Sai:
I like to believe that in a previous life, I
was either Hitler or Stalin... that way, I am
working off excessive bad karma...
I might as well give you the presuppositions
I have regarding religion before I continue.
I have 'reasons' to believe pretty much everything
I think, but some of the reasons are incredibly
vague, and some will just piss you off.
I believe in the existence of a soul. I believe
in reincarnation, but not necessarily karma
(I don't have a 'reason' to believe it) Good
and evil are completely arbitrary, and there
is no one in heaven that gives a shit about
them. There is no heaven or hell. There is a
universal aspect to everything- even though
there is a separation between my fingers and
the keys I hit, there is something that is shared
by both of them (some sort of mystical energy/god
thing), and everything is basically bathing
in this stuff. Time is an illusion. I also believe
that there is a universal aspect to every non-regional
religion in the world.
I classify myself as a mystic, and I have strong
shared beliefs with Hinduism. I am sure there
are more 'specific' things I believe, but they
aren't coming to me now.
You are more than welcome to attack any of these
beliefs that you want.
Ok, on my dismissal of your dismissal of religion...
there are an infinitely large number of definitions
of what 'god' is. Beyond that, 'god' is something
that I don't think can be logically understood.
Because of the limitations of language and general
human understanding, attempts to convey 'experience'
completely fall apart and seem paradoxical.
Probably the biggest problem people have to
get around is the fact they are socially engineered
by society to believe in a strict set of beliefs...
when this type of person encounters a 'foriegn
idea' they are most likely to dismiss it based
solely on the idea that 'this is wrong.'
I know this sounds completely abstract and has
this overwhelming sense of rambling, so let
me try to ground it. There is an atheistic argument
for the non-existence of god. It goes 1) God
is supposed to be all-knowing, all-loving, and
all-powerful 2) If God is all-loving, then he
wouldn't want anyone to go to hell 3) If God
is all-powerful, then he would be able to make
everyone believe 4) There are no-believers 5)god
doesn't exist.
This seems nice, it is an easy argument to understand,
and it seems to be ground in reason... the problems
with this argument are:
1)the conclusion should be 'A god by this definition
does not exist' (the author commits the fallacy
of going from a particular to a universal)
2) the initial definition of all-knowing/loving/powerful
is insanely vague. What does it mean to be all
loving? In general, how can a person put any
qualities on god? (the people that normally
offer this definition up are to blame here)
3) Author presupposes the existence of hell
4) Author presupposes that god is going to let
souls go to hell.
5) Author doesn't recognize a possible conflict
of the all-powerful god not acting BECAUSE he
is the all-loving god (possibility of 'making
people believe' interfering with all-loving)
6) general conflict in second guessing the actions
of the all-knowing god. How are you to know
that the all-knowing god doesn't realize that
this is the path that expresses the greatest
possible love?
Basically, there are more problems with the
argument than there are premises.
I think in the comments you made on your page
do a good job of dismissing the ritual beliefs
of the 'religious' Why does god care if you
chant prayers 5 times a day? Is he going to
send you to hell if you don't?
But, on the other hand, your comments are loaded
with presuppositions on the nature of god. Your
'life comes from... LIFE' statement for instance
assumes that god is somehow 'alive'... and even
if it was, life comes from life is only as absurd
as 'life comes from... not life'
Your comment against the design of the universe
presupposes linear time. I think it also presupposes
a 'form' of god, which is is one of those 'putting
qualities on god' things that I really, really
hate. I believe the current scientific belief
is in non-linear time, and the 'always existing
energy' which are only as insane as the same
things being applied to god.
My biggest problem reading your page the first
time is that you don't have any supporting evidence
to say 'In conclusion: religion explains nothing.
Religion is wrong. Religion is foolish.'
If you want to get down to it, no atheist has
any objective reason to not believe in the existence
of god. No theist has an objective reason to
believe that god does exist. So, we are trapped
in this vague, fucked up realm of 'feeling and
experience.'
Basically, everything diluted to it smallest
point, people that are not dogmatized believe
what they believe because that is what their
life has suggested to be correct. I am guessing
your life has suggested no god, much like mine
did. If you look at people who have came from
that standpoint and now do believe, that suggests
lack of experience for the people that are not
believers. That doesn't mean 'god doesn't want
you to believe' or 'god just hasn't shown you
yet' it just means it hasn't happened to you-
something that seems out of your hands.
