davids
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 7,956
- Reaction score
- 2,804
Penn Gilette (of Penn&Teller) "What I Believe"
- Thread starter benbradley
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 926
- Reaction score
- 2,300
- Location
- Strawberry Fields Forever
- Website
- www.myspace.com
I don't recall saying it has no use or content. Obviously I'm not very good at saying what I meant. I just meant that anything can be out there and I wouldn't go as far as to say that something is definately not out there. Or even here, for that matter. I hope that makes sense this time.
Higgins
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 414
Universes
If you say "Anything can be out there" you are saying the idea of a universe conveys nothing at all. If you say "Universe" you mean a very big place with some sort of describable contents and you would posit this "Universe" for some reason. If you say "I have a coherent idea of a universe, and anything can be in it...." then something is wrong somewhere in the formulation: either the idea is not coherent or you don't really mean any given thing is equally likely to be anywhere or both.
The common proto-scientific idea of a universe grew up gradually in Western thought. It was defined as a kind of back drop or theoretical emptiness against which religious ideas could be formulated -- a sort of "Toy Model" of a set of places where God's actions could be played out or not played out. In any case, the formulation of the Universe always included the possibility that God's actions were not identical with it, but that each was contingent on the other.
For example, in Medieval Aristotelean physics before 1277:
a) there is no infinite rectilinear motion (ie only a continuous force can move things rectilinearly)
b) there is no vacuum since the force excluding the vacuum is what propells objects that have been moved and continue moving
c) there is only one world and it has no vacua around it
So what if God wants to
a) create another world or
b) move the present world a rectilinear infinite distance
c) create a total vacuum (such as when a world is removed from among other worlds)?
The Bishop of Paris in 1277 declared that God had to have these options
(among others) which meant that for God to act in a Godly way there had to be:
a) potentially uncreated worlds
b) potential vacua outside of this world
So you can see that for God to be God, there have to be areas where potentially He has not yet acted and this region of His potential non-activity is the first proto-scientific idea of a Universe.
see for example:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/
http://www.wmich.edu/gsac/Hilltop P...e/The Effects of the Condemnation of 1277.pdf
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GRASOU.html?show=contents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Grant_(Historian_and_philosopher)
If you say "Anything can be out there" you are saying the idea of a universe conveys nothing at all. If you say "Universe" you mean a very big place with some sort of describable contents and you would posit this "Universe" for some reason. If you say "I have a coherent idea of a universe, and anything can be in it...." then something is wrong somewhere in the formulation: either the idea is not coherent or you don't really mean any given thing is equally likely to be anywhere or both.
The common proto-scientific idea of a universe grew up gradually in Western thought. It was defined as a kind of back drop or theoretical emptiness against which religious ideas could be formulated -- a sort of "Toy Model" of a set of places where God's actions could be played out or not played out. In any case, the formulation of the Universe always included the possibility that God's actions were not identical with it, but that each was contingent on the other.
For example, in Medieval Aristotelean physics before 1277:
a) there is no infinite rectilinear motion (ie only a continuous force can move things rectilinearly)
b) there is no vacuum since the force excluding the vacuum is what propells objects that have been moved and continue moving
c) there is only one world and it has no vacua around it
So what if God wants to
a) create another world or
b) move the present world a rectilinear infinite distance
c) create a total vacuum (such as when a world is removed from among other worlds)?
The Bishop of Paris in 1277 declared that God had to have these options
(among others) which meant that for God to act in a Godly way there had to be:
a) potentially uncreated worlds
b) potential vacua outside of this world
So you can see that for God to be God, there have to be areas where potentially He has not yet acted and this region of His potential non-activity is the first proto-scientific idea of a Universe.
see for example:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/
http://www.wmich.edu/gsac/Hilltop P...e/The Effects of the Condemnation of 1277.pdf
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GRASOU.html?show=contents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Grant_(Historian_and_philosopher)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Guess I missed all that. Maybe, as I stated, you're projecting your own religious views upon his position. It's quite possible to not have a belief but feel the need, when questioned, to defend that belief. That defense does not make the lack of belief a positive belief though.
