The realization that you don't know everything can be very unsettling. The realization that authority figures don't know and can't know everything may be even more unsettling. Every person is born into this world believing their parents or guardians are God. The helpless, clueless kid doesn't know how to do anything. He looks around trying to absorb all that is going on and notices these big people who seem to know what's going on. They know how to talk, walk, drive and seemingly everything else.
Then one day the universe is beyond comprehension. We can either run from this realization: convince ourselves that someone in authority does actually have a handle on everything going on (self-delusion) or we may try to run behind a God. No matter how we handle it, the heart is struck with awful fear and dread. And we must choose what we're going to do about it. Escape or push through.
Many people grow up being taught about a God figure. Some jolly being sitting on a cloud playing a harp everywhere and nowhere who happens to care about you enough to offer heaven or threaten hell. Or some variation thereon. But if these old people who let the idea of God enter your head don't actually know everything, how do they know about this God? There are two ways to escape this fear. They both equate to damning the mind; stopping the critical thought process. One is to cling to everything that you thought made sense. Of course you have to stop thinking because you have already concluded that it doesn't make sense but you fear that you won't be able to resolve the inconsistencies if you delve further. So you regress and live in a fantasy.
The other equally mind-numbingly idiotic escape alternative is to rebel against everything you once were taught. It's actually the same thing in the same way that A and -A are the same. Having one is having the other. Rebellion is just as idiotic because when you realize you have no reason for believing something the very obvious corollary is that you have no reason to not believe it.
A logical conclusion would be that where you are is a good place to start. You doubt and question what you already believe and how you live, keep the good things and replace or forgo the bad. Good is that which is consistent with your chosen philosophical foundation and bad is that which is inconsistent with it. Life begins to be an iterative process towards acceptance of and adherence to reality.
A very important caution for those in the pit of uncertainty and doubt: it is the most profoundly unwise thing you can do to limit your future options. You cannot undo something you have done. If it is even in the realm of possibility that one day you may wish you have not done something you are considering to do; don't do it. You can always do something a first time; you can't not do something in the past. Develop your life philosophy and let your choices be yours.
Live forward; love truth; know that you have no bounds.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A Consistent God
God has been a historically troublesome and often foolish idea. God has been an abstract label placed as an explanation for otherwise unexplainable things. Since we live in a causal reality (where reality is everything that can causally affect me and I can causally affect it), every event must and does have an explanation. Moreover all explanations of real events must be consistent. Newton's laws of motion explained the effects of forces on objects but inconsistencies were found between predicted and observed phenomena at high speeds. Therefore it was known that Newton's laws did not encapsulate all the principles of reality. Relativity has filled in the gaps. There is always a causal explanation for any real event. The explanation may not be known yet, but there surely is one. And the principles of the true explanation must be consistent with all other explanations for real events.
God cannot be an explanation for an inconsistency. It's inconsistent. The 19th century scientists did not attribute the inconsistency between Newton's laws and observed data to God tampering with the results, tampering with reality. If a God exists, he must exist within reality and be bound by the laws of reality. A consistent God cannot operate by other than natural laws: to bring about a certain effect the associated cause must be executed.
If anything in reality were inconsistent (including a God) there would never be any evidence for believing anything. I have flipped enough light switches in my life to know that a light will turn on when I flip the switch (assuming the light has not burned out, the electrical connections are sound, etc.). Because of my experience I have come to expect a light to turn on when I flip a light switch. I have discovered the cause and effect relationship through experience. If any principle or power in the universe could operate on inconsistent principles then we would never be able to expect a light to turn on no matter how many times previously we have flipped the switch. Without the law of causality we would not be able to function. Life would be nothing if not impossible.
The reason the many prevalent ideas of God have caused so much trouble is that these ideas of God attempt to remove us from reality or cloud our perception of reality. The only consistent idea of God is one in which his existence enriches our existence. A consistent God would be bound by reality, would have mastered the laws of reality and would endeavor to help us master the laws of reality. Our happiness is maximized when we live according to the laws of reality completely and without exception. If God were anything else we would be better off without him. An existent God that we would be better off without is not a God.
