This I Believe: Penn Jillette's Wisdom

Comment by Shasta

	From: mothball_07	Date: November 29th, 2005 09:36 pm (UTC)		(Link)

When it comes down to it, which, really, is harder: to believe that a super-simple universe, emergent from nothing, iterating simple physical properties billions and billions of times, brought about all the wonderful complexity you see around you, or that a super-complicated and mightily all-powerful God built a simple and undignified little universe of pain and sorrow, leaving behind no coherent explanation whatsoever?

This does not seem to allow room for third, fourth, and hybrid options. I do not see a conflict between the first view, and the existence of a Unifying Reason and Energy, which is what I see G-d as.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: tagryn	Date: November 29th, 2005 11:22 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I don't find "emergent from nothing" convincing as a "coherent explanation," either. It reminds me of the old joke of a chalkboard full of complex mathematical formulae, then just before the solution is presented there's written on the board as a precursor step: "And then a miracle happens."

Until we can scientifically explain and replicate the creation of matter and energy from nothingness, we're still just mucking around in the realm of theory and faith.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: elfs	Date: November 29th, 2005 11:35 pm (UTC)		(Link)

No, you're mucking around in the realm of doubt. When you start ascribing to it properties you can only assert and not demonstrate, then you're tinkering with hypothesis and faith.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: tagryn	Date: November 30th, 2005 01:18 am (UTC)		(Link)

But it remains doubt only if one limits oneself to questioning assertions, such as by saying "the universe was not created by a Divine Being." That doesn't make a statement about how the universe *did* come into being, it just states a negative. However, when one makes a statement like "[the universe was] emergent from nothing," that's going beyond doubt to making a positive assertion/ascription about the origins of the universe.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: creepingcrud	Date: November 30th, 2005 01:02 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Right, but if someone said, "The universe is not the exfoliated dandruff of an extra-dimensional llama," most people would not take time out of their busy lives to argue with that person. Much like, "The universe was not created by a divine being," there is no evidence either for or against that statement, and yet people seem to find the latter proposition far more objectionable than the former.

Would you be happier if the statement was, "There is no reason for me to even consider the possibility that a divine being created the universe, since there is no evidence that this might be the case, and I could not prove it even if there were?"

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: tagryn	Date: November 30th, 2005 05:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I wouldn't propose dismissing something without any consideration, since that's the defense of ignorance against new ideas. I'm open to considering the idea that the universe was either created, as many theists say, or came spontaneously out of nothingness, as Elf!'s hypothetical antitheist is proposing. But then I'd be expecting sufficient evidence to be presented. My original point remains that if neither side can provide proof it becomes a matter of opinion and faith rather than facts. That's fine, lets just recognize it as such.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: creepingcrud	Date: November 30th, 2005 06:42 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'm not at all convinced that we're discussing the same thing, which means I may have misdirected my initial comment. Is your position, then, that stating that the universe is "emergent from nothing" (as opposed to "came into existence at some point or another, and we're not really sure why or how because we don't know enough to say") is roughly equivalent in validity to proclaiming a belief in a deliberate creative force?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: tagryn	Date: November 30th, 2005 08:38 pm (UTC)		(Link)

More or less equivalent, in terms of what little we factually know about the origins of the universe. It comes back to the problem of explaining how energy and matter can come into existence where they previously did not exist, I think.

There was an interesting article in the current issue of Atlantic Monthly by a child psychologist which touched on why humans feel the need to find intentionality even when there is none, I put a few excerpts up on my LJ. I think that may be part of the answer to your question about why people find the proposition "there is no God" more threatening than denying llamavinity, because it goes against the tendency in human nature to believe in a non-material reality. At least in our culture, that tends to be translated into some kind of belief in God, gods, etc.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: technoshaman	Date: November 30th, 2005 01:46 am (UTC)		(Link)

Interesting that Penn and JMS come up with much the same view.... and that Penn has come up with some wonderful comedy, and JMS a science fiction tour-de-force that, ironically, had a huge spiritual element to it.

Some idiots don't want the godless running things. I don't want those idiots running things, either; bad things happen when folks start shoving religion around. OTOH, Penn Jillette or JMS for president?

Hellyeah. I'd hit that.

We have a word for someone with responsibility who doles out punishment from whim: evil.

HELLyeah.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: acelightning	Date: November 30th, 2005 07:12 am (UTC)		(Link)

Many scientifically-minded Christians say they have no problem believing that their God created the Universe... but not by creating things as we see them today, and back-dating the evidence, or anything that simple. Instead, they believe that their God created the Universe by causing the Big Bang, and including the principles of evolution from the beginning. Maybe he wanted to surprise himself, by seeing how things would evolve. In any case, the "clockmaker god" concept, sometimes called Deism, isn't at all new.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: kenshardik	Date: November 30th, 2005 08:53 am (UTC)		(Link)

I don't believe in God^tm either - and by God^tm I mean "Big White Christian God sitting in his throne up in Heaven with St. Peter and the Pearly Gates and all that stuff". I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make any fucking sense to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God^tm who allows war and despair and starvation and cancer and AIDS and the Holocaust just becasue some chick bit an apple.

Granted, I am a Wiccan, so I'm trying to get in tune to the rhythms of life and the Earth and all. I do believe there's something out there, that all this life and consciousness means something, but I don't think there's one big being in control of everything. Becasue if there is, s/he's a bi-polar fucker.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: kyriani	Date: November 30th, 2005 07:36 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Wow... That essay is simple and stunning. I want to print it out and post it on my wall for inspiration. ^_^ Thanks for the link. ^_^

(Reply) (Thread)


	12 comments or Leave a comment