No, he's explicitly differentiating his belief from a non-belief. He says it's beyond atheism:
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. "
Then later:
"But, this 'This I Believe' thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, 'This I believe: I believe there is no God.' "
This is a positive statement that there is no God. It is not a statement that he simply has no beliefs. He explicitly denies that.
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. "
Then later:
"But, this 'This I Believe' thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, 'This I believe: I believe there is no God.' "
This is a positive statement that there is no God. It is not a statement that he simply has no beliefs. He explicitly denies that.
I've heard the same, and it's quite simply not true.
Atheism is a lack of belief. There is no act of faith to simply lack belief.
Religious people try this one all the time.
I would put it this way. I believe in the extraordinary wonder and indifference of the Universe. Its not even that I do not believe in God, it is that God isn't even in the picture - except as an entirely human construct created in a set of texts of unknown provenance that are open to terrible and frequently fatal interpretation. Gods (and lets face it everyone who believes in a God of some kind cannot be right, ergo, as they all think they are right, they must all be wrong [because each one is mutually exclusive of every other]) exist in people's heads to block out the inevitable Existential Angst that comes with realising that the Universe, its laws and strangeness, are all that there is.
In fact believe is not even the right word, as, all clever philosophical debates about the nature of reality aside (how do I know that I know, etc.), it is not so much a belief as an acceptance of reality.
Thanks, benbradley, for the Penn Teller article. I had somehow missed it. At 70, I’m a latecomer to blogs and blogging and I’ve found few (so far) that contain the insights and quality dialogue of this one … thanks for being.
Penn said: "Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate."
I am richly fed by the ideas and insights of others because, for me, I’ve been able to move away from the conflicting divisive concepts of GOD. I am not atheist, I am a believer, yet my belief has evolved (or degenerated) to the point of rejecting the “well defined God in a box” of religious congregations and organizations. I believe in the wonder and mystery of the universe, in the electro-chemical interactions in the brain, and in what some call “First Cause.” I speak of God in conversations with others for convenience sake, but for me that which we call “God” is a meta-cosmic energy, a sort of all inclusive “IT” which is variously experienced, perceived and imagined by human beings.
"So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something. "
I learn something new almost every day … and the major result is that yesterday’s truths, facts and beliefs continually evolve, are changed, are replaced by even more transient concepts. There’s a great sense of freedom in that! I am no longer driven to be right and there is no need to prove others wrong; no need to convert, to turn them away from their truths and beliefs. Penn seems to find that freedom in believing there is no God and I find it in the idea of an indefinable “God” that conforms to no human concept of reality.
"Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."
I am constantly amazed at the “God-Culture” that insists on crediting and blaming “God” for the stuff of life. In a sense I think we are being tested; the test is this – to discover, develop and use the capacity for intelligence designed into this brain-mind-body construct we inhabit. The suffering and conflicts in the world can be overcome if we could let go of the stuff of religion and politics and put the other “90 percent” of our “brain” to work. Attributing suffering, wars and such to “God” is a weak excuse for refusing to take personal responsibility for the stuff of life on planet Earth. For me, the “IT” has well designed and equipped us to resolve and solve our personal problems and humanity’s problems. We have not yet discovered the necessity of teaching that; we find it easier embrace the insanity of assigning blame and responsibility outside of self.
I am in awe of the “chemical” activity within the neural networks throughout our bodies and the wonder of how the inter-workings of the brain and its electrical/chemical interactions give form and substance to what we think we see and hear. In a very real sense, we live within the illusions created within the brain-mind construct. “The difficulty,” teacher Charles Fillmore once said, “is that the illusion is so real!”
This is some of the momentary stuff of my personal illusion, triggered by the fantastic “illusionist,” Penn Teller, and by your insightful comments on this thread. I live in awe of illusion and in expectation of tomorrow’s illusions … that makes the world, the universe, an exciting place in which to live.
Penn said: "Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate."
I am richly fed by the ideas and insights of others because, for me, I’ve been able to move away from the conflicting divisive concepts of GOD. I am not atheist, I am a believer, yet my belief has evolved (or degenerated) to the point of rejecting the “well defined God in a box” of religious congregations and organizations. I believe in the wonder and mystery of the universe, in the electro-chemical interactions in the brain, and in what some call “First Cause.” I speak of God in conversations with others for convenience sake, but for me that which we call “God” is a meta-cosmic energy, a sort of all inclusive “IT” which is variously experienced, perceived and imagined by human beings.
