Where Perception Meets Speculation

This is in regard to my last post in which I indicated I had more to say but needed more time to assemble my thoughts.

This is what I wrote:

It's a need, like eating, breathing, procreating. It can be ridiculed or applauded, but that doesn't change its nature. Just as some folks control what they eat (calories, animal products, lactose), so anyone is free to control their beliefs. What they can't stop doing is believing, just as no one can stop eating (without undesirable consequences).

These are my thoughts:

As elementary as it sounds, and as much as I don't like it (because it's overused and simplistic), this really distills down to "everyone believes something."

That much is true.

The point where perception meets speculation is where it gets messy.
Speculation is necessary for survival, advancement, and understanding ourselves and the world around us. ("I wonder if tigers eat people?" "I wonder why humans and primates have so much in common?" "I wonder what's on the other side of those mountains?")

The distinction between the religious and nonreligious (or irreligious or atheist or progressive or skeptical - any will serve, it depends on the person claiming the title) can be illustrated by a few broad examples.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to term the two sides this way:[1]

1. Supernaturalists
2. Naturalists

This is how each might respond to these familiar questions:

Who built the pyramids?
Supernaturalists:
     Ancient astronauts.
Naturalists:
     Tens of thousands of Egyptian slaves.

How did we get here?
Supernaturalists:
     God made us.
Naturalists:
     Evolution, electrochemical processes, panspermia, etc.

When does life begin?
Supernaturalists:
     At conception.
Naturalists:
     At personhood.

Each of these questions probably got you thinking about about how wrong one side or the other is, or you may have been debating my sample answers, "No, Clarence, you got that wrong, there's more to it than that." If you didn't believe anything, you wouldn't have engaged any of these question on any level.

So we can dispense with if we believe; it's the what that's interesting, even if you believe only that you don't believe what others do.

I've come to the point where I can entertain ideas others consider stupid and not be worried.

I'm also to the point where I can exchange one idea for anther and be quite happy that I've found an explanation and an internal response that is more satisfying than the last (both are important - the cognitive and responsive aspects). It's a sort of scientific method for self-awareness, and we all do it even if we think we don't[2]. (Read that paragraph again.)

It's no coincidence that a milestone on my path is Dad's death, and another Easter; anyone looking for earthly signposts along my journey will find them; but they are collective nudges. not forks.

Faith starts as internal transformation, through which others are transformed. Too many Christians view Christianity as primarily a tool to transform others ("win souls," as they say).

I am sorta kinda assuming a parallel path to where my family walks and has walked for generations, but it is not due to the pastors and churches and services I've experienced. It's despite them, and that is too bad.[3]

I'm still looking for a compelling secular ethic. There are many attempts at it, I just haven't found one that convinced me it's anything more than a delusional feelgood ethic for skeptics. And I don't believe those that espouse them believe them or, if they do, have critically examined them. And if the skeptic says he has simply "found an explanation and an internal response that is more satisfying than the last." he's on the same road I'm on, and I welcome him along for the ride.

In fact, we're all on that road. And that's okay. Maybe recognizing that is the first step towards less fear, less shouting, less hate, less killing.

[1]
Lots of options here, like noumenists, numenists (different concepts), phenominalists, etc. I want the words to remain accessible and not slow things down here.

[2]
This is especially true of extremes, eg staunch Christians and staunch atheists. I've also found it to be the case that one can turn into the other rather easily; my guess is that personality traits accounts for this.

[3]
A number of years ago, I told a former friend, "If this were the 60's, I'd've been a Jesus Freak." He said, "Oh? How's that different from now?" He was not being kind.

Don't know where else to put that observation, so I'll end this post with it.

Started: 2012-04-08