Posted: Sep 15, 2013 12:13 am
Quaker wrote:Just to say 'hello'
I'm interested in all ways people make sense of the universe, their lives, suffering, joy, etc,. from Atheism to Zoroastrianism.
Well first, I need to correct an elementary error, namely the idea that atheism is a "world view", in the sense of being founded upon assertions treated as axioms. The opposite is the case. Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". Asking others to support their assertions isn't a "world view", it's the proper conduct of discourse. If the tone of that exposition I've just provided seems rather harsh to you, bear in mind that I've been dealing here with some of the more duplicitous brands of ideological stormtroopers for doctrine, and the mendacious tactics they employ to try and achieve hegemony for their assertions.
Another elementary principle I shall impart here, which you should find to be of considerable utility value during your tenure here, is this: assertions are not facts. A principle that quite a few supernaturalists seem to be oblivious to. Ultimately, alll assertions, when erected, possess the status "truth value unknown". The determination of that initially unknown truth value is the remit of proper discourse, and the subjection of the assertions in question to test.
Quaker wrote:I have explored a few along my way and currently have a home in Quakerism because of its acceptance that we all need to find our own paths which may be highly spiritual or not, but that what matters most are the values we adopt in daily life.
I'll cover this topic in more detail when addressing your second post.
The point being made here, and one I agree with, is that it doesn't matter how many people hold a particular principle. If that principle is either at variance with observational reality, or the source of avoidable harm inflcited upon others, then that principle needs to be changed. I gather the history of the Quaker movement includes instances of people seeking to do precisely that. See, for example, Josiah Wedgwood, who was a prominent anti-slavery campaigner, and as part of his efforts to see slavery abolished, he produced this famous artwork:
Indeed, I gather that a major motivation amongst the Quakers involved in the abolitionist movement, was their direct observance of the avoidable harm inflicted upon those cast into slavery. One non-Quaker clergyman who personally witnessed the brutality of the slave trade, and was moved to act toward its abolition, was James Ramsay. You'll find this theme appearing in several of my past posts, namely the evidential basis for ethical precepts.
Quaker wrote:Without considering the importance of values it would seem that you'd have no basis for society, laws, social welfare, etc.
You should find my above remarks address this.
Quaker wrote:Or perhaps you consider those values part of a provable truth
One of the fundamental ideas I've just introduced you to above, is the idea of evidential support for or against a given principle. Which, as I've just expounded, was of considerable utility value with respect to the abolition of slavery, a cause that was a major Quaker theme in the late 18th century, and continued to be thus through to the present.
Quaker wrote:As for whether Quakerism is relevant or not. Most of the time it probably is totally irrelevant to you. It' not a way of life that feels a need to force itself on others, though we do peacefully oppose violence and oppression.
My personal position is that supernaturalist assertions are irrelevant to my view of the world. This does not, however, prevent me from appreciating the good work of some supernaturalists in the past, even if I regard their reasons as grounded in error. Indeed, as long as you and others of your persuasion continue to work toward a just and equitable society, I for one will happily support you in this, even if I disagree with your views on supernatural entities.
Excuse the tendency of some of us here to engage in robust humour. It's a feature of the board culture.
Quaker wrote:The other way of looking at it is that it is a community that supports people to explore their faith rather than having to have already accepted particular dogma.
And at this point, another exposition of ideas enjoying some currency here is apposite, whilst welcoming your above-stated rejection of doctrine, a subject that has been the focus of a good number of my past posts.
First, there is the matter of how the word "faith" is regarded here. I and numerous others contend that faith is nothing more than the treatment of unsupported assertions as purportedly consituting fact. As a corollary, I and others here dispense with it altogether. The behaviour of all too many supernaturalists in this regard is considered to be compelling evidence for this hypothesis.
Indeed, one of the ideas that I have been expounding here for some time, is that all doctrines are to be rejected, because they are founded upon one or more unsupported assertions, treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world, regardless of whether or not the world agrees with their treatment thus. You may find this idea consonant with your own thinking in the light of your above statement.
Another idea I drop into my posts on numerous occasions, is the notion that mythology does not necessarily equal history (or science, for that matter). Whilst mythologies are not erected in a conceptual vacuum, and may draw upon some of the more spectacular real world observations as source material for their storylines, they are inevitably replete with assertions of vast concetpual magnitude, almost all of them presented as purportedly contituting established fact. I refer you to my opening exposition of the relevant elementary principle at this point.
Quaker wrote:As it happens my faith is quite similar to many more traditional Christians, but I have very much welcomed the opportunity to question and explore it. Many Quakers then do find a very settled faith, so it's not like they cannot ever decide, but they do not feel they must all agree on doctrine in the same way as a confessional church. The Quaker values ('testimonies') of truth, equality, justice, simplicity and peace do bind people together even when elements of doctrine differ.
I suspect it requires considerable effort not to let doctrine take over. As doctrines have a pernicious habit of doing if not carefully watched. You'll find I've discussed the aetiology at length in numerous past posts.
Quaker wrote:Briton wrote:Of course values are important but doesn't matter how high the values a particular belief system might have; that would be be irrelevant to me if it's based on myth. Didn't mean Quakerism in particular.
Hi Briton
I see things from a different angle. I actually see another person's beliefs as much less relevant than the values they hold. Whether someone believes the Earth is flat or an oblate sphere matters much less to me than whether they pursue or oppose equality, justice and peace.
Ah, so your primary concern is ethics. I refer you to my exposition above on slavery, and the notion that principles stand or fall on the basis of consonance with reality and dispensation of benefit.
But at bottom, one has to ask oneself, does accepting suitably euethical principles necessarily require acceptance of unsupported assertions? I contend not.
Quaker wrote:This perhaps has strengths that moral philosophy lacks (it can be quite impenetrable for many).
You'll find that a couple of our number here have not only studied ethics formally, but strive to make its principles accessible.
Quaker wrote:Myths may also have truth to them, possibly.
I'm minded to be duly sceptical of this assertion.
Quaker wrote:I've yet to see a way we can be absolutely sure of what is good or not, though we do seem to, individually and corporately, have some kind of moral compass.
I refer you once again to the notion of evidence of benefit or harm arising from a given principle.
Quaker wrote:iamthereforeithink wrote:Welcome to the forum! Quakerism is something that was probably a good idea in the 1600s. In 2013, not so much, IMO. Currently, there are better methods available to make sense of the Universe.
If you are talking about science as a way of exploring the universe then almost all Quakers embrace science.
Be advised in advance, that we have frequent dealings with supernaturalists who don't. Who, moreover, employ duplicitous apologetics in their pursuit of various doctrines. This is the reason why you'll see instances of ""launch on warning" responses to certain phrases that have become associated here with said duplicitous apologetics.
Quaker wrote:Remember that it was a Quaker (Sir Arthur Henry Eddington) who provided the empirical evidence to test and then support Einstein - against the British scientific community at the time who had difficulty accepting that a German, in times of great tension between our countries, could provide a better model for the universe than perhaps England's greatest ever scientist (Newton).
I suspect that your evaluation of some of our past physicists is some way off the mark here, particularly any who were at the time familiar with Noether's Theorem.
Quaker wrote:On the other side, it is true that few Quakers would see science as the only way to explore our universe and our place and values within that universe.
Except that, as I and several others would contend at this juncture, science is the one means that has demonstrated itself to be reliable.
Quaker wrote:As it is often said it is very hard to get directly from an 'is' to an 'ought'.
I would contend once again, that proper evaluation of evidence solves this problem.
And with this, I bid you welcome, even though you may be reading this last sentence of mine somewhat sardonically in the light of the above.