erectlocution ⊇ boxing jewels

How did you come by your atheism? That is, if you do indeed believe that the Creator does not exist.

Posted by Marisa on 31 March 2005 @ 5pm

Your question presumes that the original state of a person is belief in a creator, and that nonbelief is a product of straying from this belief. I contend that nonbelief is more basic, and precedes belief in a creator.

So, then, I did not come by it as much as I have seen nothing that would convince me to extend beyond it.

How did you come by your theism?

Posted by Daniel on 1 April 2005 @ 12am

Maybe her question doesn’t presume such. After all, you don’t suppose that we old fashioned theists believe it really must be this hard to believe do you? Maybe you weren’t born with a full set of genes?
Maybe you were. I’ll let you two hash this one out.

Posted by Robert on 1 April 2005 @ 2am

And just so we’re all clear, the last comment (and its reference point) was made in jest. I’ll try to be more serious from now on.

Posted by Robert on 1 April 2005 @ 2am

Yes, I presumed that you had felt the tint of some religion, as you can hardly turn around in this nation without coming up against it. My Christian beliefs were begun as a family tradition that I choose to embrace when I was faced with a decision. As for the evidence, I agree with Descartes.

Are you open to or searching for any proof of a Creator? And did you in fact begin life with nonbelief?

Posted by Marisa on 1 April 2005 @ 9am

Marisa:
“Are you open to or searching for any proof of a Creator?”

It might appear otherwise, but, yes, I am. The justification, though, must be commensurate with the implications: if there is to be something as powerful as God shown to exist, the evidence must be similarly powerful.

“And did you in fact begin life with nonbelief?”

I can’t answer definitively, of course; but to the best of my recollection, I only ever thought of God not even as much as I did the nameless evil that I was sure lived under my bed. I’m tempted to lump a belief in god(s) into the company of belief in boogeymen and the power of rabbits feet, not as an offense nor a deprecation, but an observation of similarities.

Robert:
“ Maybe her question doesn’t presume such.”

To ask how one came by something presumes it is not in preexistence. You would not entertain so evenly the question “How did you come by your skin?”

As to the article, jest or no it’s worth considering if even to denounce it substantively. A couple of points leaped out at me:

1. Hamer, as much as he and I might have similar perspectives or expectations, seemed to jump to the conclusion that this gene described belief in a divine and/or conscious power.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” — Arthur C. Clarke

It might be argued that “mysticism” might measure a fascination with anything sufficiently beyond our easy intellectual grasp, and not just those things fitting into the “spiritual” taxonomic group. Whether that’s an untenable point or not, I don’t pretend to know; but there seem to be biases in the setup which would of course have pointed to divinity moreso than might be representative.

2. I don’t see how the existence of God necessarily follows as a result of the proclivity of human societies to appeal to divine power. It’s obviously a possibility—that can’t be argued away; but it seems easily as likely (and simpler) that the current preponderance of belief in the existence of a divine power was seeded by simple explanations of natural phenomena by simple minds, in simpler times. The semiotic vocabulary of the Neanderthals likely included the idea of a “super” person, much more likely than it included a conception of gravity. Wash, rinse, repeat.

“I’ll try to be more serious from now on.”

“Under certain circumstances, [humor] provides a relief denied even to prayer.” — Hermann Weyl (sort of)

Posted by Daniel on 1 April 2005 @ 11am

At present, what do you think are the origins of life?

Posted by Marisa on 3 April 2005 @ 10am

“At present, what do you think are the origins of life?”

I obviously don’t, can’t claim certainty. What seems to make most sense, though, is that our definition of life is somewhat, well, not anthropocentric as…um…centered on what we think life is, intuitively. Hopefully that makes sense. I don’t necessarily consider life to be that different from other physical phenomena, such as (as mentioned elsewhere) gravity, or the fusion that powers the sun.

So, in this sense, just as with those other processes, life is an emergent process. I’m accused of resorting to metaphor too often; but I find them useful and it may come from raising children. We call something a “storm” when the atmosphere exhibits certain characteristics, and act as if it’s something set apart from the rest of the atmosphere. It isn’t, really. It’s just a reformulation of part of the atmosphere’s volume into a particular pattern of particles and pressures.

The short answer might have been: “I don’t know; but I find no reason to assume it was at the hand of God.” I felt that would have been unnecessarily pointed, and incomplete.

Posted by Daniel on 3 April 2005 @ 10pm

Maybe I can say a few things little by little rather than writing a two page response-entry that you must digest and respond to with something at is just as cumbersome to deal with practically.

