God, Fantasy and Belief

[Gary Wassner]

Liam, you describe yourself much as I do myself above. I'm a schizophrenic agnostic.

The problem isn't just perspectival. If I put myself in the shoes of the other, I can almost always see their point of view, n o matter how ahborent the action in question. And I have to take sides. I can't sit idle and not judge, even if I know that my basis for judgment is cultural.

But I do wonder all the time if succumbing to the will of the group for the purposes of survival is that path of the artist or the coward.

 

[Liam Sharp]

Liam, you describe yourself much as I do myself above. I'm a schizophrenic agnostic.

The problem isn't just perspectival. If I put myself in the shoes of the other, I can almost always see their point of view, n o matter how ahborent the action in question. And I have to take sides. I can't sit idle and not judge, even if I know that my basis for judgment is cultural.

But I do wonder all the time if succumbing to the will of the group for the purposes of survival is that path of the artist or the coward.

That's tough one! I try not to always take sides, and like you I usually see both - I'm very empathic in that way, or easily swayed! LOL! Is that weak-minded? I'm not sure...
As for the will of the group - that's definitely something I resist and try to stand appart from. Ultimately I have my own ethical code, kind of culled from Christian beliefs, but I don't see most western Christianity as demonstrably Christian at all. Are artists here to follow the crowd, or educate the crowd? Or do we strengthen the crowds beliefs or chalenge them? I don't think it's possible to be a true artist without trying to understand both sides, and see through the structures of civilisation. We shouldn't believe the apparently wise just because we're told they're wise. Neither are things right because we are told they are.
But it's hard to be honest these days, as people are very aggressive, and too many people see these kinds of discussions as both dangerous and an attack, whereas infact they are only inquiry. I've been savagely attacked online for drawing violent, sometimes sexual imagery whilst maintaining my stance as a pacifist! It's too easy! LOL!

 

[Gary Wassner]

And we always have to make choices. Always. Seeing all the sides often makes choosing between them more difficult. You then need to establish different criteria, sometimes more arbitrary, when you can't see your way clear. If there is no ultimate right or wrong, do we have any means for justifying our actions? Is it all personal?

 

[Liam Sharp]

Bloody hell, Gary! This is deep into ethics!
Is it personal? I guess it is at the heart of it, and then we try to impose what our personal belief is, and if we succeed, soon enough we have our own functioning culture...
Otherwise we pick sides based on our perception of morality as instilled by our societal upbringing, and parent/teacher guidance. I believe in forgiveness - essencially a christian ideal. But I can see the working model here. I can see how ultimately that SHOULD make a difference.
And there goes my idealism again!

I also really like the Douglas Rushkoff notion of being your own ghuru.

 

[Gary Wassner]

But is your sense of forgiveness based upon any sense of the ultimate? I am not talking about religion here, but a transcendent sense of right and wrong? Why forgive? Based upon what? Why not blame instead? Why not punish? Why not hate?

 

[Liam Sharp]

Yes it is based on a transcendant sense. It's my basic western upbringing, that being Christian though I'm a non-believer, and my moral core, born out of this upbringing, and speaking pragmatically to me as an idealistic vision of what could be. It might me utopian, and it might not adher to natural selection. It's an ethical code I've built up internally that speaks strongly to me, that's all. Forgiveness enables forward motion. Revenge is a circle. It's that simple.

 

[Gary Wassner]

But you see, that's precisely my point. Though you say you are not religious, if your code of ethics is based upon some transcendent sense of reality beyond us, that allows us to take comfort in our kindness, forgiveness, humility etc, and that serves to justify its rightfullness in your mind, then you are very religious. I am not saying at all that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that position. I may or may not agree with it, but I am not surprised that many people who claim to be agnostic or atheist don't see that God or gods take many forms, and they need not be anthropomorphic Santa Claus's in order to serve the same purpose that God and gods have served culturally and historically. The ethical god is just as powerful a god as the God of our Fathers. In many cases, they are one and the same.

That's why I started this thread in the first place.

 

[sephira]

Yes it is based on a transcendant sense. It's my basic western upbringing, that being Christian though I'm a non-believer, and my moral core, born out of this upbringing, and speaking pragmatically to me as an idealistic vision of what could be. It might me utopian, and it might not adher to natural selection. It's an ethical code I've built up internally that speaks strongly to me, that's all. Forgiveness enables forward motion. Revenge is a circle. It's that simple.

