Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

So, what do you worship?


webmdave

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

By Chucky Jesus

 

I'm both an ex-Christian and an atheist. I almost don't think of myself as ex-anything any more, because my deconversion was so long ago; I'm 53 now and I gave up on Christianity by the time I was 18. Since then there's been one thing about Christianity in the back of my mind -- this notion of "worship." I suppose if I thought about it at all, it was in reaction to a question which is often posed to freethinkers by theists, "So, what do you worship?"

 

My reaction has been, well we don't worship anybody, silly -- and why do you feel the need to worship someone? Are you all syncophants? Then again, perhaps many freethinkers do worship, in a sense. I think I've decided that I worship life -- all aspects of life, which, in a way includes the entire universe, as it's all tied together. After all, the stuff we're made from and the most distant galaxies were all part of the same "cosmic" egg "before" the big-bang. This matter and energy which makes up us and our cousins the plants and insects and our earth all obey the same natural laws as do these far away galaxies and everything between.

 

I'm reminded of a poem by Walt Whitman, "On the Beach At Night, Alone." This was used to great effect in the second movement of the first symphony by the English composer Ralph (pronounced Raeph) Vaughan-Williams. My sister, an actress, also read it at my wedding.

On the beach at night alone,

As the old mother sways her to and fro singing her husky song,

As I watch the bright stars shining, I think a thought of the clef

of the universes and of the future.

 

A vast similitude interlocks all,

All spheres, grown, ungrown, small, large, suns, moons, planets,

All distances of place however wide,

All distances of time, all inanimate forms,

All souls, all living bodies though they be ever so different, or in

different worlds,

All gaseous, watery, vegetable, mineral processes, the fishes, the brutes,

All nations, colors, barbarisms, civilizations, languages,

All identities that have existed or may exist on this globe, or any globe,

All lives and deaths, all of the past, present, future,

This vast similitude spans them, and always has spann'd,

And shall forever span them and compactly hold and enclose them.

It also occurs to me that we could just as easily replace the word "worship" with "celebrate." I celebrate beautiful sunrises, the taste of chocolate, a tone-poem by Liszt, a movie by Mike Judge which makes me laugh, the canopy of stars at night, a beautiful woman, learning each day about new discoveries of science, and on and on. All of this is life and I love it, I celebrate it...I worship it.

 

So, the next time a Christian asks what you worship, give that person your list.

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/02...ou-worship.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I found that I "celebrate" more since leaving the flock. I really appreciate things like the sunsets, animals (even spiders and flies!), a beautiful woman of any age, good food, and so many things that bring me pleasure and happiness.

 

Of course, any good xian knows we're really worshipping Satan.

 

- Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Chucky Jesus

 

I'm both an ex-Christian and an atheist. I almost don't think of myself as ex-anything any more, because my deconversion was so long ago; I'm 53 now and I gave up on Christianity by the time I was 18. Since then there's been one thing about Christianity in the back of my mind -- this notion of "worship." I suppose if I thought about it at all, it was in reaction to a question which is often posed to freethinkers by theists, "So, what do you worship?"

 

My reaction has been, well we don't worship anybody, silly -- and why do you feel the need to worship someone? Are you all syncophants? Then again, perhaps many freethinkers do worship, in a sense. I think I've decided that I worship life -- all aspects of life, which, in a way includes the entire universe, as it's all tied together. After all, the stuff we're made from and the most distant galaxies were all part of the same "cosmic" egg "before" the big-bang. This matter and energy which makes up us and our cousins the plants and insects and our earth all obey the same natural laws as do these far away galaxies and everything between.

 

Considering the etymology of the word itself, (from the Old English: weorthscipe, showing the worth or honor of a thing, your sense of celebration is perfectly acceptable. Nature itself is probably the most awe-inspiring thing we encounter daily. Having spent time in the pulpit, the term worship (in the sense of observing the worth of a thing) continues to pique my interest. It's one thing to observe and rejoice and relish the awe at the wonders of our natural world, but to actually show or act upon the worth of it all would be in how we care for it.

 

Worship/worthship of the natural world includes not just talking about it, feeling it, or whatever, but actually treading lightly and behaving in ways that honor our natural resources. We've already seen how the fundies and Religious Right fully expect to be raptured off the earth, and they enact policies to show they aren't all that concerned about the mess they expect to soon leave behind. (not preaching here, just suggesting additional ways that worship/worthship can be put into practice)

 

A more down-to-earth example might be Joe Doofus bragging off on his friends how he "loves" his wife, worships the ground she walks on, and blah blah blah.... but then he gets home and treats her like shit in real life, demeaning, and over-macho bullying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too experience a sense of awe at the vastness of the universe, and at the complexity of the sub-atomic world. Nothing supernatural required, just ma nature at her finest.

