Southworth Morning

Good morning, all you commuters…

Hipstamatic

Lens: John S
Film: Big Up
Flash: Off

 

Advertisements

~ by ChrissyOne on August 2, 2011.

8 Responses to “Southworth Morning”

  1. It makes it seem like the 6:05 is fun to get up for.

  2. Hi Chrissy , love your site and am a fan of yours from MDN. I posted a reply to the whole GOD discussion there. The article is the one claiming Apple will unveil the iPhone in june. I hope you’ll check out my reply and offer some feedback. And boy, do I wish I were somewhere in that photo witnessing that sunrise! Hope you’re having a wonderful day.

    • We actually almost completely agree. I enjoyed your post, and don’t think you need to be so sorry. 😉

      Here’s my problem.

      When you make the leap from “God doesn’t have to actually exist, as long as people believe it does they can accomplish ‘acts of God'” (which I completely accept) to actually proclaiming that God exists, then you’ve created a way to exploit the human need to feel there’s someone actually at the wheel in this universe. That’s an extremely powerful idea. It can be used wisely, or it can be used monstrously. We as a species haven’t been very responsible with our use of that idea. We’ve used to exploit one another for millennia. And we continue to do so.

      This is the bigger picture of religion that I see. You can try to separate God and religion, But one can’t exist without the other. Remove yourself from your particular franchise and look at world religions as a whole. It’s pretty monstrous. It’s worse exploitation than any government could dream of.

      This is what we get when we start believing in fairy tales. We get ambitious, greedy, selfish humans that co-opt the name of God and use it to lead other humans to do God’s work.

      That can be a soup kitchen, or that can be a plane crash.

      Is one worth the risk of the other? No. Not now that so many of use greedy humans have nuclear weapons. Not at all.

      So there you have it. I agree – God may just be an idea. But it’s a dangerous one, and one I think it’s time we did without. I think we’re almost ready.

  3. Hi Chrissy, I’m sorry that I haven’t replied until now. I’ve been on a Facebook bender. Thanks so much for replying back to me. Definitely can see it from your point of view, but see GOD as something more all encompassing. Seeing a Aurora makes me think, that while we certainly know how and even where they exist, we don’t know or have the purpose for them. Everything must have a purpose, correct? You don’t have to reply, since I have 4 days worth of catching up on MDN and Daring Fireball. I’ll see you there (metaphorically of course)

    • It’s possible that everything must have a purpose, but I don’t see that it’s necessary. Some things may have no purpose, they’re just results of things that become dead-ends. Some things may have a purpose that we don’t understand, can’t perceive or can’t measure. The leap to assuming that the purpose is somehow for us, or the result of our ego-centric idea of God, is just arrogant human presumption.
      We fill in the gaps of what we don’t know with what we imagine. We can fill it in with the divine, or we can fill it in with the acceptance of our own limited ability to perceive. At one point we didn’t know the purpose of the tides, or where the sun went at night. We undoubtedly filled in those gaps with some divine purpose, but in time we discovered the larger truth. Everything we learn points to a self-governing universe based on logical (if not fully understood) laws of nature. The role God has to play gets smaller with each new discovery. I’m willing to make the leap that maybe God is just unnecessary to fill in the rest. I think it’s a much more modest leap than the one a deist makes.
      Complexity in the universe generally grows from simplicity. If there is ever an infinitely complex entity to be found, to me it would come at the end, not the beginning. If anything we’re all adding up to God, not the other way around.
      Why would a perfect entity bother creating an imperfect one, then getting all upset at it when it acts imperfectly? It makes no sense, and runs counter to just about everything else we know about the world. But it is a nice, cozy, self-serving paradigm that makes our little lives a bit less terrifying. That doesn’t, however, make it real.
      Your original point about the idea of God being just as powerful as an actual God is perfectly true. Powerful ideas can drive us to all sorts of great works, for good and evil. But we must be careful as a species not to let these ideas change the way we perceive the universe. It can make us stubborn, myopic, and ignorant. It can lead to hate, suffering, and war. And it usually does. The problem is that no matter how right you think you are, there will someone else with a conflicting fantasy that hates you for it.

      The only way to win, is not to play.

    • Why does everything have to have a purpose, ArtimusMacimus. Why is it not acceptable for something to just be? The aurura borealis is a consequence of charged particles funneled into the atmosphere by a magnetic field and interacting with particles to produce photons. It just is.

