Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Neutral Position


MathGeek

Recommended Posts

Well folks, I took the plunge a while back. Here is the link.

The sound quality is poor, so you may have to jack the volume up on your PC.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddzoUaT9Zw

 

Hope you find it enlightening and worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathgeek, good to see you and hear your voice. I listened to it twice. I turned up the volume on my computer as far as it would go and the last paragraph, which graphicsguy wrote out, was all I could hear plainly. I gather it was your first video so maybe next time will be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an idea. Care to post the transcription here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The transcription...

 

Hey folks, my name is opinionhead444, but for the sake of convenience and I am going to refer to myself as Opinionhead. I call myself this because I have a head full of ideas that are driving me insane, sort of like what happened to that guy who lived on Maggie's Farm.

 

Anyway, I mostly make poorly edited and excruciatingly slow-moving music videos of songs that I particularly like, but this is my first video in which I actually have something to say of value, for positive or for negative depending upon the point of view of the current audience.

 

This is sort of my addition to the blasphemy challenge I guess: I am an agnostic.

 

I can deny the Holy Spirit, but can I really say that he doesn't exist?

 

I wonder sometimes. If there are about 2 billion people in the world which believe in that spirit in sky, than there must be some validity to it?

 

Of course, how about the 1 billion or so souls that believe in the spirit called Allah?

 

How about those countless billions who believe or disbelieve in the other religions?

 

From my stunted standpoint, that means there 6 billion individuals viewpoints that could likely be consulted in regards to matter of metaphysics.

 

And we all know it, not scientifically, but intuitively, that no consensus on anything metaphysical can be reached by the totality that is the human race.

 

Just watch the videos that litter the YouTube landscape. Muslim, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics and the like have something to say. It is really rare to find two Christians and two Atheists to believe in the same exact tenets that exist within mental framework that carry the aforementioned names. Really, the only time that such an event may occur is if one of each opinion-holder is brainwashed to be in lockstep with the other.

 

So, the main reason why I am an agnostic is because of the existence of subjective experience. The existence of the individual point-of-view proves to me why I am stuck in the self-proclaimed, by me, "neutral position" of the disbelief spectrum.

 

This stems from the simple fact that stories of conversion and de-conversion come from that perspective. They really are the only evidence for the subsistence of a given deity despite the holy texts and appending writings that give the deity prior credence. Routinely speaking, most people are introduced to a given deity through some other individual perspective like a parent or a friend. From there, the individual makes careful or rash judgments on whether or not to accept or reject the credence of the given deity.

 

Even more so, how does one explain how an individual may leave a given religion for disbelief or vice versa? What causes this phenomenon? I have yet to find a real answer to this, but my own speculation has led me to believe that individual body chemistry accepts a set of beliefs that somehow makes the system become more optimistic and well-regulated. In other words, some people just need religion to function well and some people do not.

 

So, if you made it all the way through this rather mundane, somewhat shoddily-scripted effort, you may understand why I, you or some person might believe what they believe. By and large, we are products of our environment and we all have needs that can only be satisfied through means that may or may not be acceptable to somebody else.

 

Does this mean I am totally right? Of course not.

 

This just means that my perception has been voiced, nothing more. You are allowed to agree or to disagree with me all you want.

 

Feel free to respond with a video or a comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the main reason why I am an agnostic is because of the existence of subjective experience. The existence of the individual point-of-view proves to me why I am stuck in the self-proclaimed, by me, "neutral position" of the disbelief spectrum.

I guess that makes some sense to me Mathgeek. I am convinced there is an objective reality. I am convinced that there are relations between phenomena that are independant of our perceptions of them. But I don't believe we ever actually know this objective reality in full. And we oursleves are never truly objective in my opinion. Even our most objective of endeavors, hard science, employs models which are inseperable from purely subjective inferences.

 

I have pretty much resolved it within myself that all I'll ever have is my subjective experience. But given that I am still able to sense the world, draw inferences, and more or less accurately predict what the world may be, it seems like enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Legion. I am of the belief that objectivity exists but it only can be viewed subjectively. Things may be gauged accurately, but I don't think there is a real true precision when it comes to observing nature, let alone human behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MathGeek, thanks for posting the transcription.

 

I agree with you, Legion. I am of the belief that objectivity exists but it only can be viewed subjectively. Things may be gauged accurately, but I don't think there is a real true precision when it comes to observing nature, let alone human behavior.

 

We observe enough with precision to measure, discuss, and predict both nature and human behaviour with remarkable levels of reliability. If someone needs more than that, then I guess we may not be able to meet your requirements. However, the fact that this can be done interpersonally across time, geography, and language with many different kinds of media tells me that there is something outside of my brain. Of course, I can never acertain what people mean by subjectivity and objectivity. I just know there's stuff out there to observe, measure, discuss, report, etc. And I know I'm not alone in thinking this because there's lots of people to do it with. Then again, there's lots of people for whom this abstract theorizing is not the stuff of life and that's okay. I just ask that they not denigrate what they don't understand or enjoy just because it's not their own cup of tea.

 

Had we as a species not mastered high levels of precision in measuring the natural world we would not have computers or the internet, or even motor vehicles. Had we as a species not mastered significant levels of precision in measuring human behaviour, we would be unable to deal with mental illness at all. Much room for improvement may be left for future generations, but only the most uninformed and naive can claim not to know that important advances have been made in the past century where it regards mental health and medicine, and neurology, etc.

 

If everyone wanted a PhD in abstract theory, obviously the world would grind to a halt. It is good that not everyone wants that. However, to denigrate abstract theory just because you personally don't want or understand it, LR, is unethical. I've stated many times that I don't have the brains for math or science but am I ever glad some people do. I love my computer and internet. MathGeek, I owe a lot to people with brains like yours. Keep up the good work. :3:

 

PS I'm not sure on what level you're teaching but teaching math on whatever level is vital to our society. If I'm not mistaken, it's also one of the oldest--if not THE oldest--disciplines of human knowledge/science in continuous use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sort of my addition to the blasphemy challenge I guess: I am an agnostic.

 

I can deny the Holy Spirit, but can I really say that he doesn't exist?

 

I wonder sometimes. If there are about 2 billion people in the world which believe in that spirit in sky, than there must be some validity to it?

 

Of course, how about the 1 billion or so souls that believe in the spirit called Allah?

 

How about those countless billions who believe or disbelieve in the other religions?

 

From my stunted standpoint, that means there 6 billion individuals viewpoints that could likely be consulted in regards to matter of metaphysics.

And we all know it, not scientifically, but intuitively, that no consensus on anything metaphysical can be reached by the totality that is the human race.

 

What about this idea: Maybe our brains evolved in such a way that we experience an illusion of "something out there" when it really is all inside our own brains. Here's something scientific that supports this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, to denigrate abstract theory just because you personally don't want or understand it, LR, is unethical.

Ruby I don't denigrate theory at all. In fact, my favorite scientist to date was a theoretical biologist who employed some fairly abstract descriptions of organisms. And I revere and enjoy mathematics. I think they are an inseperable aspect of the explicit understanding that we find in many of the natural sciences. I think you may have misunderstood me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, Ruby. I don't find such a scientific explanation about religious catharsis all that surprising. If I did some digging, I bet I could find some other explanations as to why people believe what they do. Thank you for that link.

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.