Personal Belief and Absolute Belief
Belief exists on two levels. Personal Belief, and absolute belief. Absolute belief equates to the personal knowledge of the person, while the personal belief equates to the values held by the person. Personal Belief = how they like to portray their ideals of existence. Absolute belief = how they believe the universe is undoubtedly takes form. Dogmatic people often have difficulty in differentiating between and understanding the absolute belief and the personal belief, mainly due to these two beliefs being more or less identical for them. This belief structure is perhaps most prevalent and easy to distinguish in those of agnostic theism and atheism alike. While they both have an equal absence of the absolute belief, being of surety that such a notion is unprovable, their personal belief differs. Agnostic Theists prefer to believe in the existence of a God on a personal level, but are fully aware of the impossibility of proving such an existence. Likewise, agnostic atheists decide to take a stance of no god existing, despite this being unprovable.
Poke holes in this. I'm not looking for an argument here, I'm just trying to form some kind of construction as to how human ethics, morals and beliefs exist. So any contradictions or arguments will help me build around them and make a more solid explanation. :)
Sunday, 24 January 2010
The 'Evil' of Dogma (The personal opinion rant)
I felt like adding a pretext to this, to state that i wrote this with a lot of personal opinion behind it. Of course, I meant to keep it as justifiable as possible, but there are points of disagreement in this argument most obviously, and that is a cause of my own bias peppering this post. But, on the other hand, I suppose it gives a better idea of my standing and personal opinion when you add a bit of dogma into my beliefs.
Good and Evil
The concepts of good and evil, as ill-defined as they are, have been a constant throughout human existence, both in theology and society. What is good is something you should live by doing, and what is evil is something you should avoid. However, the defintions of such concepts are ill-defined and vague. Such a suggestion is not new to the philisophical train of thought, indeed, such concepts are based on opinion, and since everyone has individual opinions, to subject a definite good and evil is near impossible, and is wrong and rather arrogant to do so. We cannot live without concepts however, they are something that is seemingly integral to our existence. Our existence must surely have instinctual rights and wrongs in order to differentiate life and death, and to keep the species alive, and it is from this base point, that we can draw a logical conclusion to where morality and ethics derived from. However, if we are talking about the right and wrong beyond survival, indeed a universal, possibly transcendental sense of morality, does this exist?
Evil as Dogma
Personally I believe not. To argue an absolute concept when it is impossible to reinforce and back any concept as absolute, is a seemingly ridiculous train of thought. However, if I WAS to consider my own sense of good and evil, I would claim this: 'Evil' (the term, of course, used lightly) is only that which organises a claim of evil itself (and as such, a counter-point of good). As such, near all religions fall guilty to evil, Christianity claiming to know evil as its sins, such as homosexuality and heresy. This indeed includes all forms of dogma, whether religious or non-religious, for the moment one claims knowledge of righteousness and wickedness, he also claims a shallow arrogance, egotism and hatred. Truly, if one claims to truly know the true nature and purpose, and the opposition of such, this is the forging of a tool of segregation, of seperation. As such, I would personally treat this tool as a tool of evil, and one that is logically weak in the grandeur of the unknowable. It is an easy assumption that the human race indeed functions on such morals and ethics, and that these are necessary to a healthy survival, but the difference between a belief in such an ethic, and an understanding of the possibility of said ethic, is not as blurred and intertwined as intial thought and presentation would have us assume. Indeed, this argument is embodied in the nature of agnostic theists and atheists alike, those who share individual beliefs, but fully realise that the nature of these beliefs is largely unknowable, and instead form their beliefs on personal opinion and preference, rather than what they could believe as 'absolute', like many gnostics do. Conclusively, the 'evil' I view is the ever-present dogma, and that true intelligence in man is only brought forth with the realisation of the egotism of such dogma, and the unknowable of absolutes. Boiled down to a sentence: When one claims true knowledge, one rejects true intelligence.
