Archive for February, 2010

I’m a Spiritual Person, and That Means This…

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

“So… you’re an atheist and a naturalist… but you call yourself spiritual?”

The short answer is yes. That might seem very odd, and by the end of this you might think I’m not making sense or that I’m abusing vocabulary. I think that’s okay with me.

First, let’s separate this from “Spiritualism,” the religious movement popular around the dawn of the 20th century that purported that the spirits of the dead were all around us. This is what gave rise to the seance, and that’s a whole different thing from what I’m talking about.

So What Are You Talking About?

What I’m talking about when I say “spirituality” will take me a pretty big post to describe… so prepare for a pretty big post.

Spirituality, in general, is probably best defined as the search for meaning or purpose or definition in life, and I consider it a direct response to existential angst. So, uh… what’s existential angst?

Kierkegaard (philosopher, dead Danish dude, you can read about him on the internets) used the word “angst” to describe the fear a human being had because of their responsibility to God. Of course, I don’t believe in God (see second post), but Kierkegaard is one of the first people to realize that the more freedom man gets, the more fear is generated. (This is important,  but I’ll have to talk about it another time.)

Heidegger says… well, it would take me three books to explain what Heidegger says. But he defines Angst as apprehension about (for lack of a better term) the immaterial. “Fear” to Heidegger is the apprehension or stress in response to a real, existent thing whereas Angst is the response to a concept or perhaps a situation.

Hooray, Angst…

I could go on at length about the nature of angst, but I won’t… in this post.

The reason to talk about angst and “existential angst” is that it grips everyone at some point in their life. In fact, if you can imagine intelligent alien life forms that are self-aware, they’re likely to experience existential angst as well, as far as I’m concerned.

If you have ever asked, “Why am I here?” or “What does it all mean?” or “Who am I?” you’ve experienced existential angst. As opposed to Kierkegaard, I don’t think it has to do with your responsibility to God. I think existential angst is the natural response of a being that is self-aware to a world that is not. It is the response of a being which strives for structure and purpose to a universe with no structure nor purpose.

It’s Us Against the World

Quite literally, we are in constant conflict with the world. We have evolved in a specific way to solve puzzles and find patterns. You’d think that would help us deal with the world. Well, it does. This evolutionary advantage is significant and it’s how we have developed science and created technology. It turns out that nature is full of discernible patterns!

But there are two problems. First, our pattern-seeking brain is essentially flawed. It has a really big problem with statistics, so we tend to favor personal experience over general evidence. Let me emphasize this – we are really, really bad at statistics.

The second problem is that we expect everything to think like we do. We treat cats, dogs, cars, toasters and video game characters like they were fellow thinking beings. We plead with our car to start in the morning. We ask the dog why it chewed on the furniture. And finally, we ask the universe why it had to be this day that the dog chewed the furniture and the car won’t start.

Very simply, the universe has never provided us with an answer to “Why?”, and it likely never will.

But This One Time, I Yelled at My Car and It Just Started!

We’re really bad at statistics. And we’re really good at picking out the patterns that match what we expect while dismissing those that don’t confirm our suspicions. It takes a very disciplined mind to pick out the truth, but it’s a talent anyone can learn.

But even if an individual person isn’t good at critical analysis, everyone I have ever met has had those moments where they realize the world around them just doesn’t give two shits about them. And that’s existential angst.

To extend a metaphor from Intelligent Design advocates, once upon a time, we were wandering on a beach and we saw a watch. And we decided that there must be a watchmaker because watches don’t just magically appear on beaches.

But eventually, we approached the watch and realized it was just a shiny clamshell in the sand. Our minds had invented the watch because we preferred a valuable watch to a dull clamshell.

Of course, there are all sorts of problems with that metaphor, but setting that aside, I think we’ve all realized that there is a conflict between what we expect the world should be like and how it is. There is a conflict between our obligations and our desires. There is a conflict between fairness and self-interest. And each of these generate their own variety of existential angst.

Why can’t life just be simple? Why can’t it just be the way I want it to be?

The Spiritual Response

Spirituality is an attempt to discover the answer to those strange questions.

How does spirituality shape my own life? Well, that’s a long answer I’ll probably talk about in future posts. To answer briefly, I believe we must find meaning and answers not only individually, but together as a group. We must not only learn lessons from “teachable moments” in our lives, but more importantly, we must learn when to throw our hands up into a shrug and simply smile.

Our minds work on abstraction. Applying what we want to see or what we would create in human society to the universe as a whole is an abstraction. Religion is often an attempt to assign human values to a nature that clearly rejects them, and (much like I would expect) it’s the equivalent of putting a dress on a cat.

Perhaps spirituality, then, should be an attempt to understand what we are, what our expectations are, and how to adjust our minds to deal with an unforgiving, uncaring world.

I know it sounds really depressing when someone talks about the “uncaring world,” but ask yourself – why are you expecting the world to care? Ask a person to care! That’s practically all they do!

We didn’t ask for this life. We certainly weren’t given any instruction books. But only a human being, with its pattern-obsessed mind, would think that you only get what you ask for.

