Ten beliefs

[jay]

1. I believe in an intangible universe, both alongside and part of the tangible universe. Numbers and ideas exist here. So does spirituality.
2. I believe in a supreme organizing principle -- God, although not necessarily the male hairy thunderer figure. I don't see what meaning gender has in that context.
3. The universe may be an unfair place, in finite time, but it all eventually works out.
4. I'm a Christian, although I think that there are also other Ways.
5. I believe that we humans are not alone in the universe.
6. I believe in the Golden Rule as a guiding principle.
7. I believe that we're here to love and to be vessels of love to others.
8. I believe that science and rationality gives us tools for appreciating the universe, by gaining deeper insights.
9. I believe in stirring-up things occasionally, just to keep everything honest.
10. I believe that I'm making a difference.

(repeated here from an email reply of mine last month to archway)

Comments

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

My first thought for the Golden Rule was, 'Do no harm' (sometimes phrased, 'as long as you cause no harm, do as you want'). After a while, I wondered whether you meant, 'Do as you would be done by' instead.

As far as I can tell, there's an overarching disorganising principle - entropy - and small patches of the universe get organised by dumping their disorder on other parts of the universe. Also, it seems to me, that in the end, the concept of 'fair' is just a human construct: some things will work out through our efforts, some things by chance, many things not at all.

The concepts 'tangible' and 'abstract' emerge largely from the ways that human animals work - if there are radically different circumstances in which self-aware intelligence can emerge, then there are probably other perspectives on those ideas. 'Spirituality' seems like an inevitable emergent property of a self-aware intelligence trying to understand itself and its surroundings.
'Love' likewise, and a useful evolutionary tool - and powerful and fun, as it happens.

I think you are imagining deeper layers of purpose in the universe than are needed...

Heart and Soul

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe it would be a comfort for you to stop intellectualizing so much and listen to your heart and soul. Be kind to yourself.

Re: Heart and Soul

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

That's kind of you - but I don't have to fantasise about the nature of the universe, and of humanity, to be kind to myself: quite the reverse, that sort of fantasy seems unkind.

I'm pleased to be able to report that the love and kindness of my friends and family provides for the needs of my heart and what might be called 'my soul', without stifling my intellectual needs.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

You know, this is really about Brian's beliefs. Beliefs are by their nature intangible and not necessarily subject to argument.

As far as imagining layers of purpose in the universe, who is to say what is needed? Atheism is just as much a statement of faith as belief in God is -- the fact is, nobody really knows.

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

You know, this is really about Brian's beliefs. Beliefs are by their nature intangible and not necessarily subject to argument.

I disagree :-) I chose to respond as I did because I think that Brian and I know one another well enough to have this kind of discussion. Beliefs are not, and should not be, immune from balanced scrutiny - especially if they are stated, or used as a basis for action or inaction.

As far as imagining layers of purpose in the universe, who is to say what is needed?

By 'needed' I mean, 'needed to explain our observations'. Individuals may feel a personal need to ascribe purpose to the universe, but the universe reserves the right to ignore those feelings.

Atheism is just as much a statement of faith as belief in God is -- the fact is, nobody really knows.

I'm not an atheist. The human concept of deity seems to me to have more to do with human nature and society, than with the external universe. I could be wrong -- if I do meet any deities, I hope that I will have the chance to learn from my mistake. I don't have 'faith' that there is no God in the same way in which people 'have faith in God', though, and it's unhelpful to assert that I do. It is impossible to prove a statement of the form, "X does not exist" - but that fact cannot be used as evidence for the contrary statement "X does exist". Consider the case where X = "plaid penguins"...

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I'd tend to agree with you that personal beliefs, one's own gradually assembled view of everything, are a valid area for polite discussion :-). Although my experience is that this is often explicatory discussion, as long-held beliefs are particularly slow to change after their original convergence.

By 'needed' I mean, 'needed to explain our observations'.

(nods) My own set of beliefs exceed considerably what is necessary to explain observations, for instance. But I don't feel obliged to apply Occam's Razor when I observe and understand so little, overall...

The human concept of deity seems to me to have more to do with human nature and society, than with the external universe.

The social anthropomorphization of deity-concepts looks to me like foggy, somewhat unimaginative human projections. Whatever is out there is unlikely to resemble our biases and favorite concepts. That's just too closed, too limiting...

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

(I am relieved that I haven't mortally offended you :-)

long-held beliefs are particularly slow to change after their original convergence.

The why of belief fascinates me, on many levels - not least, in understanding the why of my own world-views, and also, in understanding students!

But I don't feel obliged to apply Occam's Razor when I observe and understand so little, overall...

William of Ockham did not come up with a Law like Newton's Gravity, certainly. If we have insufficient data, it is necessary to 'multiply the entities', to help us gather new, potentially relevant data. But we do have to remember that these 'hypothetical entities' are tools for thought, not parts of the Universe. 'Deity hypotheses' are worthy of investigation - although of course there are as many variations as there are people. Ockham comes in when we try to assert a 'Deity Theory' but cannot produce the evidence which positively requires the existance of deity.

The social anthropomorphization of deity-concepts looks to me like foggy, somewhat unimaginative human projections.

Indeed. But projections of what?

Whatever is out there is unlikely to resemble our biases and favorite concepts.

Why does there have to be anything out there at all?

[(Anonymous)]

hugs, hugs, hugs.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I'd resist any attempts to impose a belief structure, either on me or by myself on others. History has shown us too many messy examples of how that works in practice. But gentle discussion of unprovables occurs, both in discussing axioms and in theology classrooms :-).

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I had meant the latter Rule, coming out of my own cultural context. And I don't know how things get temporarily organized... but entropy is undeniable.

But it is hard for me to see how different emergence would alter the break between physically-measurable entities and the non-measurable. Countable, perhaps...

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

The simple example which came immediately to mind is magnetism. We experience magnetism as 'abstract', through secondary effects e.g. on ferrometals. But birds seem to be able to directly sense magnetic field lines. Our abstract is their 'direct experience of the senses'.

As you point out, physical scientists are comfortable with 'concrete' phenomena as being physically measurable, even if not directly accessible to unaid human senses. Still, it would be very interesting to meet a species which had a direct 'entropy sense'! Highly interesting possibilities for discussions of 'deity as organising principle'.