Scott Adams, I Love You
May 15, 2007
Scott Adams recently had cause to uncover the great philosopher Baruch Spinoza. I must say that my religious beliefs mirror his quite nicely. The universe is God. I believe in the universe. Therefore, I believe in God. Yae God!
In keeping with Scott's great format, I will predict that Draz will offend someone in my comments.
The picture is very relevant.
Permalink |
Add to delicious |
8 Comments
| Tagged: Dilbert, ScottAdams, Blogs
Draz 2007/05/17
I agree with you on the last point about me offending someone, but as I just finished a class on Philosophy of Mind and Body, I would like to expand the first part, mostly because this will be the only chance I'll ever get to use this information.
Spinoza's argument is mostly a rebellion against Cartesian Dualism, which states that every human has a body which is controlled by an immortal, invisible and immaterial soul. Spinoza argues that there is only one substance in the Universe, namely, matter. Because there is only one substance, if there is a God, it must be made of the same stuff everything else is. Thus, Spinoza equates God to be the same as what we call Nature or Reality as a whole.
There are a few downsides to subscribing to this materialist god system. First, because everything is caused by material causes which are held to a set of physical laws, there is no free will. There cannot be free will in a system of pure physical interactions. There can also be no hope of an afterlife as we typically perceive it, because nothing of the purely physical human survives death. Lastly, there can be no morality in this system because all of our actions are predetermined by purely physical causes. If I rob a bank, it wasn't my choice, but the result of all physical causes up until that point in time.
Anyway, from a practical standpoint, I think Spinoza falls in a bit of a no-man's land between extremes. If I really wanted to make a leap of faith and believe in a God, I'd pick a system with a more generous severance package (like an afterlife). If I wanted to believe in a purely scientific system, I'd go for something like Central State Materialism.
Andy 2007/05/17
I think the norsemen had it right. Hail Thor!
This post brought to you by the country of Poland. Yay Poland!
Jordan T. Cox 2007/05/17
Yae for Andy in Poland! Seen any good red poles over there? Get it? Red poles! You know, to stack on?
Draz; You have not offended me. Sry. I'm not firm in any of my beliefs, so these may change depending on the cycle of the moon. At the moment, however, I don't really believe in free will. I am a scientist at heart, and do believe that if you were put into the exact same situation* as you were when you wrote that comment - you would have written the exact same comment.
As to morality, lack of free will does not negate morality. It is the confluence of events leading up to your actions that cause you to act in a moral way - not whether you chose to or not. If you chose to rob a bank, it was because the system of events that shaped your brain and mind were arranged in such a way so as to cause you to rob the bank. You could even argue this on a nature-vs-nurture level, where Spinoza might argue on nurture (the system built you!) as opposed to a nature (your soul chose to rob that bank!).
In the bank instance you, that specific part of the giant universe-system, were a malfunctioning part much the same as a bad spark-plug in your car and should be removed from the system accordingly.
* Including never having written the comment itself, or having read my response, or eaten that peanut butter and cat sandwich that you're eating right now.
Draz 2007/05/17
Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Peanut butter and JELLY. I didn't spend six hours trapping, pulverizing and preserving those cats for nothing.
It still negates morality, because there is no standard to act by and no reason to behave a certain way instead of another. If you read down in that fun wikipedia article, "Spinoza held a relativist's position, that nothing is intrinsically good or bad, except to the extent that it is subjectively perceived to be by the individual. Things are only good or evil in respect that humanity sees it desirable to apply these conceptions to matters." Therefore, me robbing a bank is just as good and natural as any other part of the system. It wasn't a malfunction of the system because it had to happen. That's my defense in court and I'm sticking to it.
Anyway, I don't really have a problem with people believing in a purely material system. I'm undecided myself. I just think that if you're a scientist at heart, you have to believe what the evidence supports. Current scientific evidence supports there being a purely material system, but there is no evidence that God = Reality. In order to believe that, you have to make a substantial leap of faith. And if you're going to make said leap, then you might as well go all out.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go rob a bank.
Jordan T. Cox 2007/05/17
Aaah, I suppose I am seeing what you mean. I'm not saying that I am totally Spinoza'ean, just that certain aspects match with my own. I will attach the word God to whatever I please. :)
Draz, how many gold bars did you steal?
Draz 2007/05/20
Over 9,000!!!!!!
Jordan T. Cox 2007/05/20
Is that over Nine-Hundred Tens?
Draz 2007/05/20
Damn it Jim, I'm an English Major, not a Math Major.