On religion, personally

[shadesofmauve]

I think it might be accurate for me to claim the label theological noncognitivist. At the very least, I've never encountered a god concept about which I feel there could be rational discussion - the terms are always redefined mid conversation, or never defined at all. However, according to that bastion of spiritual knowledge and advice, Wikipedia, to be consistently noncognitivist conflicts with atheism.

I have recently decided that I can proudly claim the label atheist, rather than agnostic, because of calculus.

I think that the existence of God is unprovable in either direction. Some definitions state this in their dogma; others lack a coherent definition, which in itself makes the concept unprovable. I totally concur with Russel's Teapot -- if I am given no reason to believe in something outlandish, I'll disbelieve it, rather than suspend judgement.

Does everyone remember calculus? I'm thinking of the limit concept -- that even if you can't get to an exact point, you can get close enough for all intents and purposes (this is a very rough rephrasing). In this function, x is approaching atheism, so we might as well call it that.

My main label happily remains humanism, but it doesn't enter into discussion here because it is not a theistic or atheistic epithet, but an ethical one, which I believe to be far more important, since it actually has a bearing on life and human interaction.

Standard Disclaimer:

1. No, this does not mean I'd like to have lunch with Christopher Hitchens. Sharing a lack-of-belief does not nessecarily bring people into the same camp, and no belief system or lack there of is free of assholes.

2. I have not now, nor have I ever, killed anyone, maimed/tortured anyone, stollen, committed arson, etc. If you believe that ethics can not exist outside of religion, please consider me and all the other perfectly moral atheists you know as contrary exhibit A.



Obviously, none of this applies to my fervent belief in Clarence, who art above us, and doth occasionally call on the phone.

Comments

[spuuky.livejournal.com]

What is the basis for your ethics?

[shadesofmauve]

Interesting question. At root, I think that we all have the same basic ethics -- we're social creatures, and some amount of shared ethos keeps any society going (don't kill - at least within your social group!, don't harm, etc). I think some is built in, though obviously there are individuals who are mis-wired. If nothing else, we have to have some empathy and compassion to survive as a society; empathy, 'the shared human condition', regulates our behavior towards others.

On a more personal, conscious level, my mom gave me three rules when I went out to play. "Don't hurt yourself, don't hurt others, and never make a mess bigger than you can clean up." Works for me.

There are other more complex, philosophical issues where I arrived at my stance through reading, debate, or whatever, but those are highly specific (for instance, I'm very hard line about freedom of speech, even when it's uncomfortable -- one of the few places I see in black and white).

[spuuky.livejournal.com]

How you arrive at the conclusions may be another interesting question, but mine specifically meant "what justifies this?" You may have arrived at a very strict stance on freedom of speech, for instance, through reading/debate/etc, but what justifies that freedom of speech?

If the core answer really is the biological impulse to survive and function together and the assumption that this survival is good, then where do complicated philosophical issues fit in? Do they end up back at this point, just in a much more complicated, far-reaching way? Or is there some other reason which makes THESE kinds of things good, which has nothing to do with survival? If there is, what is that?

[westrider.livejournal.com]

I was going to say something snarky about a lack of Faith causing problems with closing your HTML tags, but that appears to be a problem with my Friends Page rather than your code, since it works right in here.