I thought at 50 I was one of the elders here. Thank goodness I'm not the oldest.

Knitterman, love the siggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought at 50 I was one of the elders here. Thank goodness I'm not the oldest.

Knitterman, love the siggy.

 

thanks. :-) Marceau was one of my favorite public speakers. heheheheheeh

 

I'm 53 as well. For some reason I thought the majority here were older than I. Hmmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I'm 53 as well. For some reason I thought the majority here were older than I. Hmmmm...

 

 

Kids. Sixty in July. If only wisdom automatically came with age.

 

- Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not kids, you're just an old fogie. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
We're not kids, you're just an old fogie. :P

 

And don't you fergit it, sonny!

 

- (what was my name?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question (or two) based on this line of thought about celebrating the many wonderful things in the universe:

 

(1) What is it that we love, celebrate, or worship about this universe and all its beauty? Is it the items in your list themselves, or is it something common to all of them that we recognize as worthy of our admiration? (call it 'goodness' or 'beauty' for the moment)

 

(2) If the latter, can the universe really not be directed by intelligence? Let me put this question on a more specific footing:

A. For any given thing, there are only a few ways for it to be good, and lots of ways for it to be no good. Example: there are many ways to mix flour, eggs, yeast, and sugar to produce something kind of nice. There are literally infinitely many ways to mix those same ingredients to get something quite horrible.

B. Basic probability theory tells us that the probability of one outcome versus another is simply a result of the number of ways in which each outcome can be generated. If there are a certain number of independent ways to generate outcome 1 and a lot more of generating outcome 2, then 2 has proportionally greater probability. Consequently if there are infinitely many ways of generating outcome 2 but only a finite number for outcome 1, then outcome 1 has zero probability. This is the reason that when one finds a good cake, one jumps to the conclusion that it was made by an intelligent being and not by random chance.

C. If the goodness/beauty in the universe can only come about in a finite number of ways, while non-good outcomes (e.g. lifelessness) can come about in an infinitude of ways, then there is zero probability of good outcomes. Even if both are infinite (evidence suggests otherwise, but leave it for now), the non-good outcome possibilities far outnumber the good outcome possibilities due to the many ways in which any given good thing can be screwed up.

D. We see, and you celebrate, good outcomes in nature. From a random standpoint this is either highly improbable or entirely impossible. Yet it seems to be not just a rare occurrence, but commonplace! Therefore must there not be intelligence guiding these outcomes?

 

 

Just thought I'd throw this out there to see what gets thrown back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) What is it that we love, celebrate, or worship about this universe and all its beauty? Is it the items in your list themselves, or is it something common to all of them that we recognize as worthy of our admiration? (call it 'goodness' or 'beauty' for the moment)

You're aiming for Plato's ultimate good?

 

(2) If the latter, can the universe really not be directed by intelligence? Let me put this question on a more specific footing:

A. For any given thing, there are only a few ways for it to be good, and lots of ways for it to be no good. Example: there are many ways to mix flour, eggs, yeast, and sugar to produce something kind of nice. There are literally infinitely many ways to mix those same ingredients to get something quite horrible.

B. Basic probability theory tells us that the probability of one outcome versus another is simply a result of the number of ways in which each outcome can be generated. If there are a certain number of independent ways to generate outcome 1 and a lot more of generating outcome 2, then 2 has proportionally greater probability. Consequently if there are infinitely many ways of generating outcome 2 but only a finite number for outcome 1, then outcome 1 has zero probability. This is the reason that when one finds a good cake, one jumps to the conclusion that it was made by an intelligent being and not by random chance.

C. If the goodness/beauty in the universe can only come about in a finite number of ways, while non-good outcomes (e.g. lifelessness) can come about in an infinitude of ways, then there is zero probability of good outcomes. Even if both are infinite (evidence suggests otherwise, but leave it for now), the non-good outcome possibilities far outnumber the good outcome possibilities due to the many ways in which any given good thing can be screwed up.

D. We see, and you celebrate, good outcomes in nature. From a random standpoint this is either highly improbable or entirely impossible. Yet it seems to be not just a rare occurrence, but commonplace! Therefore must there not be intelligence guiding these outcomes?

