I'm not entirely sure what Yglesias is getting at here, but it bears repeating that there is no god, and the constant insistence of religionists that those of us who don't require the false comforts of the imperishable self to function and be happy in this one and only world must attest to some possibility that there might in fact be an invisible, omnipresent, extratemporal patriarch of the universe as a gesture of respect is a damned pain in the ass. And make no mistake, when religionists ask that atheists "respect" their faith, that's what they're asking: for an admission of agnosticism. But atheism is the empirically sound position, and every deity from Zeus to Ba'al to Yaweh to Vishnu to Ahura Mazda is a fairy tale. Usually at this point the modern believer's hands go up and out spouts a line about not having to believe in the genocidal, adolescent deity of the Pentatuach or the paranoid, apocalyptic hippy of the New Testament, or the Skittles-colored heavens of the Hindus to accede to the broader possibilities of the spiritual realm. I find this even more exasperating. I'm a pretty regular practitioner of yoga and mindfulness myself, and if you can just clease your mind of the brambles of insupportable belief and accept that experiences of profound understanding and physical rightness don't require external sources in the realms of ghosts and spirits and energies, then you can well appreciate that these feelings are part of our innate capacities to understand just what the hell is going on in your own mind and body if only you pay a little attention.
12 comments:
I’ve even begun to find agnosticism distasteful and obliquely hypocritical.
«So, you believe there might well be a God, in other words a creator of the everything who assigned you and each moment of existence a purpose, but you don’t find that important enough to investigate?»
Don't you get a little curious about the whole moment before creation/big-bang/existence paradox. I mean, I'm not advocating theism here, but what about about the whole "uncaused causer" v. "uncaused existence" debate?
YF
YF:
The possibilities for what might exist outside of our universe are essentially limitless. By and large, though--with the exception of very strange, isolated phenomena like quantum computing--they have absolutely no impact on us who live in this world.
My thinking is that there is more than one universe (in contrast to IOZ here), but that we can't really say anything about them (so they effectively don't exist). The reason I think so is that the conditions for stable matter (let alone self-replication, let alone intelligence) are so narrow that it's highly improbable that the one and only universe would have such capabilities.
Given many universes, a number of bizarre possibilities emerge. For instance, if it is the case that it's possible to model a miniature universe (w/ specific physical constants and regularities) within a computer, there may be as many simulated universes as real ones, or perhaps even more (since you could have simulations within simulations, etc.). Thus, we have no way of knowing if our universe is a "real" one or a "simulated" one.
But ultimately, I contend, that since we have no way of answering these questions, we must take the reality that we find as real, at least for us. Whether we're in some kind of Matrix is probably unanswerable. (In principle, you could never know such a thing. Even if you "awoke" in the other world, how do you know that one isn't simulated?)
But there definitely probably is no intelligent God behind the whole thing. Intelligence, I think, is an emergent property.
I don't believe in agnosticism. You either believe and shape your life accordingly, or you don't, and don't act on it. Pragmatically, it doesn't exist.
YF: By defintion, there is no moment before the creation/big-bang/existence, since the creation/big-bang/existence was the beginning of spacetime itself. So there is nothing be curious about.
Furthermore, as specter_of_spinoza seems to advocate, we are probably not even capable of thinking about it in any way that actually has any hope of success beyond mathematical abstraction. We are creatures of our this universe, doomed by evolution to think in the four-dimensional terms of our experience. Hell, natural polyglots aside, we humans have a hard enough time mastering more than a few human languages; and our brains are good at that trick. And we expect to comprehend the True Nature of the Universe™? Good luck with that.
T.H. Huxley never intended for agnosticism to stand for "I don't know, I haven't made up my mind yet," as common usage would have it. It's a question of the limits of possible knowledge, not a statement of belief or the lack thereof.
In fact, I don't see any reason why you couldn't technically be both atheist and agnostic - by admitting that it may be impossible to "know" whether a god exists in the same way that we "know" ordinary facts about the world, while pointing out that all the available evidence indicates he doesn't.
Personally, I think it's obvious to anyone who's not emotionally invested in believing that the "loving father" god is ridiculously farfetched, but since when is that the only type of father figure? Maybe God as an emotionally distant, abusive alcoholic or schizophrenic could be a lot more believable. Gave birth to us, resented us for existing, and proceeded to treat us like shit. Straight away, we've cut the Gordian knot of "the problem of evil" and made theodicy irrelevant.
I think satur's got the most sensible position, essentially atheism in the Bertrand Russel mode. All available evidence suggests there is no god. But the evidence is incomplete. A belief in god, then, is an unsupportable belief in the supernatural, but as YF intimates, who the fuck really knows.
All of this jibber-jabber over the extent of knowledge lacks historical context. Every society thinks it has reached the pinnacle of knowledge. And every time they were wrong. Does that mean that we haven't reached "the pinnacle," if pinnacle there be? No. But get back to me in 50 years.
This "all gods are fake except for my god" is getting pretty tiresome. You don't have to be a genius to see that all societies created their gods, not the other way around.
Susan of Texas
For clarity's sake, "one and only world" was a knock at afterworlds and underworlds, not the Marvel Multiverse, you lovable band of absolute, unreconstructed dorks. But I do luv ya.
well, the MOORCOCK multiverse before Marvel coopted it, but us dorks do like to quibble.
satur, I agree with that statement more. I don't really know of any atheist who believes so strongly in the non-existence of a God, that hard evidence wouldn't change their mind.
That said, if there can be atheist agnostics, can there be believer agnostics? What would it take for them to STOP believing? More lack of evidence? So the "agnostic" qualifier ends up meaningless.
then call me an "apatheist". or whatever. i just wanna fuck.
Post a Comment