Some of you may know my personal story of losing eternity. It relates closely to my opinions on where morality comes from. Recently I've been thinking about non-material, big "T" Truth and how it relates to our beliefs about theism and atheism.
When humanist/atheist/materialists and spiritual theists debate their worldviews, this is often the crux of the argument. If non-material "truths" like math and logic can exist then why can't a non-material god? It's a fairly good question, but I think it might also be a question designed to hide a deeper fear. Being sure of yourself and your place in reality brings comfort. Knowing the truth sets you free, as they say.
Does that imply being unsure of the truth makes you a slave? If there are truths to be known, I think, yes, we can be slaves to ignorance. But what if this solid ground we like to stand on is a bit more shaky then we realize? When it comes to religions, for example, there are many interpretations and sects, many different people convinced they have the single, perfect, big "T" Truth. The same can be said for different scientific understandings of the universe which have changed (I would argue improved) with time.
What if the non-material "truths" we feel sure of are actually just useful tools we've discovered over time?
What if we used the languages we created to describe conventions we formalized for explaining predictable outcomes in our known reality (math, logic, etc)?
What if it's all open to reinterpretation and yet, at some point, we stopped concerning ourselves with whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow or if the "laws" of physics will continue to function a year from now? What if, instead, we just make assumptions, again by convention, and move on to more interesting concerns?
Some may argue that's the same as faith in non-material or supernatural things. For me, there is one very important distinction. These concepts and conventions (math, logic, the scientific method, etc) can be universally shared and explained across every culture and people without the need for a personal revelation experience. They can be taught, expressed, understood, challenged, improved upon, and more. To me, they aren't big "T" Truth. They are just useful conventions, open to change and improvement if something better comes along.
Some of the most successful religions in the world can almost claim the same, which may be why we humans latch on to these shared worldviews so strongly: because they work. Most successful religions change with time as well. Early interpretations might not be recognizable today. Fundamentalists might recoil at that or do a bit of revisionist history to cover it up, but I see it as a good thing. Also, there are many ways to explain it, ways god (or gods) could bring a new revelation to their creation once that creation is ready for it.
So what do we do when these worldviews don't work? What about when these worldviews turn otherwise peaceful, friendly individuals into tribal enemies? What about when people fall into destructive nihilism without a purpose or god to believe in or when religious zealots harm others because "god wills it"?
That seems to be a good place to critique these worldviews from all sides.
What do we use as a measuring stick to determine if something "works" or if it doesn't? As far as I understand, it comes down to the wellbeing of conscious creatures. When a religion negatively impacts wellbeing, most people in the world tend to agree it's a "bad" religion or cult. When someone without faith lives each moment purely for their own selfish senses to such a degree they end up harming others to get what they want, most people in the world tend to agree that person is "bad" and should be avoided.
These are things we can agree on. They follow simple concepts like the NAP (non-aggression principle) and the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). This is common ground we can find towards a future which values love, compassion, and understanding. A future where wellbeing becomes the measuring stick. In that world, it may not make sense to try and convert the atheist who is at peace with themselves and the world around them. In that world, those who don't believe might honor those who do and appreciate the great benefit that belief brings to them and their communities.
I understand many who follow me here on Steemit and many of my friends elsewhere are saddened to know I no longer have religious faith. For some, it's too much, and they need to pull away and disconnect. I understand that. I did it in the past myself when I thought people were leaving fellowship and turning from the god I believed in so much. I'm hoping for a future where worldview differences like this no longer separate us, and we can respect those we don't agree with, possibly even those we can't understand as long as we value human wellbeing.
As I write this, I can't help but think of this meme:
In short, let's not be assholes. :)
Nice, agreed. I am a strong believer of existentialism btw (no big Ts there:)).
what do you mean by the letter "T"...?
By Big "T" Truth I mean big (now say the letter "T") truth. I mean something which many believe to be supremely universal in all worlds, all dimensions, at all times. Something which is absolute and eternal. Something which can't be changed or undone and will never, even if all the universe ceased to exist, change. I make a distinction between common truths such as 2+2=4 and the sky is up and the earth is down form this understanding of truth with a capital "T". I'm not sure how common that is or if it's just a convention I came up with, but it makes sense to me.
but I have not understood the "T" yet, but you answer it in great detail.