"So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something. "
I learn something new almost every day … and the major result is that yesterday’s truths, facts and beliefs continually evolve, are changed, are replaced by even more transient concepts. There’s a great sense of freedom in that! I am no longer driven to be right and there is no need to prove others wrong; no need to convert, to turn them away from their truths and beliefs. Penn seems to find that freedom in believing there is no God and I find it in the idea of an indefinable “God” that conforms to no human concept of reality.
"Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."
I am constantly amazed at the “God-Culture” that insists on crediting and blaming “God” for the stuff of life. In a sense I think we are being tested; the test is this – to discover, develop and use the capacity for intelligence designed into this brain-mind-body construct we inhabit. The suffering and conflicts in the world can be overcome if we could let go of the stuff of religion and politics and put the other “90 percent” of our “brain” to work. Attributing suffering, wars and such to “God” is a weak excuse for refusing to take personal responsibility for the stuff of life on planet Earth. For me, the “IT” has well designed and equipped us to resolve and solve our personal problems and humanity’s problems. We have not yet discovered the necessity of teaching that; we find it easier embrace the insanity of assigning blame and responsibility outside of self.
I am in awe of the “chemical” activity within the neural networks throughout our bodies and the wonder of how the inter-workings of the brain and its electrical/chemical interactions give form and substance to what we think we see and hear. In a very real sense, we live within the illusions created within the brain-mind construct. “The difficulty,” teacher Charles Fillmore once said, “is that the illusion is so real!”
This is some of the momentary stuff of my personal illusion, triggered by the fantastic “illusionist,” Penn Teller, and by your insightful comments on this thread. I live in awe of illusion and in expectation of tomorrow’s illusions … that makes the world, the universe, an exciting place in which to live.
Last edited:
I never figured out the 'atheism is a religion' idea.
Even if true, it is a useless concept.
For example, a committed Christian would then have a member of a thousand religions:
1. The 'I believe in the Christian God' religion.
2. The 'I DON'T believe in fairies' religion
3. The 'I DON'T believe in invisible pink unicorns' religion.
If "I don't believe in God" is a religion, then items 2 & 3 in the list above are also religions.
Mac
Even if true, it is a useless concept.
For example, a committed Christian would then have a member of a thousand religions:
1. The 'I believe in the Christian God' religion.
2. The 'I DON'T believe in fairies' religion
3. The 'I DON'T believe in invisible pink unicorns' religion.
If "I don't believe in God" is a religion, then items 2 & 3 in the list above are also religions.
Absolutely. Those people who are certain that Leprecauns don't exist are egotistical. As you point out, how can they say with certainty that something doesn't exist?
Mac
Golem?
I think you've hit the nail on the head, maybe several nails on several heads. But then, what do I know; I'm a beliver but I don't believe in religion or atheism, leprecauns or unicorns ... I do wonder a bit about Bigfoot and and Golem.
Dadburnett
I think you've hit the nail on the head, maybe several nails on several heads. But then, what do I know; I'm a beliver but I don't believe in religion or atheism, leprecauns or unicorns ... I do wonder a bit about Bigfoot and and Golem.
Dadburnett
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,169
- Reaction score
- 1,127
500 years from now, we'll realize that we knew nearly nothing 1000 years ago and little more than that, 500 years from then.
We are continuing to evolve as humans (AW members more than others) and to say for certain that there is or isn't a God is probably a bit premature.
Today, I am personally not a believer in God, and that is based on gambit of experiences that I have had throughout my lifetime. But, I am aware that experiences will continue to happen and insight into those experiences may eventually lead me to a God. It's just at this point in my life, I think it would be wrong for me to think I knew anything for certain.
I truly thank all of you for your POV's!
We are continuing to evolve as humans (AW members more than others
) and to say for certain that there is or isn't a God is probably a bit premature. Today, I am personally not a believer in God, and that is based on gambit of experiences that I have had throughout my lifetime. But, I am aware that experiences will continue to happen and insight into those experiences may eventually lead me to a God. It's just at this point in my life, I think it would be wrong for me to think I knew anything for certain.
I truly thank all of you for your POV's!