Good and Evil
The concepts of good and evil, as ill-defined as they are, have been a constant throughout human existence, both in theology and society. What is good is something you should live by doing, and what is evil is something you should avoid. However, the defintions of such concepts are ill-defined and vague. Such a suggestion is not new to the philisophical train of thought, indeed, such concepts are based on opinion, and since everyone has individual opinions, to subject a definite good and evil is near impossible, and is wrong and rather arrogant to do so. We cannot live without concepts however, they are something that is seemingly integral to our existence. Our existence must surely have instinctual rights and wrongs in order to differentiate life and death, and to keep the species alive, and it is from this base point, that we can draw a logical conclusion to where morality and ethics derived from. However, if we are talking about the right and wrong beyond survival, indeed a universal, possibly transcendental sense of morality, does this exist?
Evil as Dogma
Personally I believe not. To argue an absolute concept when it is impossible to reinforce and back any concept as absolute, is a seemingly ridiculous train of thought. However, if I WAS to consider my own sense of good and evil, I would claim this: 'Evil' (the term, of course, used lightly) is only that which organises a claim of evil itself (and as such, a counter-point of good). As such, near all religions fall guilty to evil, Christianity claiming to know evil as its sins, such as homosexuality and heresy. This indeed includes all forms of dogma, whether religious or non-religious, for the moment one claims knowledge of righteousness and wickedness, he also claims a shallow arrogance, egotism and hatred. Truly, if one claims to truly know the true nature and purpose, and the opposition of such, this is the forging of a tool of segregation, of seperation. As such, I would personally treat this tool as a tool of evil, and one that is logically weak in the grandeur of the unknowable. It is an easy assumption that the human race indeed functions on such morals and ethics, and that these are necessary to a healthy survival, but the difference between a belief in such an ethic, and an understanding of the possibility of said ethic, is not as blurred and intertwined as intial thought and presentation would have us assume. Indeed, this argument is embodied in the nature of agnostic theists and atheists alike, those who share individual beliefs, but fully realise that the nature of these beliefs is largely unknowable, and instead form their beliefs on personal opinion and preference, rather than what they could believe as 'absolute', like many gnostics do. Conclusively, the 'evil' I view is the ever-present dogma, and that true intelligence in man is only brought forth with the realisation of the egotism of such dogma, and the unknowable of absolutes. Boiled down to a sentence: When one claims true knowledge, one rejects true intelligence.
Verifiability (Short blog)
Personal Verifiability
One key argument that theists put forward for God is the argument that God is personally verifiable, and therefore knowable. However, this is a misconception of understanding. The case is not whether one verifies God's existence as definite, but as to whether one CAN verify God's existence for definite. To verify another existence would require insurmountable proof of another being to exist, and for that, one that is within oneself, and is able to differentiate itself from the idea of said existence. The difference in having absolute belief for something to be certain, and having absolute knowledge for that certainty is vast. While I believe for absolute certainty that other people exist, there is no way to personally justify this assumption. And thus, just as it is truly impossible to verify anyone's existence apart from ones own, it is also impossible to verify the existence of a deity. This is furthermore reinforced by the fact that a deity has shown no definite effect on our perceptions, while the existence of others has.
Acts of God
In life, there may be things that seem unprovable, and impossible within the parameters of logic, and therefore must be an 'act of God'. This is one argument for a transcendent deity that may often present itself. Jumping to such a conclusion, however, is highly presumptious. At our current stage, we are still discovering new explanations as to the workings of the universe, and hence the parameters of logic our perception thrusts upon us. Atoms, quantum mechanics and otherwise are still in the process of understanding, and as such, the assumption of an 'Act of God' or the 'work of God' is impossible to make at this current stage. To be certain of a non-personal deity's existence, one must witness the rejection of logic only once all logic has been learnt, only one has absolute comprehension. As such, the only justification for resorting to the theory of an 'Act of God' would be for when one has absolute understanding of our plane of existence. In addition to this, considering that it is personally impossible to truly justify an all-knowing state due to the constant possibility of a further understanding to be learnt, it is therefore incorrect to assume the existence of a transcendent God at all.