I think the concept of forgiveness is more of a "human" concept than a "religious" one. The evolution of the human brain has allowed us to feel empathy (along with hate, fear and frustration.) And while I don't think that it is an instinct, the duality that exists in us (as opposed to other animals) means we HAVE to at least acknowledge the notion that "forgiveness" or "empathy" is an alternative to situations. It's the beauty of free will.

Now with that being said, I personally choose to forgive. It is not because that's what I think I SHOULD do due to morals, but because that is what physically and emotionally makes me feel better. Hanging onto hate tends to bring out the animalistic nature of wanting to attack or harm. And once you engage in such behavior you are at a higher risk of having the same done back to you....hence the survival instinct again.

 

[Liam Sharp]

I wouldn't say I take comfort in kindness, humility, and so on. Or that it's based on something beyond our ken, our knowing. Something spiritual. Or that I think it's right in any kind of holier-than-thou way, as a kind of stance. I certainly try to be objective, while open-minded. It's just that we're very alone on a small rock hurtling through space, and if we're not going to wipe ourselves out, then this is the most sensible way of looking to the future. If anything, I'd say my ethical code, while being based on Christian belief, is more a long-term practical consideration for mankind...

But I maintain I have no sense of certainty! Every generation of mankind thinks they know all there is to know. Clearly we are always mistaken in this...

I've read theories like string theory that suggest everything IS possible. It's certainly an appealing proposition! I can buy into that, to some extent. Perception is very interesting philosophically!

 

[Gary Wassner]

And what if you were to discover that we are doing a genetic disservice to our children by teaching them to be weak instead of strong, soft instead of hard, and that it will lead to our extinction? You are proposing a utilitarian POV which works only in so far as the model works.

Ah, so Sephira, your forgiveness is not altruistic at all but purely self serving?

 

[sephira]

And what if you were to discover that we are doing a genetic disservice to our children by teaching them to be weak instead of strong, soft instead of hard, and that it will lead to our extinction?

IMO, the key is to finding the balance between the two. Surely one can't suggest that a society should be one or the other.

Ah, so Sephira, your forgiveness is not altruistic at all but purely self serving?

At times it is self-serving. The ability to put something in the past and to move on (I'm not saying don't learn from your or others' mistakes or be ignorant of wrongs done) instead of harboring hatred which does nothing but brings along anxiety, depression, paranoia, just seems like the better thing to do for my mental health (spiritual is N/A)

It's actually just ironic, because by self-serving in this fashion, it really does behoove all parties involved.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Can an action really be selfless? Isn't that concept in itself a contradiction?

I'm playing devil's advocate. Don't think I adhere to the POVs that I state here all the time. This is an exploration, as far as I'm concerned.

The key to what, Sephira? The key to a successful capitalist society? The key to a Marxist state? The key to a safe society ruled by a monarch?

Must one hate in order to kill?

 

[KatG]

I may or may not agree with it, but I am not surprised that many people who claim to be agnostic or atheist don't see that God or gods take many forms, and they need not be anthropomorphic Santa Claus's in order to serve the same purpose that God and gods have served culturally and historically. The ethical god is just as powerful a god as the God of our Fathers. In many cases, they are one and the same.

That's why I started this thread in the first place.

Yeah. You know, when you admit to being an atheist, you get a lot of people telling you that you are actually religious and must believe in something. The assumption seems to be based on the idea that since humans commit acts of rape, murder, torture, that the only thing stopping all of us from commiting acts of rape, murder or torture is if we have some sort of belief system that prevents us from doing it, and if we have such a belief system, if we have some sort of morality, then we must be spiritual -- must believe in something other than reality.

The idea that humans might, instinctually, not want to commit rape, murder or torture, just because humans in general are capable of such acts, doesn't seem to come up. Why not do horrendous things? Well, why do horrendous things? I'm not talking about tribal hard-wiring or even survival drives. I just don't go with the idea that I have to be restrained, by a belief system or anything else.

I don't believe in transcendence. I'm not agnostic on the idea. So if you're going to ask me what I believe, Gary, then don't tell me what you think I really believe, even as devil's advocate.

That being said, Gaiman's t.v. gods immediately flashed into my head on this and made me giggle, though he wasn't the first with the idea.

 

[Yobmod]

I'm with KatG in being completely atheist, with no belief in any sort of higher power.

My morality is intrinsic to being me, perhaps absorbed from my environment, but in no way informed by any sense that some actions are wrong because god says so, or they are against nature, or against any trancendental intention.

