Garry - Apr 25, 2007, 1:39p
Hey Nikhil -- great essay and insightful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts... I feel that I've undergone a similar transformation with respect to my understanding of faith. In high school I vividly remember being called a "devil" and that I was "going to Hell" according to the evangelicals in my English class, after delivering a short speech about atheism, agnosticism and deism. What I now realize is that there are truly misguided people who think they're doing the right thing... but really aren't. Likewise, the Harrises and Dawkins of the world.


Seema - Apr 25, 2007, 3:51p
I like the way you have put your thoughts ...i feel the same way about God ... Not completely an Atheist .. maybe agnostic . But I dont think your experiment will work .... Because people who are truly religious ..have FAITH in God and thats something that is beyond logical explanation ....


nikhil - Apr 25, 2007, 9:10p
Thanks for the comment Seema. I agree that faith is not acquired through rational thought, but I do think that it's a highly adaptive trait, in that faith may improve your state of mind. So, I think I could "pretend" to have faith for a month. It's like when you tell a lie and then start believing it - before you know it, it's really affected your worldview. Perhaps faith will do that for the positive...


omar - May 7, 2007, 10:36p
i never liked the idea of the "buck stopping here" as a reason to believe. sure, reduction in uncertainty is all well and good, but that seems a poor reason. the fact that the universe is this wonderful puzzle, with so many unknowns, including the unknown of me and my place, is a wonderful thing, imo.

as to my upbringing: we went to the mosque, and did religious things, but we were very culturally muslim. all my dad's side of the family. and my dad, puttering about with his glass of "tea" was always quite amusing.

i don't think i ever really believed, though all i'm sure about is that i didn't think about it very much.


Lindy Loya - Jul 17, 2007, 7:45p
If you are courageous enough... Ask Jesus, "If You are real, show yourself to me." Are you strong enough to let go of the worship of self and intellect? It's a huge huge liberating leap.... It's like agreeing to let go of caterpillar-hood and becoming a butterfly...

Have you spoken to Hugh Ross with Reason's To Believe? He's an interesting guy.

I'm talking about Jesus the person...not "belief in religion."

We'll see..

LLLL


Leggett - Sep 22, 2007, 10:14a
Thanks for so openly sharing Nikhil. I found your post really evoking. Some random thoughts on related topics...

I like to distinguish between religion and the church. I see the pure part of religion as the belief in something bigger than us to which we can surrender the pretense of control. Where as the church is the part of religion that is man's creation. And as man is not perfect, neither is the church. Still, I left Christianity because of things I didn't like about the church... because I didn't believe it was the only true religion.

So, to Seema's point, I think one can have faith, but just not have a name for it. At least that is how it is for me.

I don't believe that God has a plan for me. I've seen many not try to make their own plans b/c God already had plans. I think it is important to make plans and then watch them evolve and change as life happens. I'm not in control but I have a choice as to how I will respond to life in each moment. Those choices make a difference and in them I have a say in where I will go in this life.

I do believe God has an grand intention for us all. That we are designed such that at our very core is love (some would say this is Jesus living in our hearts). I think that love is there whether or not you call it Jesus.

I don't believe in an afterlife. I think there is plenty of reward in this life for being a good person and see an afterlife as the carrot man often dangles to persuade the masses. I think there is greater comfort to be found in being ok not knowing what will happen after death. To, once again, surrender to the unknown.

I believe there is a force greater than myself... a force that lives in me and you and connects us all. I believe this force is a positive force, but only has a hand in the unfolding of NOW by design, not divine intervention.

And I love discussing all these things. I don't think there is only one true or right way to say all these things we feel. I don't think there is only one true church. I'd rather pour myself into fighting fear and resentment than trying to convince people to change the face/name of their God to my own. I respect and want to learn from the different beliefs and traditions. And somehow, that feels right.


Bruce - Jul 4, 2008, 12:08p
Atheism, the arrogant belief that the universe - wasn't created for us.

Anyway, whether something is nice or not, whether it makes you feel good or not, doesn't influence whether it is actually true.

I would very much have liked a Druidic faith to be true - particularly if it was one that included fun parties at the solstice.

But in the end, the evidence just isn't there, it really does point away from the hypothesis presented by the various religions, and "meaning" if it is based on a lie, is empty.

Now you say that religion works when it comes to meaning. Well, that is a bit like people saying that belief in Santa Clause puts magic into children's lives - it might right up until you realise it is all bullshit.

And you can't stop yourself from realising it, it is something that creeps up on you and that you fight tooth and nail right up until you realise "This just isn't so."

And it isn't the presence of evil. That one can be explained by pointing out that most religions only take their gods' goodwill on the words of their gods, it isn't suffering or pain or any of that.

It is simply the lack of proof, the errors in the holy books, the things that were clearly made up and the history behind the holy books themselves. It is the behaviour of the most religious, whose fiery intensity fills graveyards, and their own back pockets.

Further, let us be honest here, where else in your life are you encouraged to take things on zero evidence? When being asked to give your banking details over the phone?


Stormbringer - Jul 24, 2008, 8:29a
I don't have time to respond to the comments, just to your main article. I have a Weblog posting at Stormbringer's Thunder called "The Arrogant Atheist". What I read here is something that I can appreciate and respect for your frankness and honesty. (Sure, I disagree with your position. Neither of us will lose sleep over that fact.) But you are *not* the AA. Thank you for being, well, real.


www.TheArrogantAtheist.com - Oct 23, 2008, 10:26p
If you're sincerely interested in an answer to the infinite loop of "Why?" without an appeal to the supernatural, read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.


nikhil - Nov 5, 2008, 8:05p
I've read that book (and Fountainhead), and I didn't find any answers to these types of questions there. All I found was more arrogance of the type I described above, the type that forsakes the rest of society for the sake of an elite few. I did like the books as epic stories, just not as moral ones.