God cannot be an explanation for an inconsistency. It's inconsistent. The 19th century scientists did not attribute the inconsistency between Newton's laws and observed data to God tampering with the results, tampering with reality. If a God exists, he must exist within reality and be bound by the laws of reality. A consistent God cannot operate by other than natural laws: to bring about a certain effect the associated cause must be executed.
If anything in reality were inconsistent (including a God) there would never be any evidence for believing anything. I have flipped enough light switches in my life to know that a light will turn on when I flip the switch (assuming the light has not burned out, the electrical connections are sound, etc.). Because of my experience I have come to expect a light to turn on when I flip a light switch. I have discovered the cause and effect relationship through experience. If any principle or power in the universe could operate on inconsistent principles then we would never be able to expect a light to turn on no matter how many times previously we have flipped the switch. Without the law of causality we would not be able to function. Life would be nothing if not impossible.
The reason the many prevalent ideas of God have caused so much trouble is that these ideas of God attempt to remove us from reality or cloud our perception of reality. The only consistent idea of God is one in which his existence enriches our existence. A consistent God would be bound by reality, would have mastered the laws of reality and would endeavor to help us master the laws of reality. Our happiness is maximized when we live according to the laws of reality completely and without exception. If God were anything else we would be better off without him. An existent God that we would be better off without is not a God.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Plato's Premise
Having enjoyed and completely agreed with my compatriot's arguments, the time for contribution has arrived.
Herein I seek to lay out a logical foundation for all further discussion.
Stripping everything else away, removing all preconceived notions, rejecting all priorly held beliefs, forgetting former assurances, questioning every motive, and removing every postulate is entirely necessary to obtaining any meaningful or consistent understanding of reality. And in truth, an understanding of reality can be the only thing of any importance; it is the only real thing.
But what is reality? Reality is the actual, the factual, the perfectly consistent, the unquestionable, and the true. Reality is that realm that may causally affect me and may in turn be causally affected by me. Understanding reality is to see something for what it really is; it is seeing beyond all deception, misconception, or facade.
But why do I care to know reality? What happened to "ignorance is bliss"? I want to know the truth in all things, that is to say, I want to know reality because the only possible way to come to a lasting, meaningful, thorough happiness is to fully align myself with reality, to fully accept the truth and to completely integrate it into myself. And further, to understand reality to the point that it only affects me as I desire and I am able to influence it as I wish.
Think about it. What causes unhappiness? From what does malcontent flow? Unhappiness only results from an inconsistency with reality. We may be unhappy at the death of a friend when we didn't want them to go. We may be unhappy in marriage when our spouse isn't who we wish they were. We may be unhappy at work when the hoped for promotion doesn't come. We may be unhappy with riches because of their limit. We may be unhappy with power because it's still bound. We may be unhappy with praise because it could have been better. In each of these cases, unhappiness either could have been avoided or can still be overcome by a consistent understanding of reality.
But why must everything be rejected so cleanly and completely first? If I am to understand reality then every conclusion I attempt must be based off the surest logic, premises, and foundation I can manage. It is therefore necessary to begin from the very foundation, nothing else can suffice.
But what is the foundation? The only thing beyond all doubt, the only thing that could not be a deception. As Descartes found, it must be based off the fact that I am thinking and therefore I exist. Everything else is under the shadow of doubt and must be entirely subject to question.
But at what point can something be accepted as a truth? When a belief is completely consistent with all other beliefs and may be logically deduced therefrom I will accept it is true. However, upon the first appearance of counter-example or realization of faulty logic, I will reject it. So often, fallacy is clung to where truth could be found out of mere stubbornness to change. I will change as swiftly as possible.
So what is the premise? A is A. Truth is perfectly consistent with itself formerly, now, and forever. No amount of belief, hope, faith, opinion, arguing, stubbornness, pleading, desire, anger, or protest can change it. Better then to learn it. The best thing about the truth is that it is always right. This is Eternalism. Join up.
