Further discussions on this whole god thing. The terms which I have accepted as my category (athiest, infidel, whathaveyou)are inherently oppositional, and of course this is a problem. They immediately conjure adversarial emotions, contradiction, elusive semantics and semiotics. So what I DO believe, as opposed to what I DON'T:
That the universe as a 'biological' (and thus inherently a phsyic-al system)has eventually generated us (mankind, and whatever else has achieved what we might call a 'consciousness' that is able to ask existential questions) as a means to understand itself. This statement almost personifies, but I don't believe that there are any intentions at work. Out of the infinite possibilities this place happens to have the particular set of rules that allow our existence and development. I believe that there is not afterlife and instead our 'spiritual value' is not how well we've adhered to abstract (and yet, for the most part, rational) rules, but how well this thing called 'us' has impacted all of existence. By this I don't mean that our individual goals should be 'importance' in the terms of how many people know about us or how much measurable 'success' we have had; rather you might almost think of it as how well you are remembered. We all have distinct influences on our surroundings, our spiritual welfare is how well this has been received by those it has touched and how that influence plays out after you are gone. I believe that any attempt to dehumanize a person or people (by disrespecting the things that make them human, and robbing them of autonomy, and abusing cooperative advantage, and...well, engaging in the things we know to be 'bad') is a travesty (notice how this works with the afterlife=influence mechanism). I believe that the Universe is a daunting and beautiful and mysterious thing, and it brings me to tears to really understand any little aspect of it. I believe that we have a great deal more work to do before we begin to really understand. I believe that language is immeasurably powerful, and that it defines our life. I believe that art is one of the ways in which we can have a meaningful relationship with the universe, and that so are a lot of other things. I believe that genuine human experience is the most valuable thing we do in life; and that we may all define this differently but it always has more to do with accepting than rejecting. I believe that there are no cultural constants or truths or universals. In the end, I believe in people and love people and want to have people in my life. People. It's the most complex phenomenon we might hope to study, and we are literally swimming in it, humanity.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well put. I guess the negation in words like 'athiest' is a bit of a problem, but its something we're really forced into by the pervading idea that everyone has to believe something. Hopefully, in the semi-near future, questions like "what religion are you will no longer be really appropriate."
About measures of 'success,' I guess I think you've missed a point here. Being 'remembered' or even well-liked or respected by others is great (being interesting to others is perhaps even better), but there's a more self-based goal I think. If the afterlife is the complete lack that I have to expect it is, then there's the idea of trying to live more or harder. Then what is living in constrast to the void that comes after? Simply sensation. Feelings and thoughts. And perhaps the more intense the better, i.e. peak concentration, zen-like moments of click, wild distortions of perspective, pain, fear, love, exertion, etc. In short, overexposure, and not just to the 'good' feelings.
The bit about people is so true its hard to believe how long it took me to realize it (and how late I see other people discovering it). Of course, most of the things I've listed above are best achieved through being active socially; its exactly the opposite of being hermetic. Other people are the only things that you can't look down upon. Anything else is exactly as complicated as you make it. Yes, the universe is incredibly complex, and you can lose yourself there, but you can just as easily numb yourself to it; flatten it. People, on the other hand, are complicated before and without you. You have reason to fear them, reason to love them, reason to be blown away by there ideas, reason to feel like fist-pumping fantastic when they agree on something relevant, on and on.
So we're making some progress on this what-the-fuck-is-it-all-about anxiety, I think. Who new that when you denounce religion and painstakingly search for whats 'right' in its absence, it drives you to a higher appreciation for others than you would have ever concieved of otherwise?
You're right about intensity of experience. If we're here for x years than its practically mandatory that we make that time as valuable and dense as possible.
My intention with the whole "influence" or "impact" thing is to provide some corollary to the consequential afterlife that so many religious folks think determines one's morality. We don't go on to live eternally in heaven or hell or purgatory or return in some well-deserved form. However, our actions are not meaningless nor do they occur in a vacuum. They do have an effect, and the only objective way to measure that effect (I think) is to observe how your 'behavior' has influenced those around you. Additionally, I think this plays well into the sense of right and wrong we've developed over generations of physiological and cultural evolution. We feel bad when we've betrayed the tribe in some way.