The instruction book – like every instruction book in your house – has to be written by human beings. And it’ll be a much better instruction book if we write it with some semblance of teamwork.

I’m an Agnostic and That Means This…

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

(I was going to save this post for later, but it seems pertinent to comments from my first post, so I’ll just post it now.)

I’m an agnostic, but it turns out that’s not very exciting. For the record, I’m an agnostic atheist, and I don’t believe “agnostic” answers the question, “Do you believe in (a) god?”

So, this post will be short.

“Agnostic” was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the late 1800s. Huxley said this:

“Positively [agnosticism] may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

I am on board with Huxley’s agnosticism. Unfortunately, it’s not really an answer to the question, “Do you believe in (a) god?” Let me compare it with another exchange:

Plinko: “Did you see last night’s episode of the Family Feud?”
Planko: “I remember it, but I cannot demonstrate to you that I saw it, so don’t make a certain conclusion that I did.”

“Agnostic” is a phrase used by some people today to mean “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.” It’s kind of a word for the act of shrugging. But that’s really what it means – agnosticism is a qualifier.

“Do you believe in (a) god?” should be answered “Yes” or “No.” If you don’t think there’s enough proof to assert that god is true and factual, then I think you have to say you’re an atheist – you don’t believe god is real and factual because you aren’t willing to assert it as true.

And of course, I think any reasonable person is an agnostic. How could we achieve absolute certainty for any given conclusion?

The problem is people think there’s something absolute about atheism. I don’t know why. It’s not like people treat theism like an absolute.

I’ll note – I don’t live my life badgering people who won’t answer “Do you believe in (a) god?” with a “Yes” or “No.” I accept some people just don’t know what it all means, don’t think about it or don’t care to discuss it.

What’s So Great about God?

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

In response to my last post, my good friend Dan asked:

“Chuck, I understand your metaphysical frustration with the absolute moral authority bit. But why include it as necessary part of your definition? If there were an omniscient and omnipotent being without this moral authority (that is, a being subject to the first part of Socrates’ disjunctive rather than the second), would you reject it as a god based on these definitional requirements?”

The short answer is “Yes,” so let’s address why I wouldn’t really think such a being was god.

The definition of god is generally a ultimate  power, a supreme being, etc. As a matter of course, this being is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. It is a being of utter goodness. Now, I don’t think that’s how the Hebrews felt about Yahweh when the Old Testament was written (those ideas come later, with folks like Hillel), but that is how modern people think about god.

But let me examine the idea of a god who has absolute knowledge but cannot dictate morality, even though he may demand it and seek justice on its behalf.

Twenty Questions for God

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book titled God Is Not Great. If I wrote a book on the subject, it might be titled What’s So Great about God? And this ties into my definition of a god. A god who observes and possibly enforces morality in the afterlife might be handy to have around, but how much of a “god” is he really?

If I posit for a moment that there is a God who created the universe, I don’t have an immediate reason to be impressed, although I would love to meet him. Firstly, it only creates the bigger question – “Where did you come from, God?” Second, I’m not sure what to think of this act of “Creation.” Was it a ton of effort (so much that he had to rest on the seventh day)? If so, what kind of a god gets tired? That seems odd to me.

Getting more serious, though, I would be meeting an extremely powerful entity, but one that is ultimately subject to things outside of his control. He would be beholden to some morality that defined his goodness because he could not simple create goodness from evil, as we see it. That just makes more questions than answers, especially about a lack of intercession from a benevolent, moral god.

Can God Make a Post So Long Even He Won’t Read It?

As I make more and more posts about these god topics, I will be saying a lot about any given god’s existential relevance – both existential in his sense and in our sense as our life and time as we understand it.

I think most gods that we can posit as possible are irrelevant. If praying to god doesn’t work, how is he relevant to our existence? If god doesn’t clearly prescribe a code of morals and ethics and give us tools for any quandry, then how is his morality relevant? If god reveals himself to some but not others, then why would anyone expect worship from those who are unenlightened by him?

Of course, I don’t believe there’s a single iota of evidence to believe in a god, so it’s all quite irrelevant to me! Still, I try to be somewhat conciliatory when making these arguments. I know people come at the issue of god from different angles, and I want to cover as many angles as I can.

A being of immense power who created this universe (and by extension, me) would be an amazing find, and would shatter much about how we view the world. And if this being would tell us about morality, then that might be a big help.

But if this being came to earth and told us all, “Yep, homosexuality is immoral,” would we all buy that? If he told us, “Abortion is fine. You can even kill a baby up until it says its first word!” would we buy that? I don’t think so. He would, at the very least, have to give us some evidence we don’t have right now. This is why I said, early on, that he would be impotent in a metaphysical sense. He’d have to prove that the morality he “knew” was the right one.

On the other hand, if he can come down, tell us that abortion is amoral and magic it up so that I just feel how wrong it is, and I can’t even consider why I thought it was circumstantially acceptable, then that’s a god.