I appreciate it! :-)
What if truth does not exist? Yes, there are those who wanted to prove that theirs are true and other also proves that theirs are true. So, everybody claims that theirs are true. This only implies that everything is true which could also mean that there is no truth.
The idea of a Truth versus truth is common. I think there are Truths of all kinds and that denying this is contradictory to logic and reason. There are mathematical and scientific Truths, whether or not we know they are there. Before the Pythagorean theorem was discovered, it still worked. That to me defines Truth in those terms.
However, there are moral Truths as well. For instance, murder is always wrong. There are scenarios where killing is ok, such as self defense. These have to be discovered through logic and reason and stem from some belief system, whether theistic or atheistic. We as people who live about 80 years on this Earth cannot comprehend the totality of Truth, but that does not mean it's their.
If you look at Greek thought and other old philosophy, not only is there commonalities on what they find to be True, but they deduce how the world works through thought. Atom is derived from Greek because it was the sophists and philosophers that decided the universe has to be broken down to some unit of element. The ability to use our intuition and intelligence to comprehend parts of the universe mean that there is an order that can be understood. That order is Truth. It is what always works, or always can be rediscovered, even if it is lost from man's library of knowledge.
Yes, but they were wrong about the Atom, right? We now know there are quarks, fermions, bosons, etc. The LHC is finding more elementary particles like the Higgs. What we think we know as a big "T" Truth might be unproven or understood completely different at higher planes and dimensions we can't comprehend. What if what we think is a Truth has so much more to it? How do we know we're not like two-dimensional beings being told to "look up" by those on a third dimension?
To me, we've not found anything like Plato's Perfect Forms or Truths, we've just found conventions which work for us. Yes, the Pythagorean theorem worked before we knew about it, and there may be others as well, but again, how is that different than finding a useful convention for our own benefit in a universe of entropy? We can say it exists as a thing before we know of it, but couldn't it also not exist or not even be definable since it comes into being when imagined by conscious beings and written down somewhere or put into a computer or a calculator? It's non-material after all, so why do we say "it exists" if no consciousness can put it to use? The conditions of the 3 dimensional physical universe which cause it to work can be said to exist, however. And that... that is something.
The fact that there is something that makes up atoms just means people jumped the gun when we gave what we called atoms their name. The principle Truth remains True that there is some sort of building-blocks that compose the universe.
If something is true, time and time again, then it is True. That's how these laws of physics, nature, and morality all work. Without having Truth, we have no progress. Because if there is no true north, then there is no way to find direction. If there is no Truth, then there is no order. But as long as there is order that we can comprehend and use to our advantage, there is Truth. You can call it a useful convention if you'd like, but as long as there is a law that exists in nature you cannot disprove, it is considered Truth.
But that's just a convention we've come to see as useful because, like you said, it has shown to be useful over and over (again, by convention).
I'd say without shared consensus on useful conventions, we don't have progress. There have been inaccurate scientific claims in the past which still brought about progress because as more people used them, we eventually found flaws and improvements which led to even better conventions and new discoveries.
We only "prove laws in nature" by our shared conventions such as the scientific method. We find direction based on how effective our epistemology is for predicting future events and describing physical reality as we observe it.
Tip! Regarding your "conversion" - I suggest you not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You do not need to completely reject/embrace either idealism or materialism (theism/atheism) - the Truth (whether cap T or not) is simply "what is" despite what we may feel (think) about it.
Here is a sciency :-) POSSIBILITY (I am stressing that word) that I just ran across the other day that promises to show the beginnings of a reconciliation between materialism (atheism) and idealism (theism).
Basically, it posits that the very underlying structure of reality itself (that in which we live, move and have our being) consists of points of decision (implying intelligence/consciousness) that is a self-referential simulation transcending time such that it's future communal consciousness is co-creating the past/present (god knows the end from the beginning) in conjunction with . . . us (images of god).
This is a really well made kickstarter funded video this group produced, but don't neglect the rest of the (more sciency :-) stuff on the website - I think it is more accessible than most assume.
Good luck.
http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/portfolio/what-is-reality-movie
I'll check it out, but often the people who talk about this quantum woo stuff are not actually quantum physicists. When I've looked into it before, it seems like another version of the God in the Gaps using something we don't yet understand well from a practical use standpoint (quantum theory) to explain things we don't understand at all (our point of origin, meaning for existence, etc).