Herein I seek to lay out a logical foundation for all further discussion.
Stripping everything else away, removing all preconceived notions, rejecting all priorly held beliefs, forgetting former assurances, questioning every motive, and removing every postulate is entirely necessary to obtaining any meaningful or consistent understanding of reality. And in truth, an understanding of reality can be the only thing of any importance; it is the only real thing.
But what is reality? Reality is the actual, the factual, the perfectly consistent, the unquestionable, and the true. Reality is that realm that may causally affect me and may in turn be causally affected by me. Understanding reality is to see something for what it really is; it is seeing beyond all deception, misconception, or facade.
But why do I care to know reality? What happened to "ignorance is bliss"? I want to know the truth in all things, that is to say, I want to know reality because the only possible way to come to a lasting, meaningful, thorough happiness is to fully align myself with reality, to fully accept the truth and to completely integrate it into myself. And further, to understand reality to the point that it only affects me as I desire and I am able to influence it as I wish.
Think about it. What causes unhappiness? From what does malcontent flow? Unhappiness only results from an inconsistency with reality. We may be unhappy at the death of a friend when we didn't want them to go. We may be unhappy in marriage when our spouse isn't who we wish they were. We may be unhappy at work when the hoped for promotion doesn't come. We may be unhappy with riches because of their limit. We may be unhappy with power because it's still bound. We may be unhappy with praise because it could have been better. In each of these cases, unhappiness either could have been avoided or can still be overcome by a consistent understanding of reality.
But why must everything be rejected so cleanly and completely first? If I am to understand reality then every conclusion I attempt must be based off the surest logic, premises, and foundation I can manage. It is therefore necessary to begin from the very foundation, nothing else can suffice.
But what is the foundation? The only thing beyond all doubt, the only thing that could not be a deception. As Descartes found, it must be based off the fact that I am thinking and therefore I exist. Everything else is under the shadow of doubt and must be entirely subject to question.
But at what point can something be accepted as a truth? When a belief is completely consistent with all other beliefs and may be logically deduced therefrom I will accept it is true. However, upon the first appearance of counter-example or realization of faulty logic, I will reject it. So often, fallacy is clung to where truth could be found out of mere stubbornness to change. I will change as swiftly as possible.
So what is the premise? A is A. Truth is perfectly consistent with itself formerly, now, and forever. No amount of belief, hope, faith, opinion, arguing, stubbornness, pleading, desire, anger, or protest can change it. Better then to learn it. The best thing about the truth is that it is always right. This is Eternalism. Join up.
The Bandwagon and Questioning
We come into this world completely ignorant and helpless. As we grow we learn about the world around us through experience. We learn how to eat, how to sleep and other vital skills. As we become aware of disparities of knowledge or ability between us and those around us, we ask questions and endeavor to learn these new things.
Eventually we come to questions that those older and more experienced around us can't answer or can't explain the answer. A few thousand years ago someone may have asked why the seasons happen. An answer may have been proffered: because it is the will of the gods. Of course it is the gods that periodically bless and curse according to their arbitrary wills.
The first answers are offered to the person that cannot be verified by logic or experience. What's the missing piece? Well faith of course.
Faith has been and probably will continue to be a grossly misrepresented idea. In the previous example the person should have faith that the gods control the seasons arbitrarily according to their wills precisely because there is no evidence; because there is no real reason to believe it. This is not faith. This is the cowardice of a feeble mind.
It is a common trend that beliefs and prejudices pass from parents to children. Or that they become common in a particular geographical region or cultural tradition. Beliefs and prejudices are particularly useful because they significantly reduce the amount of rational deliberation the mind must undertake on a daily basis with everyday situations. But therein also lies the problem. Because it is possible to reduce the mental stress of thinking about moral and ethical issues daily, the person decides not to think at all. The beliefs and prejudices are regarded as absolute truth and anybody's insinuation that they are not absolute and should be questioned is offensive. And "it's just my opinion" becomes the only 'logical' defense.