As you and I have discussed previously, giving up god is simultaneously the most freeing and anxiety-inducing thing one can do. Interestingly enough, it's perceived amongst many believers as 'giving up' and adopting unrepentant nihilism. For me it was an act of finally admitting something that I always knew but tried to ignore. I didn't want to feel alone or insignificant or temporary and yet finally admitting the nature of nature has forced me to deal with these things rather than ignore them. The fact of isolation has made me appreciate my neighbors, the sense of insignificance has made me realize that my energies are vital and important (to me), the temporariness of life has finally made me value it even more.
The problem being that I now realize my position as an atheist (and more specifically wearing that status on my sleeve) is inherently ostracizing. It invites a convoluted condescension, nips conversation in the bud, engenders animosity or at least confusion. Its a heavily loaded word. I am an atheist, but I think I need a new way to express my beliefs to people I don't know very well. Something that encourages friendly, searching questions rather than dismissal. Maybe I am starting to understand people a little bit . .
Yes of course. Its also taken me a long time to realize that calling 'em like I see 'em doesn't exactly encourage change or growth in anyone. It tends to firm their resolve because I come off looking like the asshole. Unfortunately, most people don't respond well to bold imperatives.
The part I get hung up on is where to draw the line if I'm going to start dumbing it down. Like its not really ok to say I have some more middle ground beleif just to string someone along by incrimental steps. This is incredibly pretentious, dishonest, and more fundamentally anti-social than just stomping out the conversation wih the A-word straight away. But this is sort of the same thing as trying to make your ideas more agreable by avoiding certain satements that you know to be true. Perhaps this is a function of your relationship with the person; strangers require some more careful treading, not to be pounced upon or awarded any gems too early on.
I guess my point is that, insofar as you can go about assigning responsibilities in conversation, its not really yours to make your opinions fall closer in line with the staus qou by obscuration, making liberal use of terms, avoiding firm statements, etc. Every bit you soften the delivery, though it may well allow much more productive discourse, supports the same pre-screenig mechanism that you're trying to avoid in the first place.
So there's compramise, I get that, and I think you're right to give a little. But I don't think these concessions can be taken lightly. You're either giving ground or lying, even if only a little. I mean, the extreme is just to redefine 'god' and then bandy it about just like everyone else does. Call yourself a Christian and go on believing exactly what you do now. Hell, you could engage most peoples parents in philosophical conversation with this ploy, but is it really worth it?
Tricky subject. Anyway you cut it your some part asshole and the rest pushover.
In mildly related news, John Kitna has converted 20 Lions players to Christianity since signing on with the team in 2006. They do team prayers on the field now.
Defining the terms of the compromise is tricky. You'll never hear me say that I believe in god, I do believe that for most people this is a linguistic trick so they can escape the social pressure to be believers. What I think is required is a sort of pre-amble to declaration of atheism (or a replacement term). Somehow show that the word god is intended to refer to a 'being' of some personality and intelligence. That a latent system that happens to favor life is not 'god'. The conversation goes nowhere if the 'believer' is not willing to listen.
The thing about the Lions is creepy. I think perhaps the reason I have been mellowing is that I've been surrounded by infidels for a long time, a genuine effort to convert me would get the blood boiling again. I also think the religious far-right are losing ground.
I hope your right.
"it's not that i don't believe in god. It's that i believe there is no god"
Penn
rough quote, don't kill me on it.
g3
p.s i'm opening up my blog again, no new posts as of yet, however.
i believe in god - that is to say that i believe that god is everything and nothing. i feel like religion has used god to fill in the gaps ever since man has been looking at the sky however the concept of 'god', when held before the world, will be interpreted much differently by every culture. there is no doubt why the aztecs or other agricultural peoples viewed the sun as god because the sun was what provided life. when i say god is everything and nothing i mean that all things from cats to oak trees are god; rather than an enormous being in the sky with a long gray beard. i feel as if 'god' is regenerated after life and whereas we might become dust when we die we are still fulfilling our ancient roles as living organisms. the fact that this is a more scientific approach to determining what god is does not belittle how amazing this process really is. in fact i find the circle of life to be a very spiritual thing - much more spiritual than communion at church or deep meditation. i feel as if we immediately discredited things as being "spiritual" if they have a scientific connotation to them when reality i feel as if they are strikingly similar and perhaps one and the same.
Post a Comment