One key argument that theists put forward for God is the argument that God is personally verifiable, and therefore knowable. However, this is a misconception of understanding. The case is not whether one verifies God's existence as definite, but as to whether one CAN verify God's existence for definite. To verify another existence would require insurmountable proof of another being to exist, and for that, one that is within oneself, and is able to differentiate itself from the idea of said existence. The difference in having absolute belief for something to be certain, and having absolute knowledge for that certainty is vast. While I believe for absolute certainty that other people exist, there is no way to personally justify this assumption. And thus, just as it is truly impossible to verify anyone's existence apart from ones own, it is also impossible to verify the existence of a deity. This is furthermore reinforced by the fact that a deity has shown no definite effect on our perceptions, while the existence of others has.
Acts of God
In life, there may be things that seem unprovable, and impossible within the parameters of logic, and therefore must be an 'act of God'. This is one argument for a transcendent deity that may often present itself. Jumping to such a conclusion, however, is highly presumptious. At our current stage, we are still discovering new explanations as to the workings of the universe, and hence the parameters of logic our perception thrusts upon us. Atoms, quantum mechanics and otherwise are still in the process of understanding, and as such, the assumption of an 'Act of God' or the 'work of God' is impossible to make at this current stage. To be certain of a non-personal deity's existence, one must witness the rejection of logic only once all logic has been learnt, only one has absolute comprehension. As such, the only justification for resorting to the theory of an 'Act of God' would be for when one has absolute understanding of our plane of existence. In addition to this, considering that it is personally impossible to truly justify an all-knowing state due to the constant possibility of a further understanding to be learnt, it is therefore incorrect to assume the existence of a transcendent God at all.
A New Beginning
Well, I'm back, at least for a while. With the setting up of my youtube account and my posterous account (all links at watcherg.posterous.com) I felt a need to restart the philosophy blogs. Luckily, a lot of the writing I've done over the past year or so I can upload to here without much effort, so I won't be updating this for a week or so after the following updates. Finally, i'll be giving a more naive realist/apatheistic viewpoint, since, unlike when I started these blogs, I've finally found my philosphical niche, so to speak. Let's give this another try! :P
Existence - Cognition, Perception, Reality
Before we begin, I would first like to cover the nature of our existence, as we can know and understand it. Existence, as far as we are aware, exists in at least 3 different states. These states of existence can be considered to be:
1.The First, subjective State of Cognition. This is the centre of our consciousness, and where our individual thought processes, reasoning, intellect and memory congregate. It is also the state from which we interpret the Second State.
2.The Second, projective State of Perception. This is the appearance of, and how we view, the third state. The second state is merely a process of viewing the Third State, however, it shapes the existence as we know it, and the world around us is an interpretation of this Second State, as we must view reality through perception. Essentially, this is the World we live in.
3.The Third, objective State of Reality. This is the 'true' form of existence, which has been subject to no interpretation or perception by the consciousness, instead the reality in its true form. This form is generally unknowable in its true form, our mind simply gaining some form of understanding and perception from the Second State. The accuracy of the perception is, again, unknowable.
These three following States are ones which are going to be covered in great detail in the following chapters, and are therefore going to be integral to our unfolding interpretation of existence, so remembering them will be key throughout. Also, Atheism is a broad sense covering any belief with a 'lack of theism', including Agnostics, so at any point I am referring to those with a belief in the non-existence of God, I will be referring to these as S.Atheists (Strong Atheists)
Logic and Faith
Logic is considered to be integral, when deducing the existence of a deity, particularly to Atheists. Indeed, the continuous raging debate between Theists and Atheists, seems also to be an ongoing debate between faith and the logic of atheists, however, even in this term, the word logic may be used incorrectly. Indeed, when considering the Second State, the definition of Logic could be boiled down to 'that which is feasible within the parameters of our perception'. From this point of view, God is indeed illogical in his actions, this agreeing with both arguments of God. After all, should a God be omnipotent, should he also not be able to defy logic? Where S.Atheists believe these parameters our indeed the limit to existence, Theists deny this, claiming there to be a further, illogical, incomprehensible parameter to existence. Obviously for this even be consdiered, faith in its existence is needed, as there is no way to prove something illogical. This, is the main argument as to the existence of God, and as to the consideration of God in our lives. The following chapter is not one that will deal in the non-existence of God. As many of us know, God is neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore considering an argument involving such is futile. However, as opposed to an argument over the non-existence of a transcendant being, but instead, the irrelevance of such a being in our lives.