Basically, I suggest you keep looking for god,
and you will probably find god. I am sure you
are itching to suggest a psychological reason
for why people 'experience' god, but be warned
I hate psychology and I don't consider it a
valid area of science.
It is possible to believe that your stomach
is actually a portal to another universe, and
you are not really nourishing yourself when
you eat, but you are feeding starving children
on another planet. That doesn't mean it's true
(or false for that matter), and it tends to
show you are stupid. On the other hand, it is
possible to believe the world is a big, cold
machine and what you see is what you get, but
that also doesn't mean it's true (or false),
and it tends to show a narrow-mindedness about
the world.
Basically, people benefit from an honest search
for untouchable truths, even if you never find
them- as long as you are earnestly looking that
is.
Ok, I know this is probably all vague and makes
no sense, so feel free to ask for clarification,
or to attack anything I said that is clear.
Jim:
The type of religion you describe is not very
incompatible with my atheism. Actually I'm not
an atheist because I don't think that God can
be disproven. This probably makes me a sceptical
agnostic. I doubt a god exists, but I can't
be sure. But I can be sure that most of the
Christian beliefs, like Creationism are hopelessly
wrong. Science has shown them to be utterly
incompatible with the evidence, and that evidence
is growing all the time.
You say good and evil are arbitrary and I agree.
There is a spectrum between utterly good and
utterly evil and people would place actions
(like murder, or giving a few bob to charity)
on that spectrum at differing points, I think.
You could define a spectrum and actions would
be arbitrarily good/evil, or you could define
how good/evil and action is and then the spectrum
itself would be ill defined. God, and Satan,
if, for arguments sake, they exist, would find
it difficult to tell apart many of their followers.
There are evil Christians and good atheists.
The usual Christian tells me that you have to
be both good and a Christian or it is bath time
in the eternal lakes of fire and brimstone.
Heaven must be full of good Christians weeping
for their more interesting friends in hell.
Lovely. But of course you don't believe such
nonsense any more than I do!
As far as the Soul and reincarnation is concerned,
I will wield the trusty Occams razor. I see
no need for either. They are superfluous to
the majesty of carnal existence.
I agree with what you say that a god cannot
really be fully and accurately defined by mere
mortals. But we can reasonably say things about
what an ALL-POWERFUL god is like, he is not
subject to time for example, even if All-Powerful
is a big vague.
You ask how do we know that a god doesn't know
that suffering is necessary to maximise the
amount of love over all. This sounds contrived
to me. If God was powerful then surely he could
alleviate some of the terrible torture and illnesses
that are so prevalent.
If the god is powerless to do this then he is
restricted by something. What is he restricted
by? Some law? If he is restricted by a law,
the law of the constraints of maximum love,
which dictates what the greatest possible amount
of love is, then who or what created that law?
Is it a law of nature? Then why have a god at
all if the god himself is constrained by laws?
Maybe there is another god that made those laws!
Is that God constrained by laws too?
Life coming from Life is not absurd in itself,
it is absurd as an explanation. It just doesn't
explain anything.
Science doesn't explain everything about time
and energy yet. But this should not be taken
as a reason to invoke the Supernatural, a god.
In the future a plausible scientific explanation
beyond our current understanding may be found.
Feelings and emotions are not good indicators
to find out what is going on. They are fallible.
All the different beliefs in the world, from
religions to cults to New Age to superstition
show that you should never rely on feelings
and emotion. This is why science is superior.
It is more concerned with evidence.
If you want to believe then the danger is that
you will find ways to reach a delusional state
in which you have found spurious rationalisations
to support what you want to believe. If you
want to believe something badly enough then
you will believe.
The idea of death being final is uncomfortable
and people want to believe in life after death.
So they invent all sorts of religions or reincarnation
theories to back up this belief in life after
death. My rule is Always be suspicious of a
comforting belief. I am suspicious of all beliefs,
including casting a constantly critical eye
towards scientific theories as well as religious
ones, as science says we should. At the same
time I try to be open-minded. I try not to rule
anything out without considered reason. A comforting
belief is probably a delusion unless there is
concrete evidence to the contrary.
