Jayjay

Mr. High Ideologue:

So, you get your kicks out of oohing and aahing at the mysteries of the universe. Probably you also are afraid of death, so you'd rather believe in "eternal" rather than temporal self. That's a fair enough reason for you to postulate this "divine eternal essence of self" for your own amusement and joy. However, as you certainly do see it is a purely a matter of opinion and taste that you choose this route instead of a less romantic world view, and I don't think you've actually given any reasons why anyone else but you should believe the same.

To answer your question, how come I don't believe in "divine eternal essence of self":

1. "Divine". I am not yet aware of any entities in the universe that can be characterized as "divine". When there are zero serious contenders, it is impossible to say either way.

2. "Eternal". When I try to recall the past of myself, I notice that I cannot possibly reach arbitrarily far. The time of my birth seems to impose a boundary. Likewise, if I try to recall the future, I notice that it is equally, if not more difficult... no matter how hard I try, I just don't have any recollection of year 2004, or even tomorrow. So I have direct observation against the notion that "self" is eternal.

:

High Ideologue

If you do not need fantasy and mystery to achieve joy and love then I accept you as an associate. Does this mean that you do not enjoy being entertained with science fiction stories and fantasies that incorporate mythical elements?

Insignificant is a problematic choice of words. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I may rewrite passages within the House of Ideology Manifesto where in this adjective is applied to my description of human life. However, I feel that at times human life can be frivolous and forgettable.

I need health and happiness. In a model of self and world that includes both a foundation of truth and knowledge about the laws of cause and effect governing the matter and energy of our known universe and a framework of myth and fantasy based on the mystery of existence I find the tools to best satisfy my need and aspiration to achieve and maintain happiness and health.

I wish us all health and happiness.

High Ideologue

High Ideologue

I am not worried. These straws you refer to are words. The case for a naturalistic universe that excludes a divine eternal essence of self and world is also made up of words. The case stands as one of an infinite number, diversity and variety of possible viable models of self and world. However the fact that any given model of self and world exists as a viable possibility does not in and of itself explain why I should or should not choose to use this model to make up my mind about self and world. For me to explain why I should or should not choose to use any given model of self and world to make up my mind about self and world requires I evaluate the effects on my health and happiness caused by choosing any given model of self and world to explain the discovery and mystery of existence. Only by creating models of self and world and evaluating these over and over again can I converge upon a model of self and world that produces in my body the most powerful physiological responses of health possible, and produces in my mind the most powerful emotional responses of happiness imaginable. Creating, evaluating and converging on what I know, think, believe and expect is best for me is the essence of the creative process I engage in both when writing the House of Ideology Manifesto and in selecting a model to use in making up my mind about self and world.

seesaw

I completely agree.

High Ideologue

Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Given the following;

1. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god.

2. Theism is simply a belief in some particular god.

3. Agnosticism is a claim of not knowing.

4. Gnosticism is a claim of knowing.

Do you think it would be correct to describe people as tending to orient themselves to existence in accord with a position that follows from one of four possible combinations of these definitions; either gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism, agnostic theism, or gnostic theism?

If so then accord to these definitions I would conclude that with respect to knowledge and belief in some particular god I take the position of an agnostic theist.

Asha'man

I have strong issues with the phrase "undetected by science." I don't think any such thing exists, or can exist.

If a thing exerts an influence on the universe, it can be detected by examining that influence. This is what it means to be "detected by science."

If a thing cannot be detected by examining its influence on the world, then it does not exist. To detect something by any means other than examining its influence on the universe is both impossible and irrational.

The theories of dark matter and energy exist precisely because we can detect their influence on the universe.

Daggah

Absolutely, I do. In fact, I said on a webpage I was designing a year ago - but never got around to putting up:

"So, what is agnosticism? The agnostic simply claims that he doesn't know. He won't commit to a belief in god, but he isn't sure enough to proclaim that he believes there aren't any gods. Agnosticism isn't exclusive to theism (the belief of a god or gods) or atheism; there can be the theistic agnostic, who believes, but admits that he does not or cannot know for sure, and there is the atheistic agnostic, who doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't say that there are no gods. He doesn't know, but he doesn't believe, either. Most agnostics are atheistic."

Perchance

Hello High Idealogue.

It depends on what kind of atheism you're talking about. Strong atheism might depend on the nonexistence of a god. But weak atheism only says that there's no evidence of a god yet (one way or the other). I'm a weak atheist. I don't think that dark matter disproves the existence of a god, and I don't think it proves it. There aren't only two explanations, scientific and divine. There are at least as many explanations as there are mythologies, and there are probably dozens that humans haven't come up with yet.

I admit some suspicion of the human mind when it automatically turns to the divine (and especially the mythology of the divine that is most familiar to it) as an explanation for something it doesn't understand.

Would like to know, but don't expect that they will necessarily find the final answer. Science keeps its doors open, I think, and religion, trying to offer certain answers, does not.

I don't think you're consciously lying. But I do think that you're keeping a back door open for something that has no positive evidence, becuase you would like to or hope to believe in it. And when 'god-in-the-gaps' arguments begin, then they become worthless, because anything and everything- even things that aren't that related to god in the relevant mythology- start being turned into "evidence" for god.

I might check it out.

How do you know that it's a myth and fantasy based on the mystery of existence? (What does the "mystery of existence" mean anyway?) This is the part of the theistic runaround that always confuses me. Scientists should "keep an open mind" and not accept a completely naturalistic model of the universe, but theists are free to reject it and cling to their own supernatural model. It's among the most pernicious of the theistic double standards.

-Perchance.

Eudaimonist

No, I am fond of science fiction and fantasy stories, and heroic fiction in general. I fully admit this. My precise position is that I don't need to believe that fantasy and mystery are real in order to achieve joy and love. I have a heroic vision of human life that doesn't require belief in the divine or supernatural.

As do I.

High Ideologue

I agree use of this phrase 'undetected by science' is problematic. Yes we can indirectly detect the influence of postulated dark matter and dark energy upon matter and energy that science can directly detect. Yet science can not directly detect the actual dark matter and dark energy.