Opinions are not all equally valid. An opinion held by a majority does not make it true. Where differing opinions occur it should be naturally incumbent on those involved to uncover the underlying principles of the opinions/beliefs. If the conclusions of rational arguments are different then the premises must be examined. My premises will always be the consistency of truth and my desire to be happy.
The beliefs of parents or cultures do not excuse my beliefs. My beliefs are my own and if anyone else shares them I would hope it can only be because we came about obtaining them the same way. I welcome the questioning of my beliefs. If I cannot defend something I believe with a rational argument then I must either modify the belief to something I can rationally defend or eliminate it and search for something else. I would like to become aware of a false belief as soon as possible. A first set of beliefs are chosen then modified throughout life to become better and better approximations of truth. The alternative is choosing an arbitrary set of beliefs and dedicating my life to justifying them.
Eventually we come to questions that those older and more experienced around us can't answer or can't explain the answer. A few thousand years ago someone may have asked why the seasons happen. An answer may have been proffered: because it is the will of the gods. Of course it is the gods that periodically bless and curse according to their arbitrary wills.
The first answers are offered to the person that cannot be verified by logic or experience. What's the missing piece? Well faith of course.
Faith has been and probably will continue to be a grossly misrepresented idea. In the previous example the person should have faith that the gods control the seasons arbitrarily according to their wills precisely because there is no evidence; because there is no real reason to believe it. This is not faith. This is the cowardice of a feeble mind.
It is a common trend that beliefs and prejudices pass from parents to children. Or that they become common in a particular geographical region or cultural tradition. Beliefs and prejudices are particularly useful because they significantly reduce the amount of rational deliberation the mind must undertake on a daily basis with everyday situations. But therein also lies the problem. Because it is possible to reduce the mental stress of thinking about moral and ethical issues daily, the person decides not to think at all. The beliefs and prejudices are regarded as absolute truth and anybody's insinuation that they are not absolute and should be questioned is offensive. And "it's just my opinion" becomes the only 'logical' defense.
Opinions are not all equally valid. An opinion held by a majority does not make it true. Where differing opinions occur it should be naturally incumbent on those involved to uncover the underlying principles of the opinions/beliefs. If the conclusions of rational arguments are different then the premises must be examined. My premises will always be the consistency of truth and my desire to be happy.
The beliefs of parents or cultures do not excuse my beliefs. My beliefs are my own and if anyone else shares them I would hope it can only be because we came about obtaining them the same way. I welcome the questioning of my beliefs. If I cannot defend something I believe with a rational argument then I must either modify the belief to something I can rationally defend or eliminate it and search for something else. I would like to become aware of a false belief as soon as possible. A first set of beliefs are chosen then modified throughout life to become better and better approximations of truth. The alternative is choosing an arbitrary set of beliefs and dedicating my life to justifying them.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Eternalism
Eternalism is the philosophy that embraces all truth. Everything that is, that was, or that will be. All truth is self-consistent. Truth must be sought and discovered. New information must be compared to what is already known, and if consistent, may also be true.
The main conviction of eternalism is the lack of absolute conviction. What is believed to be true is regarded as such (life is lived according to and consistent with truth presently known) until a counterexample is revealed or a better or more encompassing/robust truth reveals itself. We live according to what we know now and actively seek better knowledge that our understanding of truth can be constantly expanded and when necessary, corrected. Every truth in heaven, earth or hell is the life philosophy of the eternalist.
Please present me with what you know or believe and your reasons for believing such. I will respond accordingly and vice versa that we both may come to better understand the truth and live accordingly. The premises for any discussion or logical argument can never be that someone or some idea is wrong. Among the fundamental premises that can be used as postulates are that all truth must be consistent and that the individual is seeking happiness. I want to be happy and will do everything I can to be happy. I believe that living according to the truth will maximize my chances of happiness. I have never yet found a counterexample.