Sai:
Ok, you bring up the idea between good atheists
and bad Christians. This is a very interesting
point that actually started me down the path
of good and bad being arbitrary. I don't know
who you talk to, but pretty much everyone I
know that claims to be Christian believes in
salvation by faith alone. Basically, you can
be a complete piece of crap to everyone, kill
and plunder, but if you believe, you get to
kill and plunder in heaven.
That is crap. I was never able to get myself
around the idea that one person can go to church
for 2 hours a week, fall asleep while there,
and be a prick to everyone while someone can
not go to church two hours a week, has deeply
held convictions, and donates their lives to
helping other people while actually following
the 'message of god' in practice yet will need
to be buried with marshmallows.
On the other hand, I was reading a religious
tract by Jack Chick (for comedic purposes and
it said that 'the idea that good people will
go to heaven and bad people to hell is a lie
straight from the devil... we are all worthy
of damnation' Yet, this seems a little arbitrary
from the all-loving god to me.
My understanding of 'The Razor' is that the
explanation that explains the most phenomenon
most easily should be the one that is accepted.
I have a belief in the soul that really cannot
be examined very efficiently, but I will try
to explain why to you. As I have said before,
I had a friend die in a car crash. Very close
to the moment of death, I had a strange experience...
I heard his voice screamed twice in my head
by a strained, Japanese voice (if you are thinking
'what the fuck', I understand) and then there
was this overwhelming feeling of being hit by
something and then being vulnerable. It was
such a powerful experience that I looked at
the clock to see the time. I reflected upon
the experience for the rest of the night (the
only way I know that it isn't just my mind trying
to fill in missing pieces)
It is possible to explain all of this by pure
coincidence, but I have never had something
like it happen before or since, and I explain
it to myself through the existence of a soul.
As for reincarnation... there are several books
on reincarnation stories that feature people
that possess knowledge that they cannot possibly
know. Some of them are very dramatic and the
only way they could be faked would involve them
being completely made up by the author. I don't
have my idea really developed beyond that, just
that I think it does occur.
As for god, I don't think it is reasonable to
attempt to hypothetical god. I am unwilling
to accept qualities even for the all powerful
god. Maybe existence outside of time isn't possible.
Hence, is all powerful only encompassing possibility,
or is all powerful beyond possibility?
As for the necessity of suffering... I know
that I learn most of my lessons through 'bad
experiences' I don't experience 'positive learning/
very much.
I think a world without pain would make people
mindless drones. You cannot really understand
'good' (no matter how completely arbitrary)
without having something that was 'bad'. Coins
have two flat sides.
As for torture, it does a pretty good job of
showing me that people innately suck. In my
world, I think I would have more terribly painful,
long-term, completely debilitating diseases.
They encourage personal growth.
I actually like the argument for god being restricted
by the principle of maximum love. I have added
it to my personal arsenal. Unfortunately, it
is easy to avoid. The idea they came up with
is that god doesn't HAVE to be all loving, he
VOLUNTARILY chose to be all loving. God doesn't
have to follow it, but he chooses to, so it
isn't a restraint. It seems pretty weak for
me, and is just one more reason not to give
god qualities.
Interesting little tidbit... there is a comic
book that I think it is called 'Preacher' The
main character is trying to kill god (god is
portrayed as a being capable of dying) Again,
god doesn't have to be all-anything, god just
has to be god.
Invoking the supernatural isn't necessary. It
is very possible for a person to live their
lives without any belief in something beyond
our perception. The problem is that no matter
how well science attempts to explain things,
it can only explain things we can observe. I
don't think god is necessary, I just think that
is the way things are.
Great example: psychological egoism. People
are only capable of doing selfish deeds. Anything
that appears selfless is reinterpreted to be
explained as being selfish. It is very possible
for every human action to be selfish. On the
other hand, this doesn't make it right or true.
Interpretation of the evidence is fundamentally
flawed based on the presuppositions you are
trying to prove.