Earlier you mentioned what I was out to prove a few times. I really don’t find what I believe to be provable, not in the here and now anyway - that’s sort of the point. Prayer, and faith as a whole would be more like a subscription service. A cosmic vending machine as one (I’m forgetting who) once put it.

So I think (and I am almost positive you would agree) that there’s no point in skipping over certain delicate points if what we’re both after can never be absolute. One such particular is Marisa’s most recent question. I’m glad you threw you short answer in there at the end. I think you’re jumping to a conclusion that I’m not ready to offer in terms of that particular question.

Before we can talk about God and all that he does and doesn’t do, and whether he’s good or not, we ought to talk about something else. I think every time the word God is used, those who are challenging Christian belief are forced to swallow a much larger idea than is necessary for the fundamental discussion of a higher power’s existence.

A replay of the exchange you and Marisa might be:

M: So How do you think life came about?

D: I don’t know, I think life isn’t that different from other things (off the point), and I CERTAINLY have no obvious reason to think GOD DID IT! (And by God, you mean the two-dimensional portrait of a man-jerk that has been your idea (planted by those shady figures on television that you spoke of earlier) of what my idea of God is.

R: Woah. Let’s slow down man. Let me re-ask Marisa’s Question. Isn’t it weird that we’re here discussing this at all? Isn’t it weird that we’re discussing an idea and a realm that may or may not exist? Musn’t all of this (and yes, I even mean the infinite) have a beginning?

I only bring it this way because I’m confident enough (but never certain) in my faith to come at from another angle, to avoid the antagonizing conversion-speak. And because you’re open in enough if your lack of faith (no matter how certain it may be, to rehash dumb old ideas that you burried years ago.

Posted by Robert on 4 April 2005 @ 12am

The reason I mentioned (and believe) that your idea about life not being that different from the rest of the creation is because in many ways (but certainly not the most important way) I agree with that sentiment. Matter is matter. I certainly believe that life carries something more, and even more in the sense of human life (I am no mystic), but if we can agree that the process of life is not all that different from gravity and other “natural” phenomena (even if we disagree on the meaning), than your point must be off the point of what we actually disagree on.

That is to say, that neither of us think humans or their minds are supernatural elements of a dimension we have no knowledge of. I may think we have souls, and I may also think that said souls may one day be explained by science (even in a manner that adheres to my beliefs). All of these possibilities are related, but squarely off the point at hand.

OK, gotta stop again.

And in the future, I’ll check my grammar.

Posted by Robert on 4 April 2005 @ 1am

I threw the short answer in based on the presumption, yes, that it was likely that Marisa was asking, “How could life have formed without God’s design?” Leaving the discussion at this level would be like painting on a 4″ by 4″ canvas with a street cleaner brush. My longer answer was a more specific answer that, yes, assumed we were talking in a context in which we implictly agreed that it didn’t matter how or why the universe had come about. While we can’t hide from it, and it is positively central to any other question we might have, if we had to take as a requirement of answering any subordinate question the answering of the fundamental ontological question(s), we would, of course, never get anywhere in any practical timeframe.

Also, the longer answer is quite independent of the existence or goodness of a higher authority. I am still surprised that so many quickly assume that science is the foil of belief in a higher conscious power, and vice versa (this is an off-point aside). I would like to return someday soon to my exploration of this.

I’m not convinced that the comparability of life with other natural phenomena is “off the point” with regards to Marisa’s comment. It’s quite possible, Robert, that, had you asked the question, it would have been. And, perhaps it is my errant presumption that Marisa holds life to be holy and wholly separate from other things like gravity and wind in its value to all that is, and, so, felt that to be an implicit question within her question. Still, I felt it useful to include as at least a nuance the fact that I don’t consider life to carry any greater majesty than a storm, even if I might tend to have a greater intimate affinity for one over the other.

Posted by Daniel on 4 April 2005 @ 9am

Alright, fair enough. I’ll shut up for now. It is indeed Marisa’s question, not mine. I’ve got a feeling this conversation of ours will never have one particular home, and I think that’s a good thing.

Posted by Robert on 4 April 2005 @ 1pm

[...] lest it be thought that I’m of the same “science != religion” mindset I was just a few short years ago, here’s a hopefully fruitful excerpt. Of course, science itself probably [...]

Posted by boxing jewels - Prayer ⇒ Opposable Thumbs? on 21 May 2008 @ 11am