Must it be an intelligence, or may it be that we ARE the part of that Intelligence? Why does that Intelligence have to be separate from the Good that we as "images" can appreciate? Especially if that "goodness appreciation" faculty would be something divine in itself? Doesn't it imply that we are part of God, or we couldn't feel the Divine Goodness? Just asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be several intelligences, if that's what you're asking. The argument implies at least one, but does not speak to their number.

As to whether we are part of that intelligence, the argument doesn't speak to that either. It does, however, imply an intelligence beyond our own. We do not cause sunrises, birds, supernovae, or ourselves. We can produce beautiful things, but we are clearly not the directing agent behind all the universe's beauty.

 

Good to see you again, by the way. I think it's been a couple of years. Hokey religion and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Are you trying to show evidence of god using only word/logic puzzles? Cuz' word/logic puzzles don't actually amount to evidence in themselves... even if you could force a favorable answer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 53 as well. For some reason I thought the majority here were older than I. Hmmmm...

 

 

Kids. Sixty in July. If only wisdom automatically came with age.

 

- Chris

 

I'm starting to feel like a real baby. I'm only 32.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question (or two) based on this line of thought about celebrating the many wonderful things in the universe:

 

(1) What is it that we love, celebrate, or worship about this universe and all its beauty? Is it the items in your list themselves, or is it something common to all of them that we recognize as worthy of our admiration?

 

I think the common thing in them is that they provoke feelings of awe and beauty because on some subconscious level (possibly genetic memory) we recognise that we are all part of nature and belong there.

 

(call it 'goodness' or 'beauty' for the moment)

 

Beauty, fair enough. But I won't call it goodness because this describes a human ethical value and is usually associated with moral action, something that nature is incapable of - but that begs the question anyway.

 

Unless by goodness you mean 'of worth'. But don't confuse the two meanings of goodness.

 

(2) If the latter, can the universe really not be directed by intelligence?

 

why is intelligence needed for the universe to feel beautiful and of worth to us? It could just as easily be a natural consequence of our awareness that we 'come from' nature.

 

Let me put this question on a more specific footing:

A. For any given thing, there are only a few ways for it to be good, and lots of ways for it to be no good. Example: there are many ways to mix flour, eggs, yeast, and sugar to produce something kind of nice. There are literally infinitely many ways to mix those same ingredients to get something quite horrible.

 

Our opinion of what is nice or horrible is quite subjective. Oh, and there are many aspects of nature that are horrible to us as well. Maggots and mould anyone?

 

B. Basic probability theory tells us that the probability of one outcome versus another is simply a result of the number of ways in which each outcome can be generated. If there are a certain number of independent ways to generate outcome 1 and a lot more of generating outcome 2, then 2 has proportionally greater probability. Consequently if there are infinitely many ways of generating outcome 2 but only a finite number for outcome 1, then outcome 1 has zero probability. This is the reason that when one finds a good cake, one jumps to the conclusion that it was made by an intelligent being and not by random chance.

 

but there are many horrible things in nature also - plus there are clearly evolutionary reasons why we would find grass, trees and sunshine aesthetically appealing.

 

C. If the goodness/beauty in the universe can only come about in a finite number of ways, while non-good outcomes (e.g. lifelessness) can come about in an infinitude of ways, then there is zero probability of good outcomes. Even if both are infinite (evidence suggests otherwise, but leave it for now), the non-good outcome possibilities far outnumber the good outcome possibilities due to the many ways in which any given good thing can be screwed up.

D. We see, and you celebrate, good outcomes in nature. From a random standpoint this is either highly improbable or entirely impossible. Yet it seems to be not just a rare occurrence, but commonplace! Therefore must there not be intelligence guiding these outcomes?

 

 

Just thought I'd throw this out there to see what gets thrown back.

 

hmm... I don't really agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be several intelligences, if that's what you're asking. The argument implies at least one, but does not speak to their number.

As to whether we are part of that intelligence, the argument doesn't speak to that either. It does, however, imply an intelligence beyond our own. We do not cause sunrises, birds, supernovae, or ourselves. We can produce beautiful things, but we are clearly not the directing agent behind all the universe's beauty.

 

Good to see you again, by the way. I think it's been a couple of years. Hokey religion and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

Oh hell, a hokey ID/Nature debate is breaking out. No, I don't think anybody created it. This ground has been covered soooo many times. Search the threads. I just think nature is beautiful, and I have no doubt than on some other insignificant rock in some other solar system some other smuck is looking up in awe too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be several intelligences, if that's what you're asking. The argument implies at least one, but does not speak to their number.