  4. I believe that you should add an “s” to your handle – Artimus Macimus. Macsimus sounds like Maximus.

    I read your response and, while it is well-written and sound reasonable, it is based upon some fundamental logical flaws and contradictions. If you have spent years pondering this subject and remain unaware of those logical flaws, then I doubt that anything I can say or write will dissuade you from your beliefs. But that was the main point of my post – I do not feel the need to change your mind, because your faith or lack thereof in a higher being is not important to me as long as you do not attempt to force your beliefs upon me. That is, indeed, a fundamental difference. However, as you appear to be a rational and thoughtful individual, I will offer up a few thoughts for your consideration.

    You begin your counterargument with, “God is real. Further more, there is no burden of proof.” You start with your conclusion, which leaves no room for debate and represents a quantification fallacy.

    You then progress directly into a propositional fallacy:

    “Proof implies scientific methodology, which is, by it’s very nature, simply, an abstraction and therefore completely irrelevant. If you insist that science is relevant, than God must also be.”

    That is followed by yet another propositional fallacy – one of affirming the consequent:

    “Why? Well science is just a construct of the mind, nothing more, nothing less. That being the case, the fact we are discussing God (with our minds) must mean God is real.”

    Any yet another propositional fallacy:

    “You may believe in science and not God, someone else may believe the opposite, while I believe in both science and god. Therefore our collective reasoning makes God very real.”

    Under this rationale, everything that is thought of by any individual is “very real.” As a consequence, you argue that God is no more or less real than anything that can be imagined by human beings.

    You ideas regarding “thought” and “metaphysical” constructs are interesting, but can in no way be logically followed to your conclusions.

    You state that, “Science cannot explain that, which is bigger than itself.” The key difference between science and religion is that science attempts to explain the universe through a systematic and verifiable exploration of its substance and behavior. Science works on theories and, by its very nature, invites debate and scrutiny.

    You state that, “science is an abstraction.” That is inaccurate. Just because science uses symbols and such to represent ideas and processes does not make the field, itself, an abstraction.

    You then restate your initial circular argument: “It’s just a part of the thought process, which is just a part of life and which, if life was created, is but a part of God.”

    I do not need to disprove the existence of God. I am not trying to disprove the existence of God. If you read and fully understood my post on this subject, then you would understand that I do not care one way or the other. It is truly not important to me.

    I also have to point out that just because something cannot be proved does not make it false. Similarly, the corollary is not valid – just because something cannot be disproved does not make it true.

    Your argument regarding proselytization is weak. Science seeks the truth. Religion attempts to proclaim the truth.

    And your self-proclaim conclusion is similarly weak and circular: “So to end this, God does exist, if only in our minds. This is not to say that people who believe, only believe in their own thoughts. No, quite the opposite, they are every bit as right as anyone who believes in science. Faith in either is just that, simple faith. Faith is believing something that cannot be explained. Science, for all it’s wonder, cannot explain the mysteries of the mind, much less life and therefore God. The dreams each of you had last night are unexplainable , yet they are no less real as a result.”

    I can only conclude from your statement that everything that can be conceived or imagined is real and right. Therefore, there is no valid debate…on anything.

    You end your post with yet another formal syllogistic fallacy – an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise – as well as a mixture of other logical fallacies. And, yet again, you fail to understand my position. There is no burden of proof upon me, because I neither affirm nor refute the existence of God. I will be more than happy for you to shoulder that burden because it would be a waste of my time.

    If you want to persist in your beliefs and comfort yourself with fallacious logic, then feel free to do so. I believe in everyone’s right to attempt to reason their way towards their own conclusions, as long as they do not attempt to impose those conclusions upon me.

  5. Hi, Chrissy the One and only!

    Thanks for your replies and also those of KingMel. Two of my favorites from MDN. I’ve been listening and learning from you both, from way back when, along with Pedrag and Ampar, not to mention BustingTheScullsOfIdiots.

    Anyway, I consider both of your insights to be useful to me. My beliefs are mine alone and not intended to refute or challenge yours’ in any way. I only wished to convey a different perspective to the discussion as a means to enrich both your thinking, as well as mine.

    I am lacking in formal higher education, as well as being less well read than almost all of my personal friends. Therefore, I often find myself disadvantaged when attempting to convey or articulate my feelings into thoughts that adequately translate into what I feel or what I mean. My arguments often come off as disjointed ramblings. I assure you that I always attempt to articulate in a manor that avoids circular logic and reasoning. However I often do miscommunicate my logic, and for that , I offer my sincerest apologies.

    As a self taught man, this is how I learn. Intellectual discourse has always intrigued me and has taught me how to think rather than what to think. It’s my assumption that this would true for both of you as well. So, again I say Thank You, for sharing your time, intellect and wisdom with me.

    Oh, and finally, thanks KingMel for the suggestion to add the S to my handle. I LIKE IT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: