Robin Zimmermann ([info]packbat) wrote in [info]convert_me,
@ 2006-11-05 19:29:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
PackBat's Convert-Me Challenge.
I found [info]convert_me via lovecrafty's post about liberal Christianity, and thinking about it, I realized that I would like to issue a [info]convert_me challenge. The truth is extremely important to me, and I realized that it would be wise of me to put myself before intelligent people who disagree with me, in hopes that I will be corrected in my errors.

Hi. I'm [info]packbat, an American, a humanist, and a strong atheist.

I grew up in a house where religion wasn't a big issue. To this day, I don't know the religious beliefs of my parents – I know my dad describes himself as an agnostic to telephone surveyors, and we usually 'hold hands' before meals, but at no point were we members of a church.

When the time came for me to think about it – probably in association with my membership in Scouts – I knew that I didn't believe in God. It was never an issue in my troop (my stock phrase is "I'm not religious"), and when the Eagle board of review wanted recommendation letters, I got one from a Unitarian Universalist minister (a very nice lady, who apparently was satisfied with my deep respect for Nature and respectful attitude towards the beliefs of others). When, in a university honors seminar on the separation of church and state, everyone was stating their religions, I said "agnostic", meaning ätheist, i.e. weak atheist.

However, probably about a year ago, I joined the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I initially joined to comment on the Formal Debates held on that board. But I got sucked into the discussions in the Existence of God(s) forum, and the General Religious Discussions forum, and the Philosophy forum, and ended up discovering a lot – not the least of which is, I apparently am better at figuring out what folk are saying than most people there. It was chiefly what I learned about epistemology, though, that convinced me to believe that there's no gods out there.

Today, I don't go on that board any more. But I still think about religion, and my conclusions from there still, mostly, stand.

Getting down to brass tacks, though, here is what I believe.

I believe the universe makes sense. I believe that everything, from quarks to Murray Gell-Mann to the far reaches of space itself, operate according to principles, and that even if those principles are nondeterministic (as quantum mechanics implies), they are not rules that can be broken. I believe that Descartes was right when he claimed that no being able to solipsistically fool you into thinking the universe existed, would. I believe that absolute certitude is not required, and it makes sense to believe statements that could be false.

I believe that if something is true, then there is probably evidence for it. I believe that if something as big as the existence of an active god was true, there'd be bucketloads of evidence for it. I believe that if there was even just a Prime Mover, there'd be plenty of evidence for it. I believe that the absence of expected evidence is evidence against. I believe that the expected evidence for gods is absent. I believe no gods exist.

I believe that minds are natural phenomena, that they represent the workings of the brain, just as text represents words. I believe that no nonmaterial substrate is needed to 'power' a mind. I believe minds are as ruled by the laws of nature as everything else. I believe it still makes sense to claim I have free will, in spite of that.

I believe ethics arise from human nature. I believe that empathy is the basis of moral good, and that the growth of morality comes from the recognition that our genetic kin aren't the only ones who deserve empathy.

I believe the responsibility of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. I believe life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are such rights. I believe social programs like welfare, subsidized housing, and public health care support those rights.

Convert me.

x-posted to my journal.


(Post a new comment)


alwaystuxed
2006-11-06 12:48 am UTC (link)
Asking you to explain the warrants of a few of your claims, here.

What is human nature? Is it human nature to be atheistic?

Why is it government's responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens? Why government?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]packbat
2006-11-06 01:34 am UTC (link)
Glad to!

What is human nature? Is it human nature to be atheistic?

Human nature is the way humans generally act, irrespective of culture. You know how ethics of reciprocity (e.g. the Golden Rule) have turned up independently in many cultures? And how people with different beliefs are still (mostly) decent to their fellows and their children? Those are reflections of human nature.

Being atheistic, however, isn't something I've noticed as universal. I don't think that's human nature.

Why is it government's responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens? Why government?

