Atheism

Let me change direction here:

Just curious BigVito, how do you reconcile creation/existence in your belief system? Not any specific event, but all of it. Whether it was the big bang (if you happen to subscribe) or several iterations before the big bang - how do comprehend/rationalize or justify the state of IS / being?

I'm genuinely curious what Atheists think about the question. Or do you just accept it as a baseline that the universe just IS (to a certain extent, nothing flippant), and move on with things that can be measured/observed/understood?

 

My understanding/belief in "creation" is based simply on what is observable. It's not something I spend a great deal of time pondering.

Our knowledge and understanding continues to grow of how the universe came into being. What we understand now will probably be vastly different than what is understood 50 years from now or 500 years from now.

The human species has an almost unlimited ability to learn and to gain understanding and knowledge. We are only part of the way there and the journey will continue long after all of us are dust. That's something I take a great deal of "comfort" in, so to speak.

 

Intresting. I spend what I find to be a surprisingly large amount of time debating it. And let me be more clear - I'm not worried about the moment or the method of creation. I'm not even worried about creation, really. Just the state of being versus non-being. That is the one that scrambles my marbles. If not this, then what? And before this, what? I'm not worried about the pageantry, nor do I have an agenda, I'm just trying to answer the philosophical state of existence.

(The arrogance of the supremity of humanity in the assumptions of I.D. aside) do you not find anything spiritual in that process that you described (again, not ID)? Stated simply, is epiphany spiritual? I have to admit, comprehension of the essential nature of things feels like a brush with the Creator. A glimpse behind Oz's curtain. A fathers touch on the shoulder of his son at the moment of accomplishment. Are science and math and philosophy windows or keyholes to the truth of existence?

I suppose you probably don't feel that way personally, but can you appreciate the perspective?

 

I certainly appreciate it. The moment of ephiphany, clarity, being in the moment, achieving zen, etc. I think it's universal. I think the only true difference is attributing an external source to that feeling.

Simply not believing in a god doesn't preclude one from feeling wonder or awe. From feeling connected so deeply to another person that if feels as if they are a part of me. Not believing in god, doesn't restrict my feelings of love or loyalty, my feelings of the pain of loss or the joy of reunion. I simply see these things as natural and human. As essential truths to who and what we are.

 

I'm a little confused in what exactly your opinion is. Saying humanity learned morality from "conclusions of the observation of the consequences of human interaction with each other and the world" and then saying "We do not do things because there are consequences" seems to be contradictory.

I don't propose that morality only started with the bible or any predated religious texts. That doesn't have anything to do with God giving humans the innate understanding between what is right and what is wrong. I'm not even saying he didn't do this through evolution.

I fully agree that it's pretty disturbing that a person would only do something good because of a fear of the what might happen if he didn't. Your deploring his cause of an action or inaction, but that, has nothing to do with how that person came to know what is right or wrong.

If the Nazi's had won the war, exterminated the jews and taken over the world no doubt history from the Nazi perspective would say that it was evolution at it's finest. Even if the Nazi's did not see themselves as amoral I propose that they were because said Morals are objective and not dependent on the majority or subjectivity.

I believe that morality is more than just the product of bio/societal mechanics. I like how C.S. Lewis postulated it to a law of the universe. Like the law of gravity, or the law of motion. It's always been there since the creation of the universe with the exception being that man has the free will to decide to or not to follow this law.

 

Im enjoying this, probably more than you.

Permit me a clunky analogy:

The universe is a crime scene. All of the disciplines (math, science, etc) are forensics.

Trying to differentiate that from what you believe. I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but it does sound like your stance is just to enjoy existence without questioning being.

 

I left a comma out of the latter statement that changes the meaning. The reason(s) we do not do things are consequences. To be perfectly honest, I had this discussion (over an extended period of time) with a devout christian and her friend who was a "fervent" humanist. They tried to argue it, but ultimately, they were in complete agreement over that point. The only difference was the potential of the divine in the grand design (observed laws of physics, biological reactions, human interaction, etc). Said another way, consequence is the universal force that dictates morality. The only arguments against it are myopic in terms of time scale. Stretch the scale of time out 5, 10, 100, 500 years and all of those arguments fall apart.

I skipped some here to focus on this - I asked the question about the necessity of the delivery method of morality. No one ever examines Christianity or any other monotheism from that standpoint.

Godwin's law. But interestingly, you've come to the same conclusion as me. I just wouldn't capitalize morals.

You are right and wrong, and I loathe CS Lewis for his ridiculous false dilemma (not this one). I do agree that morality is part of the common code of science (order) in the universe, but its relevence to one species - mankind, is purely evolutionary. Moral parameters are tested in the subset and either withstand testing (over time), or are disproven and fail. The result is the refinement of and focus on essential truth - truth that in one sense has existed, has been right in front of our faces, until we finally realized it.

 

So, you aren't a moral relativist. I'm not either.

But I'm not sure I'd use the example of a government essentially declaring or writing it's own reality as a means of justification for killing (on evolution in this case) as an example of moral relativism leading to equal scientific conclusions. That is, the Nazi's saying they have a superior race so they can kill everyone else doesn't make it so from a scientific standpoint.

It just makes them really good at propaganda and killing other folks.

 

We understand existence the best we can with our limited knowledge. I simply don't subscribe to filling in the gaps of our knowledge with the supernatural.

To follow your analogy, we are probably the forsenics team before the advent of ballistics technology, let alone fingerprinting, fiber analysis or DNA testing.

Now getting into the nature of exisistence is a philosophical question that will be debated until mankind ceases to be. Our own mortality drives that question. Is this all there is and why is this? For me, it is what I choose to make it either by my actions or inactions.

My actions and inactions can have direct or indirect ramifications on others. It may begin with my family and my workplace but it goes beyond that. The simplest thing may have implications unforeseen.

I intentionally cut a guy off in traffic, because, damn it, I'm in a hurry. Well, said guy is a real jewel and he gets royally pissed. He gets home and takes it out on his wife. His wife decides to take it out on her kid. Her kid then kicks the cat. Am I responsible for the pain the cat feels because of my own selfish behavior?

 

I knew you did it on purpose!