether to say anything further, I want to a) apologize for my own rudeness in what I said and (especially) how I said it, and b) mention that an hour after I posted, I realized how frighteningly low my meds levels were, and how that likely was affecting the state I was in. I don't think the second excuses the first, but it may impact whether you think it would be worthwhile to engage on this, or any other, topic further with me once I'm on a more even keel. I would at least like to say that, as awful a picture of you as my words seem to paint, I don't believe you're the person I see described by that list of adjectives you mirrored my comment's judgement of you with. I think you're pretty cool stuff. But, I'm going to leave this there for now. I'm glad to continue this more constructively later, or not, as you wish. Either way I wish you all the best, and I don't say that as a formality either.

Ah, please take good care of yourself! Whenever you feel up to it, I'm happy to continue.

For what it's worth, what you wrote was pretty aggressive and provocative. I mean, you call people insane and delusional, essentially. But I tried to give you some benefit of the doubt that it's not really personal. Every debate on religion tends to amount to "I believe what you believe is bullshit" and there are not many gentle ways to say that.

Yeah, I try to keep it about ideas and not about ppl (out of respect for ppl, because that phrase could be read a few different ways). It's a bitter pill to take, so I try to appreciate that whenever it's my role to give it....

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Long reply to short questions

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject