Disclaimer: I started this post on a myspace blog on 03.06.2006. Most of my views, though not necessarily different, have evolved and been amended, as I do update it periodically. Parts of this post are posted elsewhere sporadically. Latest update is to be reflected in posted time. To those who'll read, this is still good, but I'm always adding and tweaking towards a complete view. At latest, not counting images, these are my thoughts, a 5½ page paper, single spaced. On that note, on with it.
And so,
I was thinking about my whole religious, or, lack of religious as it were, or rather even philosophical, ...stance, anyway, and, in short, I have claimed secular humanism... but with so many stipulations. I am, after all, an idiosyncrasy, arbitrary as I may be.
I have personally contemplated my own philosophy for the better part of a decade, going from Christianity to agnosticism to atheism to agnosticism and so on, til I started picking apart different types of atheism and agnosticism, as well as learning what I could about other religious views, and recently, after about four years of deep and unending thought, I've decided that the only agnosticism I have in being a secular humanist is:
Am I an absurdist nihilist existentialist; or am I a freethinking pantheist dadaist?
I had early on come up with a list descriptive of my philosophy, being mostly a fusion of the following, some of which I add to as I live life:
Atheism
The rejection of belief in any god(s), and the trusting of science as the one explanation.
If you find this heartbreaking, disgusting, offensive, disappointing, or even the least bit unfortunate, please read the whole post. The whole post. And lighten up. Really think about it. No matter how the 6+ billion of us interpret and appreciate our surroundings, we live our lives the same way. No one gets better treatment for choosing the "right god..." or choosing to disregard the notion of there being one or more. But know right now that I don't take the subject lightly. I'm the one writing this over the course of five years. It's been a very difficult road to come to my conclusions after how I was brought up. So if you find something with which to be personally offended in my writing (other than language, in which case grow the fuck up), bite your tongue and reevaluate your outlook really hard. And keep reading.
First and foremost, I don't believe in my parents' God. If you find yourselves reading this, great! I really hope you read it all. It becomes much more refreshing, honestly. I just feel it's important to say right out, that He's not my type. To be sure, for me this means no supreme intelligent being; no personal deity. Perhaps God is more of a concept than a god as was explained to me as a child (which, by the way, such a prescribed persona as an all knowing and all willing cruel master just had me feeling the most, completely uncalled-for, loneliness and downright general emotional pain and emptiness!)
Going to the church as a young child, I was definitely persuaded on a regular basis that God made me and was literally actively watching my every move, never mind that He knew everything about me, and that essentially, no matter what, I was going to disappoint Him, at which point I was expected to beg for forgiveness, and this was all between me and Him. He and I were to have a personal relationship, without regard to my never being able to know or understand Him in my Earthly life. Still, I should strive ad nauseam to please Him with my actions, and that was how I would know if I was making good decisions. It was also understood that I was to show praise in any way possible, at every moment, for everything I had, as this Perverted Tyrant had provided it all to me, without cost, despite my inevitable and obvious eternal atrocity and insufficiency, and let it be known that He could effortlessly take it all away. And He very well may just fuckin' feel like it, so I had better stroke His ego just in case... Oh, and I'd God damn well better not use His name in vain. And I will say it until my eyes bleed, there's no fucking way that's how I'm living my life. I can appreciate what I've got and live morally without a constant contrived void and fear. So, I'm deeply sorry if that's what rules your life and keeps you in line, but that shit is straight up and down, patently, for suckers. It will take a SEVERE brain injury, or one hell of a drug trip to get me to ever accept that again. I once was blind, but now I see. Clearly now. The rain is gone.
I think if we must assign something be a higher power in our lives, a controller, a creator, it be more comfortably and intuitively closer to being; rather than a wicked unknowable character; a riddle, or a rule that we don't know yet, a number that we can't count to yet, but are drawn to try to solve or comprehend. Hell, maybe this is our purpose, to realize what the fuck God is... As atheists, however, we know it's not most people's traditional God. I absolutely do not believe in a bearded old punisher in the sky. Nor Satan, nor Heaven, nor Hell, Northwestern, Norwegian. So with that out in the open, on to the milder, and more intricate side.
Secular Humanism
Briefly, this is atheism. An ethical philosophy with a very logical (as opposed to supernatural) standpoint on issues. There is no proof for your god. We will test this as long as it takes. We need the truth, whether you are proven wrong or not. We should follow a fair moral system that allows us to lead happy, functional lives. The lives of our descendants should be better than ours. The übermensch (Nietzsche), when arrived, will still have morals and standards that protect the human, though it may be more of an, ironically primitive, slave-master moral system.
Nihilism, Dadaism, Absurdism, Existentialism, and Free Will
Dada is actually an art form based on nihilism, which basically devalues "meaning" to life, or rejects the existence of what we know as reality. I agree with the first part, but am only intrigued by the second, because to me, reality is knowable, but hidden and obscure. Also keep in mind that I am using the derivative Dadaism, rather than the whole idea of nihilism. I lean towards its structure because I believe in chance, coincidence, decisions (free will), and randomness, not supernatural control or plan, or fate, or miracles. I do believe somewhat that our actions, though they completely shape the world around us, no matter how insignificant, may be completely without consequence in looking at the big picture, Which is more nihilist than dadaist.
In being absurdist, I find no apparent meaning or purpose in living in the chaotic Universe, and answering the question in the first place is both impossible and false--humanly, but not necessarily logically. I also have to keep in mind that that a logical conclusion denying Human Purpose is not certainly falsifying. As a nihilist, I would argue frivolously, that finding an answer is totally irrelevant, as there is no possible answer when nothing means anything anyway. Information has no inherent meaning, and any meaning applied to any given information is relative opinion, deeming it arbitrary. As an existentialist, I must decide what meaning my experiences give this question, if any, and having assumed prescribed meaning is nonexistant, I will fail to come to a conclusion. My personal quest in life becomes adventure, and I will probably look for meaning in it until I die.
In existentialism, philosophical thought should be used to deal with the conditions of existence of the individual and his emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts. The individual is solely responsible for giving one's own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom; suggesting an incompatibility with absurdism, but I feel they coexist, in that I find personal meaning in my own life, yet don't accept that I'm anyone of consequence in the Universe, most probably.
Wills and Representation
Basically, we have free will, sure, but we have guided will. There are inescapable wants and needs that shape our decisions before we can even make them: the will to live, an the wills to power, pleasure, and meaning. Man can do what he wants, but never choose what it is that he wants. And he certainly is predetermined to be in an express set of circumstances at any given time. For example, I'm pretty much predestined, as most humans, never to leave the planet Earth, nor to live under the sea. As for representation, human experience of things consists of how they appear to us, rather than directly comprehending things as they are in and of themselves (Phenomenon vs. Nuomenon). So we must strive to understand reality in its truest for achievable, not by hearsay.
Like many other aesthetic theories, Schopenhauer's Wills and Representation centers on the concept of genius. Genius, according to Schopenhauer, is possessed by all people in varying degrees and consists of the capacity for aesthetic experience. An aesthetic experience occurs when an individual perceives an object and understands by it not the individual object itself, but the Platonic form of the object. The individual is then able to lose himself in the object of contemplation and, for a brief moment, escape the cycle of unfulfilled desire by becoming "the pure subject of will-less knowing." Those who have a high degree of genius can be taught to communicate these aesthetic experiences to others, and objects that communicate these experiences are works of art.
Hedonism (Epicurean)
Hedonism states nothing but pleasure being the sole intrinsic good; that we should do only what brings us personal pleasure, and that should be what defines our morals. Epicureanism differs slightly in that the greatest good is found not in unending pleasure binging, but in a balance of modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear, as well as an absence of physical pain, through knowledge of the workings of the world, and the limits of our desires. Everything in moderation.
The part about Hedonism that appeals to me, is that the reason for taking an action should be based off the amount of pleasure that it causes you. This can't be strictly followed, because what I believe is that you should make your decisions based on how well it affects yourself as well as the big picture, or environment. That goes back to the ethical portion of humanism. And for christ sake, refer to ethics and morality when deciding what is pleasurable.
Futurism / Transhumanism
Basically projects futuristic dreams which focus on speed, youth, power, and production and invention of technology. Like dadaism, futurism is an art movement more than a belief system, but it suggests transhumanism, an intellectual cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death, as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. The common goal is ease of life, but one important element of transhumanism is an eventual method of human immortality. This goes back to Nietzsche's ubermensch philosophy, wherein the next evolutionary step for man could be self-appointed into a race of biomecha. Science-fiction as it may seem, it's a definite possibility, in contrast with supernatural transcendence (to heaven or hell) being the fate of man.
Realism / Idealism
Within realism, truth consists in a belief's correspondence to reality: whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality. In idealism, which is ironically in complete contrast with realism, the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas, with no concrete “reality” to form that consciousness. Personally, I feel I can believe both simultaneously. The external world is said to have a so-called absolute existence prior to, and independent of, knowledge and consciousness. However, what I don't accept about idealism for sure is the idea that the only things which can be directly known for certain are solely ideas. There comes a time when one must logically have faith in certain things, which I'll get into later.
.jpg)
Pantheism
The view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical, or that the Universe (including Nature on Earth) is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence.
So first and foremost, again, I don't believe in "God." Not a personal, nor intelligent, nor sentient, nor conscious being. But I was raised to. I'm actually even baptized and confirmed as a member of the Presbyterian church. I was even passionate about it at one point in my life. But I was made to attend every Sunday ever since I can remember, until at some point in high school when I confirmed to myself my doubts. Simple reflection bars me believing anything anywhere near what I was force fed at that age. I'ts just not logical, and my mind rejects such garble.
My mother has recently (after and during my loss of faith in the church) decided to become, and finished schooling in order to officially be, a pastor. My parents moved into a house owned by and located at a church, which is actually part of her salary now for preaching at said establishment. A Protestant Christian religious leader. She's preached at several churches now before starting full time at this one; performed weddings, funerals, etc... My sister and I are both areligious, and "thank god" we've had each other to vent on. I do however support my mother without second thought. I'm thrilled that she's doing what she loves in life without holding back, though I'm certainly not attending any of her services.
Still, I am becoming increasingly accepting of the idea of Einstein's pantheist god, or as he called it, Spinoza's god. Of the few things I'm sure of; change is constant, states are causal, time is relative, information has no inherent meaning, and physics is always calculating. If change is constant, states are causal, and physics is always calculating, then physics is an absolute. It's eternal and it's an unbreakable law, and therefore cannot be inherently bad, so it is omnibenevolent in its own right, being all there is and all there was (which can only be possible with time being relative). It is also therefore omnipresent. It is omnipotent, in that it defines the very limits of reality, and meets them when possible and necessary. It is omniscient, in that verily defining reality itself, it must account for every single component of such reality. Everything must accord to and abide by it. It is then unable to lie. Since information has no inherent meaning, it is in our nature to attempt to understand it in its every rite. It is furthermore totally testable, recordable, and imitable, and therefore completely contrasting with supernaturality. As we observe it deeper and deeper, we understand it more intimately, and apply this knowledge in our daily lives. It is graceful, perfect, flawless, and intimidatingly humble. And you are unable to deny it.
Freethought
In being a freethinker, I must separate supernatural phenomena from my rational inspection of life. I must also consider traditional dogmata irrelevant, and logic king in solving this model. No one's opinion, even my own, can have any influence on my decision until completely interpreted and compared with fact. As a pantheist, I would accept rationally that a supreme being, event, force, or rule created the Universe in the form of an elegant formula, and I must do so simply by contemplating natural events and laws, and tracing them back as far as they are observable. My only argument for a meaning to life would be that I am a way for the Universe to experience itself; that I and everything around me are one, are God. And I can't possibly prove this, so it is completely illogical. As a dadaist, it is this absurd illogic that disgusts me more than anything I've ever sensed, magically and patently generating the truest aesthetic I have ever witnessed. I don't know if that qualifies me as a genius or more of a nut.
I do believe strongly against following tradition blindly, or choosing a thought to believe without analyzing it next to what you already believe to be true. That applies to more than just my view on the existence of [god, weapons of mass destruction, aliens, whatever]. I'm not going to reject everything I hear, but I'm not going to believe everything I hear either. Then again, hearing something that I feel to be a strong enough concept may cause me to change what I thought before. But I'm not going to change it very far. It suits me. I'll probably just add to what I believe, as I have in the past few years. Though Dadaism isn't really even a religion or a philosophy, its values contribute in a big way to mine. I wanna grow up to be, be a debaser. Meaning is meaning and no master plan. Fuck and consume, and learn what you can.
Going back to the analyzation portion of Dadaism, I don't think anyone should ever be forced into seeing only one choice when several more exist. Especially if they express a desire not to. That's why I'm so interested in religion and philosophy now. My first phase of Atheism was rejection and hatred of all religion; now I want to know what's out there and how it works and why. I think everyone should be able to see that before they choose, not that they even have to choose at all. That's up to each individual. Most of us are inconsequential anyhow.
Aside from just experiencing as much as you can in order to choose, and in my case, trusting physics completely, I prescribe the purpose in life, as finding self-worth based on interests and talents, and living a life bettering selves and others, evolving morally. A life well lived is one based off of reflective morality (learning from past experiences), natural morality (we find the sun air and water to be useful, so we act in ways that respect and sustain such resources), and a good mixture of traditional morality (such as premade human law as to what is right and wrong - [now debase and analyze those rules and find out what's important still]), but without any strict system of traditional or religious (supernatural, i.e. do it because god said so) morality.
At any rate, with this, I ponder amorously...
I was, as stated, raised Christian. I was to believe, and passionately at that, in an omniomni, sentient, and intelligent designer. I was taught that “He” knew, at any given instant (for instance), how many hairs were on the heads of every human, and this angered me early on. There was no cause for this, no logical motivation in knowing such information, and absolutely no evidence for it. Now I realize, that if a force such as physics were to function properly, it had to be this omniomni, yet did not have to be a personable, sentient, intelligent designing entity. It's just there. That's faith. I know I can always trust and count on physics. And the product of such a force? Sheer, breathtaking beauty. That is why I no longer claim static atheism, but stoic pantheism.
Paradoxically, however, I must believe and disbelieve simultaneously that the God, in and as my Universe, is present, active (though not sentient and self willing), and vital; and that life (is both undyingly miserable, and) exists just for fun; and on the other hand; I also understand that I can never know whether there is any meaning to it all; so I must also believe that God's existence, and the existence of meaning in life (which I generally accept to be interchangeable concepts) are neither true nor false.
So right now I'll have to stick with being a secular humanist agnostic about being an absurdist nihilist existentialist or a freethinking pantheist dadaist.
...At least that leaves room for me to see beauty in every aspect of life, and a basis for morality.
As for a meaning of life, a Human Purpose... that is something we cannot know at this juncture, if there indeed is one. Purpose is something that will be fulfilled only if and when we as a community of organisms finish the evolutionary paths we started some billions of years ago. We have built-in tools that give us inherent goals and ambitions in life: evolutionary instincts, emotions, and logical minds. So we are able to make decisions based on what we have perceived and are perceiving, and can sympathize with how that will affect others' situations and future situations. Because of emotion, we assign "good" and "bad" to events and situations, and strive to achieve more personal inventory on the side of "good" than "bad." Hopefully, eventually, an individual can see that they not only need to strive for these pleasantries for themselves, but that each action also affects others' situations. Therefore, we develop personal and public models of morality to persuade our own decisions and decisions as a people. This indicates a partial description of Purpose, but not the end result. We are in our infancy.
.jpg)
Albert Einstein:
- Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
- I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.
- I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
- The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
- God does not play dice.
Aristotle (paraphrased):
- Being moral has to do with the function of a human being. Anything that is good or bad is so because it functions well or poorly. If we can discover what the functions of human beings is, then we can know how the terms good or bad apply to them. Arriving at the theory that the proper function of human beings is to reason, being moral or good, essentially means "reasoning well for a complete life."