I can pretty much bet that within the next hundred
years that 'science religions' will start popping
up with people claiming scientific 'truths'
to be universal truths in a godlike way. These
truths will be so amazing and profound that
they must be venerated. Religion is much more
than explaining things. It gives people community
and the illusion of purpose and comfort in the
fundamentally meaningless existence. Science
divorced from religion will never be able to
do this.
Jim:
A couple of observations: That experience you
had with the car crash is weird but I don't
rule out these experiences as myth. I have had
my relatives tell me of similar, if less dramatic
incidents happen to them, for example when a
mutual relative fell ill.
Whether this stuff is evidence for a soul is
not obvious to me. There might be telepathy
going on, but if so then why does that imply
a soul? Surely you don't need a soul to communicate,
even by some unexplained, remote, supernatural
way.
I have never had a supernatural experience,
I'm sceptical but I haven't ruled out the idea
of some forms of telepathy. It would be amazing
and wonderful if it turned out to be true. Your
unpleasant experience sounds startling. It must
be amazing to "know" that telepathy exists.
Reincarnation: There is a stack of money involved
in these books so the temptation to, shall we
say,
exaggerate, must be huge. People
have many false memories too, or wilfully lie.
Do you consider your beliefs vague, or is it
that your thoughts can't be expressed in a non-vague
way because of the limitations of expression
of abstract ideas with words?
Sai:
Some of the beliefs I have are just vague, like
my belief in reincarnation but without any structure
of how it occurs. I experience difficulty communicating
my ideas due to the limitations of language
quite often also. I doubt if reincarnation is
true that a person would be able to remember
a past life. It just seems a little corny to
me.
[
There is a part of your argument] that
has given me some difficulties, but I think
I can give a good response to it. This is the
part where you start dealing with the fallibility
of feelings and the comfort of religion.
You are right. Feelings are fallible. Beyond
that, feelings tend to be temporary... what
you feel at one time will not be what you feel
at another time in the same situation.
However, the fact is it is impossible to interpret
the world completely rationally. Hegel was wrong.
We can only rationally deduce what we can observe
error-free. Error-free observation is impossible...
everything is just a good guess.
Even though science does center around 'evidence',
we interpret the evidence in a subjective way.
Objectivity is a myth. We interpret the evidence
based upon the way we feel. Even though this
isn't relying solely upon feeling, it is a manifestation
of it in science.
This really doesn't give any reason why we should
rely somewhat upon our feelings. I would suggest
the fact that we have the ability to be rational
and we have the ability to 'feel' suggests that
we should balance both of them. Interpreting
things using only reason is trying to determine
things using only a part of human experience.
Some credence should be given to things people
claim to 'feel' even though there isn't the
myth of objectivity to support it.
In fact, science has already taken part of this
task on, but only to dismiss what people feel.
We have attempted to attribute EVERYTHING a
person experiences to the way we are socialized.
Just because it is possible to view things in
this light doesn't make it true.
The thing you said that really bothered me was
the ability for a person to reach a 'delusional
state' to rationalize anything they want to.
I have a few problems with this:
1) tell me how to determine between reality
and delusion with 100% accuracy and I will give
you all of the profits from the book. It cannot
be done, and what you are experiencing while
you are reading this can be complete delusion.
2) you presuppose the state that is reached
is purely delusion and is not somehow the 'objective
truth'. Of course, you have cases like the story
of the enlightenment of the Buddha which would
suggest complete insanity, but this doesn't
account for experiences within schools like
Zen Buddhism where the experience is very short
and profound, but the student is quickly removed
from it.
3) people that reach that state tend not to
rationalize it because they know it cannot be
objectively explained, but it is powerful enough
that they accept it as truth. I would like to
experience anything that powerful that you 'know'
it is 'real'. Of course, this doesn't make it
'real'.
Personal experience tells me that no matter
how badly you want to believe something, somethings
are just illusions. Some people cannot lie to
themselves very well.
Ok, onward to the comfort of religion. Yes,
religion is comforting. However, I don't see
that as a good reason for doubting the beliefs.
There is a theory that people intrinsically
need something comfortable to believe in. I
don't know if it is true, but I am sure that
everyone has some very comfortable, unquestioned
beliefs.