Well, if you want absolutes I wouldn't bother. Atheism (requiring absolute proof) is just another religion as there is NO absolute truth available unless/until you become absolute. So radical atheism requires just as much "faith" (belief without proof) as religion. But if you are willing to entertain uncertainty (possibilities and probabilities) then . . . ?
My view of the divine (what we don't know yet) has come more in line with T Parable of the Six Blind Men and the Elephant. Given the Wiki link you'll see many cultures respect this view of other POVs, we as a species can even grow from it.
I'll likely write an article on it later but I'd also guess the folks here might have quite a few good perspectives on it as well. :
I've always loved that parable since the moment I first heard it. Thank you for brining it up here.
Being a new sub-minnow, I'm looking forward to getting to know you. Your view of the Elephant seems similar and as such I should be able to learn some more. :)
@lukestokes, thanks for sharing this!
I am a theist (a follower of Christ to be exact). Although I am saddened that you feel your need to leave God (or that He left you), I choose not to let that impact my relationship with you! Faith is a choice. And the object of our faith is also a choice. At any point, if someone forces you to be faith-filled, they they have removed faith from the equation.
I view my faith as more relationally based than religiously based. Mankind seems to be pretty good at making up rules that have nothing to do with finding Truth.
If we were at a coffee shop, I hope we could ...
And I would let you have all of the coffee. I am a tea guy!
If you're interested to know more of my personal story, you can see my losing eternity post. I understand you to be saddened because you believe a faith filled life with God is the best life and you want the best life for me and others. That gives me joy for your intentions, even if I may disagree about the outcome.
I'm actually not much of a coffee guy myself, though I do enjoy it now and again. A good tea... now that will be something I do enjoy. Also a good whiskey. Hehehe. :)
Thank you for your warm comment and yet another example of how we can all live together in harmony and friendship, even if we disagree on things as important as our worldviews.
We all have beliefs in something, but that means that we are formulating a trust and a conviction for that which you believe to be the truth. Some may hold it dearly to their hearts and try to protect it as much as possible but I think that it is dangerous for people to put their hope and faith into something blindly.
You live for other people, as other people live for you. The real truth about being social. I am still who I am, irrelevant of other people's opinions. People's opinion is more about them than about anyone else.
However, I don't agree with how people who give up a faith should be outcasted from a social group. However, it seems like it is human nature for us to divide and split each other into different categories and groups. Not truly addressing how we should all be equal and that essentially we are all the same despite creed colour race or anything of that sort @lukestokes.
Well said. It's interesting to think how peoples' opinions, whether we like it or not, do actually impact our thinking and our actions. Unless we escape our social nature, that will always pull at us at some level.
I guess I feel "directed" by a couple of things... one being my wife's fundamental principle for living: "Don't be shitty."
The other being that I am totally at peace with "not knowing," which (oddly enough) seems deeply disturbing to a lot of people. But sincerely, whether there is "God" or "not-God" does not occupy part of my sense of self, except as an occasional intellectual discussion I enjoy.
Some would try to pigeonhole me into a corner saying that it is inherently human to have a "belief" in something, even if that something is nothing. So, if I must align myself with a "belief," what I "believe in" is possibility. I believe we live in a universe within which our (meaning "humanity's") understanding is constantly expanding. I believe what's out there is infinitely complex, and I believe that 200 years from know we'll know and do things that make no more sense to me than your smartphone would make to the average person in the street in the year 1800.
I believe it's possible that we might discover that "God" is real, and we might discover that we created God (not vice-versa) as a result of collective focused intent; the need to believe in something greater than us as a path to find enough inner peace that we could manage to stay sane through a mystifying world filled with unknowns... and unknowables.
What are you? What am I? Ultimately... "arrangements of energy." We're not even "things." There's no mass; no matter as most people understand those. But we "are," in some sense. I believe that somewhere along the line, we'll come to understand how that "works;" and perhaps even how it comes to be that some feel like they have "reincarnated" or "seen ghosts." Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Microwaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, radio waves... all existed before we gained the capacity to observe and measure them.
In the meantime, Golden Rule. Don't be shitty. Live that meme. Use NVC. Strive to make the world a better place for our having been here...
Thought provoking post @lukestokes-- thanks!
What is "don't be shitty" based on, if not the current status quo (i.e: nothing)?