Eternalism embraces all the natural laws of the universe, of all that is. Eternalism governs all interactions, all relationships and all consequences of actions. Eternalism is what is left when all self-deception and fantasy is removed. I know what I know because of experience and logical consistency. Knowledge of truth will be expanded by living according to truth already known (increasing experience) and developing my ability to think and analyze events and decisions rationally.
The main conviction of eternalism is the lack of absolute conviction. What is believed to be true is regarded as such (life is lived according to and consistent with truth presently known) until a counterexample is revealed or a better or more encompassing/robust truth reveals itself. We live according to what we know now and actively seek better knowledge that our understanding of truth can be constantly expanded and when necessary, corrected. Every truth in heaven, earth or hell is the life philosophy of the eternalist.
Please present me with what you know or believe and your reasons for believing such. I will respond accordingly and vice versa that we both may come to better understand the truth and live accordingly. The premises for any discussion or logical argument can never be that someone or some idea is wrong. Among the fundamental premises that can be used as postulates are that all truth must be consistent and that the individual is seeking happiness. I want to be happy and will do everything I can to be happy. I believe that living according to the truth will maximize my chances of happiness. I have never yet found a counterexample.
Eternalism embraces all the natural laws of the universe, of all that is. Eternalism governs all interactions, all relationships and all consequences of actions. Eternalism is what is left when all self-deception and fantasy is removed. I know what I know because of experience and logical consistency. Knowledge of truth will be expanded by living according to truth already known (increasing experience) and developing my ability to think and analyze events and decisions rationally.
Beginning the God Question
The existence or nonexistence of a God is irrelevant without proper context. I want to be happy. Any idea of God is only useful to me insofar as it can facilitate my happiness.
God must be consistent. God can only exist if there is a philosophy and theology embracing all truth that is consistent with the existence of such a being.
If there is an unresolved inconsistency between God and reality either reality or God cannot exist.
I will define my reality as the only one I know that exists: my Cartesian reality. Things as I perceive them through my senses when my consciousness believes myself to be awake are and can be my only reality. Any other definition would not make sense for me. Reality is my perception of things as they are. Reality is truth as known through the looking glass of my existence; reality is truth as I perceive it through my senses.
Reality exists. Now only God may or may not exist.
What sort of God may exist consistent with himself (for lack of better word) and reality?
It may be useful to test out several globally and historically prevalent ideas of God for consistency with this framework. If a consistent idea exists then that idea should be examined further as a possibly accurate idea of an existent God.
I start with the assumption that there is no God and look for a possible counterexample. I must first assume the lack of a God because to believe in a God without having an idea of God is inconsistent.
God Ideas:
1. God the Punisher
2. God the Gentle
3. God the All-Being
4. God the Many
5. God the Nitpicker
6. God the Distant
7. God the Optimizer
God must be consistent. God can only exist if there is a philosophy and theology embracing all truth that is consistent with the existence of such a being.
If there is an unresolved inconsistency between God and reality either reality or God cannot exist.
I will define my reality as the only one I know that exists: my Cartesian reality. Things as I perceive them through my senses when my consciousness believes myself to be awake are and can be my only reality. Any other definition would not make sense for me. Reality is my perception of things as they are. Reality is truth as known through the looking glass of my existence; reality is truth as I perceive it through my senses.
Reality exists. Now only God may or may not exist.
What sort of God may exist consistent with himself (for lack of better word) and reality?
It may be useful to test out several globally and historically prevalent ideas of God for consistency with this framework. If a consistent idea exists then that idea should be examined further as a possibly accurate idea of an existent God.
I start with the assumption that there is no God and look for a possible counterexample. I must first assume the lack of a God because to believe in a God without having an idea of God is inconsistent.
God Ideas:
1. God the Punisher
2. God the Gentle
3. God the All-Being
4. God the Many
5. God the Nitpicker
6. God the Distant
7. God the Optimizer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