I'm something of a moral absolutist (so i believe murder is always wrong independant of the cultural norms). But my dislike of murder is in no way logical. It is more akin to why i dislike certain foods - it has nothing to do with whether these foods are good or bad for me, or whether everyone else eats them. I simply do not like the taste of sprouts!

The comparison also extends to the fact that if i'm really hungry i'll still eat sprouts and i think if i was pushed enough i could commit murder. Also, its difficult to understand how anyone else can enjoy the taste of sprouts, but i don't disbelieve them (much) when they tell me. I can also believe that other people enjoy murder.

Its not romantic, but does explain why morals differ from person to person illogically, even within the same culture and same genetically related groups. No religious, cultural or (to a lesser extent) genetic explanation comes close.

 

[Yobmod]

Can an action really be selfless?

I'm not certain, but i find it hard to believe that any sane action can be completely selfless - even if the only gain for the dogooder gets is a feeling of self worth (not to be underestimated!)

Must one hate in order to kill?

I don't see why. Euthanasia is not supposed to involve hate. Pity, apathy, boredom can all be reason enough to kill.

I think the concept of forgiveness is more of a "human" concept than a "religious" one. The evolution of the human brain has allowed us to feel empathy (along with hate, fear and frustration.)

Chimps and other mammals can feel empathy (or show all the signs of it). They can also forgive each other (or not) after a fight. I saw this in a documentary in which the loser of the fight gives gifts to the winner, then recieves gifts (and hugs!) in return. So still a genetic trait instread of religious - but not specifically human.

Those communities which included the greatest number of the most
sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of
offspring. (Charles Darwin 1871/1936, p. 163)

This is an interesting article on animal morality, which to me indicates that religion or god are paraphenalia added to our intrinsic morality.

 

[Hereford Eye]

The assumption seems to be based on the idea that since humans commit acts of rape, murder, torture, that the only thing stopping all of us from commiting acts of rape, murder or torture is if we have some sort of belief system that prevents us from doing it,..
The idea that humans might, instinctually, not want to commit rape, murder or torture, just because humans in general are capable of such acts, doesn't seem to come up.

Man is flawed; it's women's fault. Genesis Everything else follows from that simple proposition.
OTOH, there is the idea Douglas MacGregor espoused in Theory Y that man is basically good and should be treated so.

Gary, then don't tell me what you think I really believe, even as devil's advocate.

Curiosity prevails. Assume I am your five year old son; have just been the object of derision by the neighborhood kids and I have come into the house for my baseball bat. What are you going to advise me?

 

[Gary Wassner]

"Why not do horrendous things? "

But it's so interesting to me KatG that you define them as horendous things. I am not sure I know then what your grounds are for such an evaluative statement? Please explain that to me? I wouldn't presume to tell you what you believe if you wouldn't contradict yourself.

"My morality is intrinsic to being me, perhaps absorbed from my environment, but in no way informed by any sense that some actions are wrong because god says so, or they are against nature, or against any trancendental intention."

Sorry Yob, but that makes no sense to me at all, though I sympathize with the sentiment. I wish it made sense because I too believe that I have this intrinsic notion of right and wrong that affects how I behave and how I make choices. But I have no grounds for making that claim, and in fact, when i dig deeply into the motive for the feeling, it takes on some almost pantheistic sensibility. Tell me then what grounds your claim of knowing intrinsically what it right and what is wrong? It must be more than a feeling for it to satisfy you.

 

[Hereford Eye]

Patheistic?

 

[Gary Wassner]

Sorry He. Pantheistic. You should be an editor.

 

[Hereford Eye]

No, just thought you might be springing a new term on us. The sentence didn't read right with atheistic. I tried apathetic but that didn't sound like you. Have to admit pantheistic never occured to me.

So, you are advocating that morality is not hard-wired into the human being? The thought you provide in defense is self-examination as if you are the prototype for all humanity? If you can't feel it or see it, then it can't be true?

If it is hard-wired, then it is common to all humanity, is it not? The fact one or more cannot sense it neither proves nor disproves the assertion. But, for the purpose of argument, perhaps we can prove or disprove the notion with our own resources. What is it that makes soemthing right or wrong?

Is parking in a handicapped parkling space when you are not handicapped right or wrong? How would you feel if you were to do it? How would you judge yourself as a human being? I think that the act is essentially a legal no-no but I also know that my gut does not react on the basis of legalisms. Breaking the law does not concern me as much as what people will think about me when they determine I am not handicapped but have parked as if I were. That has emotional significance to me.