Philosophy

I guess I'd say that I am the true pseudo-intellectual. Ha. Psuedo is Greek for false. I made a funny. Seriously, though, I like to make myself seem smart. This is my feeble, pathetic way of doing that. Or not.

Is there a God?

I used to be an atheist. Now the very reliance on logic which led me to atheism in the first place has forced me into reluctant agnosticism. I can't say I'm happy with the development.

In the beginning, after a break from the dogmatic teachings of my parents, I came to the conclusion that there could be no God. I reasoned that everything could be explained thru the use of scientific reasoning. Sure, some of that may have been fueled by a hatred for authority or a basic need (desire) for independence. That's in the past though, so I needn't worry about it (those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it).

I studied atheism with the vigor that I attack my every obsession with. Knowledge shall set you free. I knew and know every way to refute all the various structures of faith. I could and can point out the five flaws of Pascal's wager and knew every way to argue every arguement against those arguments. The Internet, as with all things, became a source of power and a path to victory. I had everything locked down.

Then the thinking began that I couldn't prove that God doesn't exist. So what? I asked myself. The burden of proof lies solely on the shoulders of those professing a beleif contrary to logic and the senses. Then the far more disturbing thought came: I have faith in logic and my senses.

In the end, I rely on faith to get thru life. That hurts. Just because my truth feels like the truth, it doesn't mean that it is. There isn't nessecarily a truth to begin with. Wait, I lied, there is one.

Cogito, ergo sum

I think, therefore I am.

The reasoning is that thinking is an activity which we are doing, and it's impossible for something to do nothing (there is no cause without effect). Descartes (the man who issued that famous line) took it a little further than that and used it as proof of the existence of God. This is the highly abbreviated summary (he wrote a book about this):

  1. I think, therefore I am.
  2. I am, therefore something is.
  3. Things exist, therefore there is a sum of all things.
  4. The sum of all things is God.
(Off topic, this is a classic psuedo-intellectual technique. By saying that this is a summary of his book, I give the impression that I have read said book. I don't read old texts filled with outdated ideas (except Origin of Species). I've read one paragraph from this book. After that I dived for the Cliff Notes. Beware the summarizations of the illiterate.)

There are obviously a number of problems with that train of thought, but he made the effort. I was sure that this was something, maybe the only thing, that was true. One truth implies many. Maybe my faith in logic and sense wasn't faith at all.

Then I got into an arguement with my sister about Descartes' infamous statement. She said she didn't beleive it. I thought at first that she just didn't get it. Then I realized that a thought like that is a sure sign that you're holding too tighly to a belief. It was the classic, "No, you don't get what I'm saying. If you understood my point, you would instantly convert to my belief/cause." Great. So I've come to the realization that I'm too dependent on Descartes. I am once again placed in the precarious position of having faith.

I've given up hope of an ultimate truth. I'm left with only faith, and it hurts to have to say that. How many people truely wish to not have faith? A complete lack of faith would make for an insane individual. That option is out. On the other hand, complete faith (or a lack of doubt) also makes for a crazy and quickly dead person. I live somewhere in the middle. I don't think that the world was created five minutes ago, but I don't know what tomorrow holds. Am I worse off than the believers? If I can't change, does it matter?

Home

1