Moreover (connected to your claim that 'we're not even "things"), why should things be more "real" the smaller they get; i.e: why should it be the case that atoms, which are 99.9% emptiness, should be ontologically dominant over the objects that emergently form once the atoms start to clump together? You /could/ claim that the atoms are what we /really/ are because if you take the atoms away, then the emergent properties disappear too... but I think that they are codependent! I mean, you can't separate the two; you can't have the emergent properties without the atoms.. and vice versa!
First of all, I'd like to start by saying that I absolutely understand where you are coming from in this post and I do agree that we should indeed be guided by the Golden Rule and by trying to cause as little harm as possible to conscious creatures. That's really what I try to live by, too.
But let me share a possibly minor point of disagreement.
Besides the Golden Rule there are other things we need in society that allow for progress and well-being. Whatever the society is, we sooner or later find problems and we sooner or later start facing hard decisions. And another thing we desperately need in those situations is the ability to discern fact from fiction, reality from unsubstantiated faith and dogma. Because if we can't do that properly, we are bound to make the wrong choices along the way as they would be based on assumptions that are false. That's why we should speak out against all beliefs that people might have that are unreasonable and virtually all the time religious belief falls squarely into that category. It's actually even worse as most religions teach that faith is a virtue instead of a failure of reason.
You can look around the world and you can see how valuing faith and accepting morally problematic religious principles can lead to a wide variety of problems starting with religiously motivated homophobia, misogyny, genital mutilation, cast systems, unjust limits on free speech and even religiously motivated terrorism and violence. This is why talking to people that see faith as a good thing about reason is not a pointless activity and my blind guess would be that helped you in some way to escape the clutches of indoctrination which in turn has probably helped you appreciate the importance of truth and reason more deeply than before. (I do hope my blind guess has not been too presumptions or even insulting in some way).
That's why I think it's really important for us to sit at the table and talk about all kinds of things with smiles on our faces, but the topic of what we believe and why we believe it should not be taboo at that table and disagreement should not be viewed as something bad. And from my point of view freely expressing disagreement is always welcome and I don't see religious people trying to convert me as something bad as long as they don't mind hearing my honest opinion on the claims they are putting forward.
Great post and all the best! :)
I recently heard a podcast where it was pointed out how self-centric that rule is. Others may not appreciate being treated that way, even if it is how you prefer to be treated.
Better to listen, think of their needs or at least have an attitude of empathy and act in a way that not only does them no harm, but rather lifts them up and encourages them. You'll be surprised that often will feel good to you as well.
Of course it's also important not to disregard your own needs and goals, and if you have a healthy respect for yourself you won't.
At times when your needs and goals seem to be in conflict with those of others, consider it an opportunity to reflect on your needs / goals and see if there's a way to align them not to be in conflict, be it through listening, negotiating or revising your own perspective.
Opportunities for the greatest improvements come more often than not through situations involving some type of struggle. Try to find a way to "not let a good crisis go to waste", not in the Hegelian sense that phrase is typically used, but rather in a positive way that results in a better situation for all involved.
As for Big "T" Truth, I've always held tight to the belief in it, an "absolute" truth separate from anyone's individual perspective, a truly objective Truth worth our efforts to learn as much of it as we can. Mark Passio labels such truth as Natural Law.
But what if this isn't base reality as Elon Musk and others hypothesize? If what we call reality is just a layer of a truth "onion" should it alter how we behave in the layer we reside in? The adage "As above so below" comes to mind, as does the concept of a recursive, fractal universe. If there is an objective, absolute Truth and our layer of it is like others, we may not need to focus on the boundaries or try to understand other layers when the answers we seek are right here in our own layer, and within ourselves.
Many great thoughts here, thank you for your comment.
I've heard similar critiques of the Golden Rule (and the Silver Rule) and I agree with them. Ultimately, we should treat others as they want to be treated in order to increase human wellbeing.
As to not disregarding your own desires, I've really enjoyed learning about objectivism and how, rationally, virtue is a wonderful ideal which maximizes our own wellbeing as we also consider the long-term benefit of others.
As far as I understand of "Natural Law" is that it emerges from what we observe about nature. It's not absolute, but again, a construct which serves us well and fits our observed reality. As you said, we could all be living in a simulation anyway, so any big "T" Truth we might claim could just as easily be an illusion, right?