As to whether we are part of that intelligence, the argument doesn't speak to that either. It does, however, imply an intelligence beyond our own.

Why an intelligence "beyond" our own? If the argument is that we can understand it as an Intelligence, it means it's because we are enough intelligent to understand it. We can understand It because we are It. The argument requires that that we have that particular kind of intelligence that is needed to understand that it is an Intelligence behind it. In other words, we have to be of the same kind of "fabric" or "matter" as The Intelligence, or the argument is on shaky grounds. This would means we are part of this Intelligence, not created by this Intelligence. (Sorry for repeating myself... I'm trying to fix the sentence, but I just woke up and need my first shot of coffee...)

 

Think about it. How can a robot understand beauty? He has to have the spirit or soul of the divine to understand the beauty of the divine. Right? This means, whoever that understands beauty is divine in the soul. We are part of the Creator, not separate.

 

We do not cause sunrises, birds, supernovae, or ourselves. We can produce beautiful things, but we are clearly not the directing agent behind all the universe's beauty.

Does this Intelligence keep on causing these events? So it's not a "first" cause, but a perpetual active cause that causes it?

 

You're saying we're not the "agent" behind causing the universe's beauty, but yet we are the agents that can interpret this beauty. How can a creation have an ability of this kind of divine feature? Is everything divine or just parts?

 

To me, your argument fits to describe the humans as shards of the divine, or branches of this Intelligence, but not that we are created. This however mean that our ability to understand beauty then isn't in itself a proof that it is created.

 

 

Good to see you again, by the way. I think it's been a couple of years. Hokey religion and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

Good to see you too. You probably will see that I have mellowed down... a little. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do I worship?

240x320.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HereticZero... you worship anorexic women with fake boobs? That seems a bit narrow, I feel bad for you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I just kinda dig life and all it has to offer.

 

At 61 - my birthday last week on the day of the great UK earthquake - I'm finding more and more to enjoy. Girlfriends, wine, good company, no kids around any more :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HereticZero... you worship anorexic women with fake boobs? That seems a bit narrow, I feel bad for you. :)

wouldn't want to rain on your parade but that sure as hell ain't anorexic or fake. Do you recognize the picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roseanne Barr?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't worhsip anything.

 

I like sex - but I don't worrship it.

 

I like reading -- but again, I don't worship it.

 

Who knows....

 

I'm pretty usre I do not worship anything

 

Spatz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roseanne Barr?

:lmao:

 

it's Jolene Blalock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roseanne Barr?

:lmao:

 

it's Jolene Blalock

 

Sorry, I have no idea who she is. But it defies nature for a woman that thin to have boobs that big and round without help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Evolution_beyond:

'Beauty' vs 'goodness'.

By 'goodness' I do mean 'of worth'. However, I do not see a distinction between this and 'good' moral actions; we recognize that certain actions are worthy and admirable, and so we call them 'good'. We call people who consistently do these actions 'good people' because we recognize that this is something worthy in a person. We might disagree on which actions are worthy, but 'good' actions are such for precisely the same reason that we admire a good movie, a good painting, a good cake, a good marriage, or a good sunset.

In short, I consider goodness and beauty to be two facets of the same thing. We can call it whichever you prefer.

 

"Our opinion of what is nice or horrible is quite subjective. "

Perhaps, but the argument is actually about good and less good things/outcomes in nature. Surely you don't think these are entirely subjective?

 

 

To Solo:

"Why an intelligence "beyond" our own?"

Because the intelligence in question would have to be what drives outcomes to be good more often than they should be according to their respective probabilities. We do not cause the many 'good' things we see around us, although we are capable of noticing that they happen far more frequently than they should if they were governed solely by probability.

 

As to your point about our intelligence being in some way related to the one that is biasing probabilistic outcomes, I suppose all intelligence is sort of the same: the ability to perceive reality. But perhaps there is a deeper relationship as you suggest, I don't know. Either way it seems to me it is clear that our intelligence is not the one running the universe, and yet some intelligence must be running the universe since otherwise good outcomes would be so rare (in accordance with probability) as to preclude our existence.

 

Does this Intelligence keep on causing these events?

I suppose it could be like that, or else it could be a sort of "set the machine in motion" kind of thing, with the design such that good outcomes are more prevalent than their likelihood would otherwise make them. In the latter case random events would still happen but would not be distributed randomly with respect to good/bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.