Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (51215)	6/2/1999 6:43:00 PM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

"Or, is it enough to say that this is a mystery that doesn't have to be explained at the moment?" Exactly. Reflecting on life leads one to many unanswered questions: What is life? How did it come into being? What is the nature of the universe? How big is it? How can it be infinite? If it's not, then what's outside of it? For that matter, how did the universe come into being? There are many ways to explain away these unanswered questions, and the most common is through religion. But I have yet to see a religion that has any evidence to support their answers to these (and many other) questions. Most religions simply posit an answer, then insist on the infallibility of that answer. Ultimately their answers are not based in fact, they're based in myth. I simply choose to leave unanswerable questions unanswered. In lieu of facts to support their views, I simply cannot just accept their answers. I just accept that I do not know and let it go at that. I understand that when I die, either I will find out what the truth is, or I will be dead and it won't matter. As an example, let's look at the Christian creation myth. Christianity states that we, the Earth and everything around us was created by a supreme being. One of the standard arguments in favor of this belief is that the universe and our existence in it are such unlikely and marvelous and complex things that they could not have simply sprung into being spontaneously. However, the belief that they were created by a supreme being requires the assumption that this supreme being just sprang into being spontaneously. Personally I consider the idea that the universe came into being spontaneously and without volition to be no more nor less likely than the idea that God came into being spontaneously and without volition. Since there is no clear evidence to support either view, I don't see where I have any choice but to leave this issue unanswered. I am content to simply live in the world as it is without troubling myself about where it came from or what it means. Now all of this is separate from the other purpose of religion, which is to establish a moral framework within which to live my day to day life. For these answers I have no problem with using religious sources. But I believe the things that I believe because I have applied logical thought to them and found them to be accurate or at least useful. I don't feel that the issue of the divinity of lack thereof of the founder of said religion is in any way significant to the usefulness and correctness of the ethical beliefs they propose. I take as my basic credo the Golden Rule, not because of its source, but because I have seen no more workable guideline for living a good life. I recognize logically that if we were to all follow the Golden Rule, most strife and abuse and discord would not only be wrong, it would be impossible. I could go the secular route and rely on Kant's Categorical Imperative instead, but since I consider this to simply be an unnecessarily complex rewording of the simple and straightforward Golden Rule, I stick with the Golden Rule instead. However, I have found that the best and simplest way to measure my adherence to that rule is through the concept of Karma, so I have also adopted that. I also believe in the value of grace, humility and kindness. These qualities, if one can maintain them, simply make it easier to live by the Golden Rule. I had thought that I had borrowed these concepts from Christianity as well, but of late I have been told quite forcefully that I am a fool for believing so. The actions and attitudes of the self-proclaimed Christian who has told me these things has certainly lent credence to the claim that grace, humility and kindness (along with tolerance and respect and so on) really aren't Christian concepts at all, so I guess I'll have to turn more to Buddhism for examples of these things. At least I have yet to have a Buddhist disparage me for stating my desire to live an ethical life and for stating the tenets upon which I try to live that life. Anyway, enough of that. In summation, there are many unanswered questions about life. Since I don't accept "Because I said so" as a proof of anything, regardless of the source, and because there is no concrete evidence upon which to base any conclusions, I prefer to simply leave them unanswered. That is the heart of agnosticism. I'm okay with it, and I don't see how it hurts anyone else, and that's why I don't understand the fuss. Although it is certainly true that the scorn with which my beliefs have been met has, in my opinion, fairly clearly proven the inadvisability of establishing the primacy of any one faith. I guess that's something. Thank you brees for the simple and non-judgmental question to which I could provide this verbose and undoubtedly self-congratulatory answer. -BLT