The Workermonkey

Sunday, October 16, 2005

p&r 

# posted by josh @ 10/16/2005 12:36:00 PM

a friend of mine and i had a lengthy discussion about philosophy and religion last night. here are some questions we had and/or tried to answer. feel free to weigh in...or not.

1) are people inherently selfish? if so, how are you defining selfish? if not, why not?

2) is it wise to have faith in things? and if you're talking about something other than faith in god (e.g. human generousity), is it really the same kind of faith? why do you think most people have faith (in either god or something else)?

3) if god giveth and taketh away, is he an indian giver?

4) do priests have a free ticket to heaven (or at least out of hell)? even the naughty ones?

5) if i'm right on the fence, how do they decide if i get to heaven? where is the line? to i take a heavenalayzer test? do i have the right to refuse it? whose constitution do we use? if i blow a .075 will they round up and let me in?

6) what is the role of choice in our lives? if god has predetermined our lives, can we still choose? if so, what of personal responsibility?

7) is it ever rational to believe in god, or is faith the only way?

8) can we believe in science, which involves the unknown? a scientific expert can argue things i cant fathom. should i have faith in his proof? is that a different faith than faith in god? even if i cant understand how he got there?



ok, well just some ideas we had fun tossing around. i thought some of you might enjoy thinking and/or writing about them. cheers.



one more: wwjb (what would jesus blog)?

9 comments

i may or may not respond to comments regarding this post. my goal wasn't to argue one side or another, just to throw it out there for people to think about, and maybe see where people fell on the spectrum.

By  josh, at Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:38:00 PM  

ummm karl, you mind if i just play through?

By  josh, at Monday, October 17, 2005 1:00:00 AM  

These are tough to write answers to, more appropriate is the long discussion you mentioned. Probably under the influence of mind altering substances. Anywho:

1. Yes, people have to think of themselves most often, otherwise who is going to tell me I need to use the bathroom, or I'm thirsty? No one else cares about my career or retirement, and why should they, it'd take too long to explain my needs, and keep them updated as they change. So after spending most time thinking about ourselves, as long as we're not out to screw others, or hopefully even unwilling to hurt others too much for our own good, then being selfish in this way is ok. People just vary in that willingness to hurt others.

2. Yes, if I didn't have faith in gravity, then it'd be tough and scary to walk. By that I mean I trust a concept that I don't fully understand and cannot see, because I have experienced its effect constantly and predictably to the point I have no doubt it will continue. Any argument to apply that same reasoning to religious faith would be laugable. Having faith in something because of what was written in a time period when they were wrong about most everything, is, to put it lightly, not wise.

3. N/A

4. I'd hope not, but since I don't know much of church rules, I don't know, and since I don't think there is a heaven, this one is really N/A too.

5. See #4

6. We may do whatever we like within the bounds of societal norms and tolerance. Otherwise we'd get jailed or lynched. But even if our lives were predetermined, what difference does that make? It 'seems' like we make choices, so we think things through, weigh options, try to predict outcomes, and make choices. If someone knew the eventual outcome in advance, but we did not, does it matter? Nah.

7. So far there is no logical or rational way to prove God's existence. No history, or events, or explanations can do it. There is of course the possibility that a god's existence will be made very obvious to us heathen when he/she/it comes down to make judgement. At which point (assuming we are free of mind altering substances,) god can be rationally believed in, but it would really be too late then wouldn't it?

8. Ah this one is pretty good. Because without being able to understand a scientist's reasoning and methods, I would just have to take his word for it. And maybe he's deliberating trying to fool me. But I think that's unlikely, and if it were true, many more scientists would publish counter arguments denouncing the first one. Unless of course, this all happens in the US, and the first scientist works for the Bush Administration, and those subsequent rebuttals were stiffled, edited, or just didn't make the news that day. In that case, we all have good reason to be skeptical (that and the nonstop marketing of crappy products.) This is not like faith in God because if I sat down with the scientist, he could probably make me understand the concepts, if not the details, and could probably convince me that nothing fishy happens in the actual proof. There is no analogy to this in religion.

If anyone didn't notice, or previously know, I am an atheist.

By  Damon, at Monday, October 17, 2005 10:54:00 AM  

Why can't the law school idiots stick to the great topic? And where is everyone else?

By  Damon, at Monday, October 17, 2005 4:04:00 PM  

me? can't be talking about me.


i think everyone else has died. the blog is ours, damon!




ok my word verification was so fucked up looking that i got it wrong. honestly, arent there enough normal words?

By  josh, at Monday, October 17, 2005 4:44:00 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  josh, at Monday, October 17, 2005 4:44:00 PM  

1) yes, people are inherently selfish, it's instinct to think of yourself first. survivial stuff. plenty of people just learn to watch out for number one. either way, yes.

2) i see faith and trust as the same thing, but i don't trust information based on faith. damon nailed this one. religious faith is more about control and obedience. it also implies a certain amount of fear to keep you in line, (do that and go to hell) i've lost track on this one.

3) yes, god is an indian giver

4)well, the book doesn't really say NOT to touch little boys...

5)i have a better question for this one... once you get into heaven can you be a total jerk, do you still have to be good? can you kill pregnant babies on PCP all day?

6)this one's a big excuse. god made me do it! it was gods will that made me rob a liquor store and run from the cops. wah wah wah...

7) no, it is never rational. the only evidence is faith. science and material things can be proven. faith is just that.

8) can i believe in the law? i've never read the law books. should i have faith in your proof? believing in god requires a "leap of faith", you need to forget all the logical stuff you've ever known and just believe. all the logical stuff you use everyday can be traced back to some sort of life experience that taught you something.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Monday, October 17, 2005 8:39:00 PM  

1) Yes I think people are inherently selfish, and also should be. At the point whereby it runs over others that selfishness may start to suck. But that's not definite. Accumulating more than one needs could be a sign of both egoism and foresight. Whether the ego is good or bad depends on one's school of thought. Dali Lama or Ayn Rand?

2) Yes it is wise to have faith in things. Taking some things as granteds makes for a faster more productive life. It's stereotyping on a huge scale: I assume that gravity will always act the same because I have never seen it act otherwise (to use Damon's example.) I also assume that all Ecuadorians love to play vollyball.

I think it's a similar type of faith with religion. People look for answers, so they trace causal relationships in the manner they've been taught to (thru religious or scientific avenues.)

3) Yes but I would blame it on the Tetons.

4) See #5.

5) I think Heaven was meant as allegory from the start. It's a metaphor for an ideal state of oneness within ourselves. I guess "being on the fence" means being "mostly self-actualized". And the constitution of Djibuti is good enough.

6) We have all the choice in the world. Limits: genetics, environment/circumstance, psychology, Djibuti.

7) Ask Pascal.

8) Science and religion tend to use thier own structures of logic on which they base their arguements. No matter how much empirical evidence one's hypothesis has, however, you're usually working on the assumption that there's no unperceived factors and your "proof" is not just a "devil's ruse". Or as I like to call them, "the white honkey's lies." A scientist still uses faith. He trusts that the small corner of The Unknown that he's working on will be annexed from Faith by Science once he's got what he thinks are the answers. Assuming his sensory organs are working, they're still limited. There's some philosophical issues I could bring up with this but that'll prolly be a post in itself.
See: Hume, Descartes.

Good U2 song.

"Something real solid can ground me with instinct.
To feel before I think,
think before I know.
Know before I act,
and act before I grow."
- Hot Water Music, "Old Rules"

By  DJ Booze Piñata, at Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:37:00 PM  

alright! someone picked up on the reference in #3!

By  josh, at Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:57:00 PM  

Post a Comment