The Thunder Theory
The World we live in, the Second State, is one which is formed of logical parameters. Everything that happens within this corporeal existence is formed of certain parameters, that seem to follow a certain pattern, and with all things that happen to be within our comprehension. Indeed, there may be the appearance of certain acts of nature, or otherwise, that are difficult to understand and comprehend in our current state. However, in ancient times, the existence of thunder and lightning, and other then unexplainable parameters, were put down to the illogical idea of God, due to an explanation not surfacing. In our current society, the understanding of such acts of nature have been deduced and understood, and are no longer put down to the actions of gods. We can apply this idea to the unexplainable parameters in our current day, and expect that parameters that are currently unexplainable to be beyond our knowledge, and possibly one day explainable. Indeed, I myself know several people who have claimed to have experienced paranormal phenomena, even two at the same time claim to have seen a ghost. However, these suggestions are perfectly within the realms of possibility, with the discovery of different wavelengths of energy there could be an eventual explanation for such phenomena, natural or not.
The Irrelevance of God
So, if we are to consider that the Second State, our current subjective 'existence', is one of logic, then what place does God have in it? The truth is, the existence of God is perfectly feasible. Indeed, the Third State could be simply matter and energy as our perception tells us, although the possibility of a God affecting and controlling our perception is also a perfectly feasible interpretation of the Third State (And as such, as is a simulated reality). However, considering the parameters that have been created to surround us are those of logical understanding, and there have been no active, clear signs to represent an illogical nature within our perception, then the consideration of a God is questionable. Indeed, theists who devote their lives to a God, and consider him an important part of life itself, these beliefs exist while God has shown no clear sort of impact on life, and it is clear to see why the Atheistic belief system is quick to question such unfounded basis. While it is perfectly possible that a God did create this logical world we live in, and these parameters we live our life by, the transcendent God has shown no active sign of participation in our existence, for him to do so he would have to defy the very parameters he created, with no possible explanation ever being able to exist. As such, if God has shown no participation, even if his 'existence' is so, his relevance to our everyday lives is far from a necessity, and is one that should not be considered, if we are to live our lives by the parameters our perception has set out. In fact, considering the wars and many deaths that have been caused over conflicting beliefs, gods and devotion to transcendency within a world without transcendancy could be seen as a detriment to humanity, more than anything. As stated above, it is also possible that God is active in creating the image of the Second State, but as his involvement actually WITHIN it is non-existent, his consideration should be also. It should be added that his possibility is one that should also be considered by S.Atheists. S.Atheists are similar to Theists in that they make an assumption, and although their assumption is based on the findings within the Second State Parameters, they are nevertheless assumptions.
Existence - Cognition, Perception, Reality
Before we begin, I would first like to cover the nature of our existence, as we can know and understand it. Existence, as far as we are aware, exists in at least 3 different states. These states of existence can be considered to be:
1.The First, subjective State of Cognition. This is the centre of our consciousness, and where our individual thought processes, reasoning, intellect and memory congregate. It is also the state from which we interpret the Second State.
2.The Second, projective State of Perception. This is the appearance of, and how we view, the third state. The second state is merely a process of viewing the Third State, however, it shapes the existence as we know it, and the world around us is an interpretation of this Second State, as we must view reality through perception. Essentially, this is the World we live in.
3.The Third, objective State of Reality. This is the 'true' form of existence, which has been subject to no interpretation or perception by the consciousness, instead the reality in its true form. This form is generally unknowable in its true form, our mind simply gaining some form of understanding and perception from the Second State. The accuracy of the perception is, again, unknowable.
These three following States are ones which are going to be covered in great detail in the following chapters, and are therefore going to be integral to our unfolding interpretation of existence, so remembering them will be key throughout. Also, Atheism is a broad sense covering any belief with a 'lack of theism', including Agnostics, so at any point I am referring to those with a belief in the non-existence of God, I will be referring to these as S.Atheists (Strong Atheists)
Logic and Faith
Logic is considered to be integral, when deducing the existence of a deity, particularly to Atheists. Indeed, the continuous raging debate between Theists and Atheists, seems also to be an ongoing debate between faith and the logic of atheists, however, even in this term, the word logic may be used incorrectly. Indeed, when considering the Second State, the definition of Logic could be boiled down to 'that which is feasible within the parameters of our perception'. From this point of view, God is indeed illogical in his actions, this agreeing with both arguments of God. After all, should a God be omnipotent, should he also not be able to defy logic? Where S.Atheists believe these parameters our indeed the limit to existence, Theists deny this, claiming there to be a further, illogical, incomprehensible parameter to existence. Obviously for this even be consdiered, faith in its existence is needed, as there is no way to prove something illogical. This, is the main argument as to the existence of God, and as to the consideration of God in our lives. The following chapter is not one that will deal in the non-existence of God. As many of us know, God is neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore considering an argument involving such is futile. However, as opposed to an argument over the non-existence of a transcendant being, but instead, the irrelevance of such a being in our lives.
The Thunder Theory
The World we live in, the Second State, is one which is formed of logical parameters. Everything that happens within this corporeal existence is formed of certain parameters, that seem to follow a certain pattern, and with all things that happen to be within our comprehension. Indeed, there may be the appearance of certain acts of nature, or otherwise, that are difficult to understand and comprehend in our current state. However, in ancient times, the existence of thunder and lightning, and other then unexplainable parameters, were put down to the illogical idea of God, due to an explanation not surfacing. In our current society, the understanding of such acts of nature have been deduced and understood, and are no longer put down to the actions of gods. We can apply this idea to the unexplainable parameters in our current day, and expect that parameters that are currently unexplainable to be beyond our knowledge, and possibly one day explainable. Indeed, I myself know several people who have claimed to have experienced paranormal phenomena, even two at the same time claim to have seen a ghost. However, these suggestions are perfectly within the realms of possibility, with the discovery of different wavelengths of energy there could be an eventual explanation for such phenomena, natural or not.
The Irrelevance of God
So, if we are to consider that the Second State, our current subjective 'existence', is one of logic, then what place does God have in it? The truth is, the existence of God is perfectly feasible. Indeed, the Third State could be simply matter and energy as our perception tells us, although the possibility of a God affecting and controlling our perception is also a perfectly feasible interpretation of the Third State (And as such, as is a simulated reality). However, considering the parameters that have been created to surround us are those of logical understanding, and there have been no active, clear signs to represent an illogical nature within our perception, then the consideration of a God is questionable. Indeed, theists who devote their lives to a God, and consider him an important part of life itself, these beliefs exist while God has shown no clear sort of impact on life, and it is clear to see why the Atheistic belief system is quick to question such unfounded basis. While it is perfectly possible that a God did create this logical world we live in, and these parameters we live our life by, the transcendent God has shown no active sign of participation in our existence, for him to do so he would have to defy the very parameters he created, with no possible explanation ever being able to exist. As such, if God has shown no participation, even if his 'existence' is so, his relevance to our everyday lives is far from a necessity, and is one that should not be considered, if we are to live our lives by the parameters our perception has set out. In fact, considering the wars and many deaths that have been caused over conflicting beliefs, gods and devotion to transcendency within a world without transcendancy could be seen as a detriment to humanity, more than anything. As stated above, it is also possible that God is active in creating the image of the Second State, but as his involvement actually WITHIN it is non-existent, his consideration should be also. It should be added that his possibility is one that should also be considered by S.Atheists. S.Atheists are similar to Theists in that they make an assumption, and although their assumption is based on the findings within the Second State Parameters, they are nevertheless assumptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)