I will agree that across the board, most belief
in life after death is strictly because it is
comforting to believe in. However, I have found
times in my life that the idea of death being
an end was very comforting to me. I think belief
is as equally unprovable as any of the other
ones, and I think it's purpose is to fill a
very vulnerable hole in the belief system called
science. I don't see how it follows that the
physical aspects associated with consciousness-
that which is observable- ends that the unobservable
necessarily must end also.
The belief in concrete evidence to justify anything
is a delusion in itself. It is a level of certainty
that just isn't possible to achieve.
Jim:
You say that we an only rationally deduce what
we can observe error-free. I'm not so sure.
For example I might say that it is dark at night.
Even though the darkness is not perfect, the
stars, the moon and other light sources may
spoil the darkness, the statement it is dark
at night is a useful one, even if not absolutely
true. It is a meaningful and rational statement.
So is the statement I think that Helen Baxendale
is beautiful :) There may be some errors in
my perception of her countenance, but I still
find her to be beautiful.
Would you argue that the proof of Pythagoras'
theorem of right angled triangles is only true
because we feel it is true?
Even if what you say is correct, and I agree
with this part, that feelings are often used
by scientists to arrive at theories just like
anyone else. For example Einstein felt that
relativity was true even before he had mathematically
formulated it, it doesn't follow that the theory
stands or falls based on feelings. But here
is where I humbly beg to differ: a single experiment
that doesn't produce the results predicted by
relativity would disprove that theory outright.
Science is, in this way, protected from subjective
feelings. Religion is not. Religion does not
have the reality check of experiment that benefits
and distinguishes science from superstition.
Your point about delusion is very good. There
are, I think two levels, easy and hard. (I am
making this up as I go along, so please bear
with me.) The easy level is checking a theory
against experimental evidence, like the relativity
example above. The hard level is checking whether
all of our experiences are an illusion. I don't
know how to do that!
The easy level checks for consistency within
the world. The hard level questions the validity
of the Universe it's self and our existence
within it. I am arguing entirely within the
easy level when I say that science is superior
to religion as a judge of how the world works.
I will work on the problem in an attempt to
win the earnings from your book though :)
The Zen like states you describe must be amazing,
but thing of this: What is telling these people
that their experiences are so significant that
they KNOW it is REAL? It couldn't be the fallible
brain by any chance could it? Hmmmmm. At the
very best, without experimental evidence even
if you think you know what is real you cannot
persuade others. I would go further and say
that when it comes to knowing an approximation
of truth, you cannot trust what your brain tells
you without external evidence. If you could
trust your brain then everyone would believe
the same thing.
Hell is Other People as someone said. Hehehe.
I don't know much on the subject but Epicurus
said the thing that makes people unhappy is
not what they think it is. I'm inclined to agree.
I'm quite happy but not fulfilled at all. Perhaps
that is better than being fulfilled. I don't
have enough driving me as it is. I shrug and
say I'm a lucky sod and that is that. But my
life is more dull than it should be I think.
There are compensations.
Sai:
Sartre said that hell was other people. I think
he was pretty much right there. People suck.
The term happiness is very vague. Does happiness
just mean an absense of pain? Is it contentment
with a situation that would otherwise make you
sad? For me, I tend to experience 'happiness'
in bursts. It usually is characterized by a
lack of thinking. The happiness I experience
is just the lack of pain. That really sucks
for me. I lack any continuous happiness or fulfilment.
blah blah blah.
As for the question of error-free observance,
your examples actually address the problem of
the arbitrary nature of language. Helen Baxendale's
beauty is a completely subjective experience.
I am sure there are people that think Helen
is just plain. There is no innate 'beauty' that
can be observed and universally understood.
However, because you tacked 'I think' on the
front of it, it then becomes not a statement
about Helen, but a statement about yourself.
It is the equivelent of 'I think god exists.'
It doesn't have anything to do with the objective
state of things in the world, but about what
you think.
Regarding 'darkness', if you define it as 'a
complete lack of light' then darkness is rarely
achieved. However, if you define it as 'point
where it becomes difficult to percieve using
our eyes because of a decrease in the level
of light' the the point where it becomes 'dark'
is easily achieved, but people would disagree
about what point that is. People that are hypersensitive
to light would probably disagree saying that
level is never achieved.