Check out my response to this:
https://steemit.com/life/@jackeown/problems-with-relativism
I'm sorry my post was so poorly written to suggest I support the form of relativism you're describing. I replied in more detail to your post.
very nice
@lukestokes what I've come to understand on Steemit is reality. Revealing openly that you don't have religion belief and many unfollow does not move me an inch what move me is your sincerity, many on #steemit don't have any religion but to come out of the shed they find it difficult, what if I say, that's there slogan...show who you are and let people know what you stand for.
Great post buddy.
Thank you. :)
What if I come from a long line of assholes, was taught to be an asshole, and am surrounded by assholes? If I fit I'm my society, must I change or must we all change? Heredity is a frightening thing!
I almost got into discussing determinism here, but I've already talked about that a lot here already. What's interesting about the language we create is how it shapes our thoughts and in turn, our actions. If an entire community was made up of "assholes" would they still use that word? Would that word even have meaning anymore? If assholery was expected and rewarded within a community, wouldn't that even be assholery anymore?
But yeah, if all we are taught is how to harm others, we do have to learn new skills in order to function well as a social species. At least, that's what I see throughout history. Being a bad actor seems to be irrational over a long enough timescale. As a social species, we harm ourselves when we harm others.
Yes, its possible for persons with good heart.
That brings up the question, "How do people get good hearts?"
How much of it is genetic and how much of it is nurture? I think good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. The concept of a good or bad heart may just be another label we use. Yes, physically, some people have unusual, psychotic brain structures which lack empathy and compassion. Most people are not like that. For those that are, we'll have to come up with ways of dealing with them. One crazy idea I had once was to put them in super-realistic VR simulations so they could live according to their own desires without harming any other "real" person. I think that's a better solution that locking them in a cage forever or executing them. It's an idea, anyway.
If thats possible, that might work but aside from that, we really could do nothing. Ideas may work and it may not. The best thing I guess we could do is to make our good hearts contagious so that others will be infected :).
It is neither "genetic" nor "nurture" but judgment and choice consistent with TRUE morality (underlying nature of reality/Universe).
Which nature we must discover through observation, contemplation and, essentially, trial and error (and sometimes (often?), pain.
Yes, there are big T truths.
They are layers this universe is built upon.
They are all extremely metaphysical, because the physical stems out of them.
They are the building blocks, or first layers of this universe.
And there are truths which are outside of human's ability to think currently.
Gravity and all the other physics phenomena (like space and time) are subservient to these truths.
As you seek, so shall yee find. Enjoy your journey.
How do you know?
From direct knowing.
But you can also come about it from the angle of they can't be disproven. So, you can chip away all else and be left with the Truth.
Many people are ego-invested in not knowing these truths, and so you get a lot of flack for writing them out.
LOVE THIS. Upvoted and resteemed x 1000.
Thank you. :)
Was pleasure to read. Thank you! Voted you witness and following. :)
And here I have some philosophic thoughts about the future. If you have time and would like to read, I will be happy to hear your opinion: https://steemit.com/future/@river-island/what-will-happen-if-we-stop-thinking-about-the-future-just-for-a-while
Thank you so much for your support. :)
I am muslim, i don't hate other, it just about respect, i have friends from other side, it's simple, when we all respect to other everything is okay 😊😇 peace for all.
Peace for all sounds fantastic to me. Thank you for representing your religion well.
Morality doesn't need religion. We are intelligent creatures, not just instinctive. We can choose to be good to encourage others to do the same and make a better world
4 Laws of Creation:
Interesting. I've never heard this before. I'm not really a fan though because:
I will someday cease to exist. Yes, technically the ashes of my decaying body could be put back together to form me if someone had perfect control of entropy and every atom in the universe, but that doesn't fit observed reality. Information is lost and can not be restored. I cease to exist is a more accurate statement for the shared understanding of identity and the word "I".
Sounds like word games to me. "One" is individual while "All" is collective. One is a subset of all based on subset theory which fits with our observed consensus and is supported by the continued usefulness of that convention.
This sounds good (karma and such), but if it can ever once be show to be false then it is not a Truth. There are many things I've invested time and energy into which did not give back. We can argue they gave back in other ways but that then becomes a non-falsifiable claim to become meaningless story telling.
It is really necessary to have an hour or two's explanation of these laws - their meaning is not obvious.
Thanks for a more detailed explanation. I may not agree, but I do appreciate it and find it interesting.
everybody wants to reach the fight in a different way. and when he tried to convince others that way, a dispute arose between him and others