Well, I'm thinking of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights in that case. In practice, governments may typically act to protect themselves, but that's not what they're for.

Why government to protect rights? Because it's the best way so far for people to guarantee it gets done. Each individual cannot run their own police department, fire department, patent office, food and drug regulatory commission, public health department, judiciary system, etc., etc., etc. – both because they don't have enough time and because some of those functions cannot be run on an individual basis at all. They could ally with their neighbors to pool those functions and pay separate contractors to do it, but that's exactly what government is anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - alwaystuxed, 2006-11-06 03:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]utterlymuseless, 2006-11-06 09:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 02:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-07 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-08 12:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 01:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-08 01:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 03:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-08 03:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 02:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-08 11:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-10 02:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-10 02:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-12-15 05:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2008-06-14 08:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2008-06-15 02:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2008-06-15 12:16 pm UTC

[info]caelum_rainieri
2006-11-06 01:00 am UTC (link)
The truth is extremely important to me

Whose truth? Or are you saying that you believe in an ultimate Truth?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


valerielovesme
2006-11-06 01:03 am UTC (link)
How does an ultimate Truth differ from a regular truth?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 01:14 am UTC
disturbing - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-06 01:18 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 01:29 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]matrexius, 2006-11-06 01:30 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 01:55 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 09:54 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 10:07 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]matrexius, 2006-11-06 11:08 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 02:53 pm UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 03:07 pm UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]matrexius, 2006-11-06 05:55 pm UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 06:44 pm UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]ohsimba, 2006-11-06 06:28 am UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-07 11:25 pm UTC
Re: disturbing - [info]theswede, 2006-11-06 01:38 am UTC
(no subject) - valerielovesme, 2006-11-06 01:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]theswede, 2006-11-06 01:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 01:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 01:47 am UTC
??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-06 01:55 am UTC
Re: ??? - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 02:04 am UTC
Re: ??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-06 03:07 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 05:03 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-07 01:52 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-07 02:46 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-11 05:30 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 09:55 am UTC
Re: ??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-06 02:47 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 02:58 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-06 03:16 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 03:29 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-07 02:07 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-07 02:33 pm UTC
Re: ??? - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-07 10:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]matrexius, 2006-11-06 01:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 02:06 am UTC
(no subject) - valerielovesme, 2006-11-06 02:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 02:33 am UTC
(no subject) - valerielovesme, 2006-11-06 02:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 09:57 am UTC
(no subject) - valerielovesme, 2006-11-07 02:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 02:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 02:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 03:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 04:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ohsimba, 2006-11-06 06:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 02:13 pm UTC
You've Just Been Converted - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 08:59 pm UTC
Re: You've Just Been Converted - [info]packbat, 2006-11-07 02:30 pm UTC
tangent - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-07 11:29 pm UTC
Re: tangent - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 12:37 am UTC
Re: tangent - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-08 12:46 am UTC
Re: tangent - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 01:09 am UTC
Re: tangent - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-08 01:15 am UTC
Re: tangent - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 02:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 10:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]playertwo, 2006-11-06 03:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]noneuklid, 2006-11-08 12:53 am UTC

[info]packbat
2006-11-06 01:37 am UTC (link)
I use the word "truth" to refer to correspondence with reality. I don't believe that we live in separate universes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 01:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 02:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 02:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 03:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 04:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]utterlymuseless, 2006-11-06 09:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 05:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]utterlymuseless, 2006-11-06 08:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 10:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 02:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 05:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 10:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 10:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caelum_rainieri, 2006-11-06 05:29 pm UTC

[info]hexar_le_saipe
2006-11-06 02:04 am UTC (link)
All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ohsimba, 2006-11-06 06:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hexar_le_saipe, 2006-11-06 02:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]telarus, 2006-11-07 03:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 10:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hexar_le_saipe, 2006-11-06 12:24 pm UTC

[info]matrexius
2006-11-06 01:38 am UTC (link)
I believe that minds are natural phenomena, that they represent the workings of the brain, just as text represents words. I believe that no nonmaterial substrate is needed to 'power' a mind. I believe minds are as ruled by the laws of nature as everything else. I believe it still makes sense to claim I have free will, in spite of that.