Why Do Bad Things Happen to… Well, Everybody?

And the real kick in the pants is – god is believed by many to be so mysterious and ninja-esque in his mannerisms that he would never ever reveal any of this in so obvious a way. Thus, believers are left in a lurch – someone out there is judging you, but let’s face it, you can’t possibly understand the criteria.

On top of that, his behavior is not the model – do as he says, not as he does. After all, if you can save a life, you’re expected to do so. But, assuming god can stop a deadly hurricane, he certainly won’t.

God must somehow be morally relevant. Otherwise, he simply isn’t a god – he’s just a super-alien. Yet, clearly, I can’t see a way where god is morally relevant.

Of course, whether god can dictate morality or not, we still have to use our own moral sensibility to ensure the messages we’re receiving are not the trickery of a demon… or a psychic super-alien or what-have-you.

Let’s Talk about Worship, Baby

As an aside, if this example god created the universe that created me, I wouldn’t feel any particular debt to him. I love my parents not because they biologically spawned me but because they raised me, taught me well and took very good care of me. On the other hand, I would have no evidence that this imagined god had anything to do with my life thus far except its existence. For that, I would have no real thanks to give.

I’ll have a lot to say about worship as this blog goes on, but I’ll save that for now.

Hopefully, this answered Dan’s question in a verbose way. Really, I’m willing to accept many definitions of god for the sake of argument, but this definition is my own personal one, and one thing I mean when I say, “I don’t believe in any gods.”

I’m an Atheist and That Means This…

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

One of the reasons I wanted to start blogging again is that I’ve increasingly come out publicly as an atheist and explaining that to people is like trying to feed them a gallon of milk all at once. There are a multitudes of reasons I self-identify as “atheist,” and there are an equal number of reasons that I think it’s important that I make that public information.

Now, I don’t think saying, “Here, read this blog,” is going to be a great solution, either. But it’s something.

atheistn. – a person who has not accepted nor made a claim of an existent god.

That’s how I define atheist. It’s not necessary to say, “There is no god.” For an atheist, “I don’t believe in any of the gods anyone has told me about,” is good enough.

In fact, “There is no god” isn’t a very important or meaningful statement. Surely most of us agree that there is no god if “god” means “a bleu cheese monster from space who created us all in his image.” All of us have a multitude of gods we don’t believe in, it’s just that a number of people have one or more that they do believe in.

believev. – to accept a claim as true and factual.

I have never heard a person define a god that I thought was true and factual (and met my requirements for being a god). That is why I’m an atheist.

I slipped “my requirements for being a god” right into that parenthetical statement. It turns out I’m pretty strict about how I define a god.

god (as defined by me) - n. –  a being of absolute awareness (a la omniscience) and absolute moral authority with enough personal power to create, destroy and control any other being or object.

Maybe you caught the rub there, and maybe you didn’t. The real killer for a god concept, in my estimation, is the possession of absolute moral authority. To be a god, a being would not only know all the rights and wrongs of any situation, but the being could also change them. He could make right into wrong and wrong into right.

Some of you might be familiar with the dilemma of pious Euthyphro – Socrates asks him, basically, “Do the gods want what is right because it is right, or is it right because the gods want it?”

In the Bible, Yahweh, the god of the Hebrews, orders war and murder as well as rape. Now, by my estimation, rape is always wrong. It is a violation of basic human rights. But the Bible clearly indicates that Yahweh can make rape into a right action by desiring it.

I just don’t buy into that, metaphysically. Ethics may not be existent entities – they may be imagined and mutable constructs. Still, such constructs are built on years of social and philosophical interaction, experimentation and discovery. A being, no matter how powerful, cannot come along and make right what we believe is wrong. Certainly, anyone can tell me that murder is okay when it’s the wrong kind of Canaanite, but that does not make it a fact.

deityn. - a being of immense personal power who is capable of acts of will that would be impossible (or nearly so) for a normal human being.

I’ve got a lot to say on the subject of deities and gods and why I think we can use those two words to categorize the various beliefs of religious people. I don’t want to spoil it all right now.

Let it suffice to say that I don’t believe in any gods, and while I might acknowledge certain deities are possible, I don’t see any reason to worship them.

Introduction

Monday, February 15th, 2010

I’m Chuck Werner and this is my Monologue BlogTM.

I’m making this blog because my brain fills up with thoughts and I rarely get a chance to share them in conversation… because people rarely want to be lectured in casual conversation. For me, that’s a shame.

Of course, I currently record a podcast with my good friend Dave (www.imtryingtothink.com), but there are two shortcomings to I’m Trying to Think. First, it’s also not for lectures or monologues. Second, it’s supposed to be funny, and not everything I’m posting here will be.

This blog will be about my philosophical positions, especially metaphysical positions about atheism, naturalism and ethics, as well as a fun side dish of politics where I care to speak about them.

Remember, I don’t take any of this shit too seriously, so don’t expect wonderful responses if you decide you disagree with me. I’m here for presentation and not necessarily proof or arguments. This a blog, not a dissertation.