Beyond that, meaningful statements have nothing
to do with truth. If I said 'All mothers show
an unconditional love to their children', I
would not only be wrong, but the statement would
be meaningful to many people and they would
all apply their own subjective definition of
'unconditional love' to a point where the statement
actually lacks any meaning that isn't completely
arbitrary.
Jim:
I have this theory that when shitty stuff and
stress happens you will be far more creative
than if you are cursed with inner peace! You
won't be as happy of course :)
Sai:
Ah, the crap of life making you creative...
I bet you are right on that one. I tend to have
more profound thoughts when it feels like life
is falling apart (or maybe they just seem more
profound.) I know most happy, stress-free people
tend not to think.
I managed to wake up one morning last weekend
and completely dismiss all of my stuff on my
personal proof for the soul, so that has gone
to crap. Around the same time I used a different
argument to dismiss my reincarnation belief,
so I am just fucked right now on belief systems.
Discount anything I have told you.
As far as telepathy, I think if it is true,
it presupposes the existence of a soul, or at
least some esoteric dimension of some sort.
I am not really sure how it would work out,
but I know it can't work on the basis that our
consciousness being a by-product of neurones
firing.
Jim:
I think you might have been saying this indirectly,
but I would go so far as to say that happiness
is more prevalent in stupid people than intelligent
people, ignoring wealth or class. (I suspect
I belong to the stupid people group.) People
who are dense are unable to perceive what is
going on in the world. Living in their own cocoon
they are perfectly contented. Intelligent people
are more likely to discern the crap that is
happening and, as they grow old, they are liable
to grow irritable and antagonised.
But this unhappiness is a spur to creativity.
There is a vicious circle there. Angry people
are more creative and creative people become
more angry.
Sai:
I had a little personal crisis. I seem to have
slipped away from that happy place that I used
to call 'mysticism' and now I find myself clearly
agnostic once again (I considered myself agnostic
for a very long time before the mysticism thing
started for me) This time, I seem to be bordering
upon atheism, which is about as far as you can
possibly fall from 'believer' Given time, I
might be able to rebuild something, but I doubt
it.
I would agree that stupid people are happier
than intelligent people. Ignorance truly is
bliss. There is also a connection between intelligence
and completely snapping/killing a bunch of people/
being mentally insane. They have it so easy.
You give a nice argument for the complete mechanical
nature of consciousness. Here is the problem
though: your evidence can also be interpreted
as strictly the method by which we understand
the consciousness.
Here is an example: say you are watching television.
You see a politician. You decide you want to
find out more about the politician, so you rip
your television apart. You do not learn more
about the politician, you just learn more about
the method by which you percieved the politican.
(this argument only works if their is something
beyond the television, so it doesnt' disprove
your point, it just illustrates mine)
Actually, with all of the agnostic shit happening
to me, I am almost willing to conceed that the
consciousness is only neurons firing, but that
would be too simple.
Regarding my statement about a single experiment
being able to prove Einstein's theories wrong,
that is what he actually said. Knowledge tends
to work by disproving what we believe, not proving
it.
As for Zen, right now I would probably say that
it is completely a mental disorder that the
people are experiencing. No one can know something
is real, but you can always think it is real.
I am guessing that anything people know is just
an underlying presupposition that they don't
want to abandon. That sucks.
Yet, anything that a person tries to verify
with 'external evidence' is only the brain's
interpretation of the outside evidence, which
can be equally fallacious. External evidence
presupposes the existence of the outside, and
is a circular argument because of it.
I will agree that Religion and Science follow
two completely different routes. They have different
underlying values, and are hard to be compared
because of that. However, Science can never
reach it's goal, and Religion has no way of
proving that they can. It is really a messed
up world.
As for the easy and hard checks, it is a very
good point. I think you just saved me 2 years
of thinking with that idea. However, because
of different goals, religion is still valid
in it's own way as a study of the world.
See also
Sai on evolution
Back to main religion
page
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | |
| From: |
Chris | Subject: | 2001-01-09 17:12:29 |
| | | | |
| From: |
MadPole | Subject: | 2001-02-02 15:10:55 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 1993