Are you talking about libertarian free will, or free will bound by physical causality?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]packbat
2006-11-06 01:45 am UTC (link)
The latter – I'm a classical compatibilist, insofar as I've considered the issue. (As a matter of fact, I consider the claim that there are events not bound by causality ... well, not risible, but certainly false.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]matrexius, 2006-11-06 01:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 02:19 am UTC
Proof
[info]tokoya_turbo
2006-11-06 01:43 am UTC (link)
There's no direct proof of God. To claim it's possible, as the sciences consider it presently, is idolatry. The Judeo-Christian tradition acknowledges a transcedent God, which means humans are too limited to understand God in God's aseity (i.e., God in God's self).

You're asking the wrong question. I would not reduce religion to art, and I would not say that the sciences aren't important to religion (they are), but it's better to approach religion in terms found in art. When considering a Picasso, and experiencing something profound, do you ask for proof of what you've experienced? Of course not, because "proof", as the sciences understand it, is less relevant, though perhaps not entirely irrelevant.

As a Christian, what we refer to as God IS truth, Love and absolute goodness. In a sense God is reality, though not reducable to the created ordering. To reduce God to reality can lead to sanctioning the way reality is now as we know it, which means sexism, racism, etc. is part of the so-called true order. That is classic stoicism. Anyway, God and God's truth is beyond the reality we presently know.

Mystics are useful here, whose experiences are much like those of people who enjoy art. God is that profound experience of the presence of something beyond ourselves, something that makes everything possible, the ground of all that is. For us, the ground of all being that makes anything possible to be what it is is Love. Knowing God intimately is looking at reality through God's lens, the lens of Love. Through this lens we see a reality intimately interconnected and made possible by a Being or Reality beyond the immediate, beyond the human.

Hope this helps.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Proof
[info]packbat
2006-11-06 02:12 am UTC (link)
"Aseity", huh? Neat word.

I'm afraid it really doesn't. In the case of a Picasso, it's obvious that it's a specific real thing – the painting – that's causing the profound feelings. It's rather less obvious that truth, love, and mystic experiences are caused by God. Especially since there's a growing amount of evidence that at least the latter two aren't.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Proof - [info]ohsimba, 2006-11-06 06:54 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 03:15 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-06 02:42 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-06 04:42 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-07 02:49 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-07 04:44 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-08 02:48 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-08 06:19 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-09 02:15 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-10 01:29 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-10 03:11 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-12 03:49 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]pooperman, 2006-11-22 08:10 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-22 11:32 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]pooperman, 2006-11-23 01:05 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-23 03:26 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]pooperman, 2006-11-23 03:40 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-23 03:53 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]pooperman, 2006-11-23 05:17 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-23 06:06 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]pooperman, 2006-11-23 10:04 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-23 11:03 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]pooperman, 2006-11-23 11:49 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-24 12:35 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]pooperman, 2006-11-24 01:03 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-24 01:53 am UTC
Re: Proof - [info]tokoya_turbo, 2006-11-10 06:18 pm UTC
Re: Proof - [info]packbat, 2006-11-12 03:56 am UTC
Re: Proof
wrongheaded
2006-11-06 02:49 am UTC (link)
My problem with your comment is I don't see any reason not to treat religious/spiritual inquiry like philosophy or science. In fact, I'd argue that it's important that we take care to treat it in terms of pure logic, given humanity's history of taking religious ideas and running with them until all kinds of craziness happened.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Proof - [info]lovethelogos, 2006-11-06 10:11 am UTC
Re: Proof - wrongheaded, 2006-11-06 05:35 pm UTC