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]

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?