Posted by
atomicturtle on Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:08:36 PM
A lot of people ask me what my spiritual beliefs are. What are they, why are they - where exactly do I stand? Questions like this usually bug me (same with questions about which political camp I'm in...), but I figure, what the heck. So to sate your curiosity, here's where I stand:
I am... nothing. I'm simply non-religious. I don't know, so I don't pretend like I do.
I'm not an atheist because I don't take the position that there ISN'T a higher power. I'm not a theist/deist because I don't agree with their positions that there IS a higher power. I'm certainly not some lazy, apathetic agnostic because I deny the notion that metaphysical questions are beyond our ability to figure out. But I'm not a nihilist either, because I deny the notion that human existence is without meaning, purpose, and discoverable truth. Now, you can start sub-classifying all you want, but all you're doing at that point is making up niches to neatly fit yourself (or your opponents) into.
I'm not even merely non-religious... I'd go so far as to warrant saying that I'm all together non-spiritual, because (as I often point out), I actively deny and condemn the use of faith as a means of knowledge. The issue of religion/spirituality as "atheist, deist, agnostic," whatever isn't the determining factor - it's a question of "faithful or not faithful." That's why I often refer to atheists as no different than Judeo-Christians. Both are making empty, baseless claims about the nature of the metaphysical and the supernatural, and their ONLY justification for it is that they believe it to be true. AKA faith.
Look at the name of this blog. “There is no such thing as gray.” I approach things as right/wrong, real/unreal, black/white, A/~A. To categorize something as one or the other requires substantive fact and/or reasonable logic. Faith-based thought plays no part in figuring out the TRUE nature of our existence. IN FACT, it REALLY only serves to purposefully screw up the analysis. It's like saying, "I want to believe that 2+3=6, so I'll just believe that 3 is the same thing as 4 to make it work." That's NO DIFFERENT than saying, "I want to believe that there's something more after my death, so I'll just believe that I have a soul that will be welcome in an eternal kingdom when I die."
Sure, you got the answer you wanted - but at the cost the integrity of the problem-solving. That's what faith is. It's the constant struggle not to know. It's coming up with a conclusion, and then only acknowledging that which supports it (it's why I hate the Creationism/Evolutionary Theory debate - if you believe in either of those things lock stock and barrel, then you're a completely ignorant moron and I don't ever want you talking to me. Ever.)
Faith is plain and simple intellectual dishonesty, nothing more. It's is a tool for the impatient, the lazy, and the stupid. Faith and reason will always be at odds. Why? Because faith, by derivative definition, is the complete opposite of reason. It's a quick-fix to the problems you can't find an answer for. I contend that the answers are out there - but instead of giving up the search and baselessly answering it with an unsubstantiated premise, I continue the philosophical pursuit.
I’ve heard people try and argue that, "faith is a requirement for knowing anything. In order to assume, believe in, or have faith in something, you must first have faith in the credibility of your own awareness and reasoning process." Of course, this notion is plainly from Thomas Aquinas who, if I remember correctly, once said "Reason in man is rather like God in the world." And Aquinas, great as a philosopher as he may have been, was an apologist. He was the textbook case of the detective with a theory seeing only the clues that validate his theory.
But that doesn't mean we can't entertain the notion.
OK, so let's entertain it. Stripped down to its skivvies, these people are basically saying that logic, physics, mathematics, existence, and reality itself are all things that have to be taken on faith. I'm guessing these people have recently been reading Descartes, because their idea of faith is apparently extrapolated from Descartes theory that this thing we call "life" is all a fantastic elaborate dream. Can I "prove" Descartes wrong? Nope. But I also can't "prove" that there isn't a herd of microscopic pink elephants in my bathtub either. You might notice I'm putting the word "prove" in quotation marks. That's because such a ridiculously high standard of proof is absurd. SO high that it defies rationality (and creeps dangerously close to nihilism) to even consider it.
I just pulled a soda from my fridge. Looking at it right now in my hand, I can't prove that what's inside isn't cyanide - but you know what? It's very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very likely not cyanide. Why? Because I have no rational basis whatsoever for even remotely considering that conclusion. When I take a sip, that's not faith in it NOT being cyanide - that's a rational conclusion in that it IS beer. When I sit in the chair, it's not faith that it won't break - it's the rational conclusion that it has no known reason not to. When I start my car in the morning, that's not faith that it WILL start - it's a rational conclusion that it has no known reason NOT to start.
And hey, I might be wrong! It might BE cyanide, the chair might break, and my car MIGHT not start! But that doesn't say anything about faith - that merely says that the premises by which I derived my conclusion were incorrect. Back to Frisco, "if you ever run up against a contradiction, check your premises - something's wrong."
Saying that the most basic realities of reality must be taken on faith is absurd. Want proof? I'm standing right behind you - but the minute you look up from these words or towards your periphery, I'll disappear! Prove me wrong! Sound kind of stupid? Of course it does. That's your rational mind saying, "Don't be a fool. Realize reality."
And that's (to bring me back to my original point) what I do. I try to realize reality. Not to speculate about meta-reality or supernaturalism with nothing more than conjecture to guide me - but to understand THIS reality based on the most basic logical truths (axioms) that existence exists and that my rational mind is the means by which to understand this reality. The most simple, non-negative definition of Truth is: that which is consistent with reality. And Truth is knowable. Knowable, not by magical, mystical, or dogmatic means - but knowable by using the faculties by which human beings gain knowledge - by sensory perception, logical deduction, reasonable induction, and rationality. Logic, reason, rationality - put simply, is non-contradictory identification - and it is our only means of verifying the truth or falsity of our conclusions. Your subjective perceptions are meaningless. Your instincts and feelings and gut reactions are meaningless. Your particular brand of faith is meaningless. Your senses tell you only of a things existence, but what that thing actually is, can only be determined by your rational mind. This process is accomplished by reason. Reason is man's tool that for processing that which he senses. It is the rational beings standard of truth.
To quote the man who gives me something few people do - a person to look up to and aspire to be: "A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False? - Right or Wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have - and the answers came from a man's mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right. A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try and cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest - but if devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of the man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."
The faithful don't do that. They don't even try.