Nani - May 20, 2009, 5:35a
Hi MR.Nikhil,

Are you still interested about "Why?" or in God?

If yes, I like to share a small time with you.

"True is True for ever". No matter if anybody believes or not.

Hope to talk you later.

barai.nani@gmail.com






nikhil - May 20, 2009, 7:28a
Hi Nani,

Thanks for the comment. In fact, my views have done a total 180 (have totally flipped) since I wrote this post. Specifically, I spent a month in the Utah desert doing a survival school (called Boulder Outdoor Survival School) in July 2007 (a few months after this was written). In the midst of my starvation and lack of pleasure, I realized that I was extremely lucky: lucky to be alive, lucky to have consciousness, and lucky to have such a comfortable life back home. I'm not sure why, but I came to the conclusion that this is far too lucky to happen by chance. Every time we got some food out there it sort of felt like a gift from God, and ever since I've started praying in thanks before every meal.

Of course, this isn't a solid argument for believing in God, but this experience created a strong foundation for this feeling, this belief, that I can't shake, and that I don't want to shake.

Anyway, that's where I am today. I wrote a bit in a more recent post here: http://nikhil.superfacts.org/archives/2008/11/why_i_believe_i.html

Now that I look back at the comments above, I realize my new view is very consistent with Leggett's view.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts on this.

I'm not sure what your background is, or what kind of life you've had up until this point, but as a coddled American, going to survival school was the best way I've found for answering "why". Afterwards, I had what I think people have called inner peace, which lasted several months. In retrospect, I was so happy just to be alive and to feel the intense pleasure of food that I had forgotten that I once sought happiness - I was so happy that I forgot the meaning of the search for happiness. That search was now meaningless. Unfortunately (perhaps), it pretty much wore off after being in society, I think because of the various social pressures that yanked me this way and that. But it really helped me get out of my head and heightened my awareness of the experience of life.


Louise - Dec 28, 2009, 5:13p
Nikhil, thank you for this thoughtful and open essay. I felt much the same way about God, evil, religion and so on as you describe, without going through the Christian phase first. I guess I was agnostic-verging-on-atheist. I wanted to believe in an afterlife but the basic version of the Old Testament God - anthropomorphic and cruel - stuck in my craw. Things changed for me when I met people who were, for want of a better term, Spiritualists. I've had experiences then which the Dawkinses of this world would dismiss as delusions, but which I am satisfied are very real (and it's not for want of questioning them!). I've got to a point where God is not a glorified human and certainly not actively involved in the world, causing miracles and the like. I don't think that sort of thing is necessary to believe in God, though my belief is more like deism, I guess. At any rate I hope you find whatever form of belief - in God, or not in God - that works for you, that brings your mind happiness and peace. Your point about religion (or faith, which isn't the same thing) working is a good one, something the more aggressive anti-religionists ignore. And surely it's what people do with their beliefs, ethics, worldview, that matters.


ramu - Nov 13, 2011, 4:28a
Hello,
I am ramu..I firmly beleve in god.
You may ask about th e existence of god?But have a deep look at your soul...A soul is definitely there....
How it is?
look at many people in this universe....from birth to death...
some will get gold spoon at their birth
and some will get nothing.....
Have a look at the disturbances in life...some will fall sick suddenly,
some will die in accidents unfotunately,
some will suddenly become rich after
a sudden ...Some will loose their entire progeny due to many reasons....
So, just think about yourself,,,,
You can't destroy the nature....You can't give life for the dead..You can't bring back the lost one....whether he may be any one rich or poor....or any ...

You may tell these above porpositons are natural discussed in science....
But I would like to have a question///

"Why ALL BAD OR GOOD THINGS SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU"?

THis is due to KARMA of the previous birth...A life will take place according to ur KARMA says HINDHU PHILOSOPHY......Please realise this////

Read many Hindhu philosophy books..you will get back the details....


Finally IF "U " exists then " ALL EVERY THING EXISTS"....
If u are impotent ,,,,,definitely some one is "POTENT"...i.e.God........
Finally ,, ,,,,,Science is proved using all the theorems and principles....and u believe after the
experimentation is done.......
But a philosophy is proved when a person realises on his own expectations and examinations....
If U have any questions ,,,please mail me at ramu2277888@gmail.com

Name
Comment
	Thanks! Your comment will be published in a few minutes.

omar - May 9, 2007, 12:30a
i feel like i should be able to comment on your about me page and make sassy statements like "oh no you didn't!" and "google video? where's that shiiiite!" :)

Name
Comment
	Thanks! Your comment will be published in a few minutes.

omar - May 4, 2007, 7:23a
a long time ago i read stuff by john rawls, the famous political philosopher who wrote "A Theory of Justice" which sparked nozick to write "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" which put forth libertarianism as an alternative to rawls' liberalism. fascinating stuff -- especially nozick's examples, which really gets one thinking that the minimal state might not be so bad. you may want to read a bit of rawls and nozick to get the gist of their argument.

i was going to say something else but i suspended my computer and have now awoken and can't remember what...


nikhil - May 7, 2007, 11:41p
thanks omar - i'll look up the two write-ups you recommended and let you know what i think after reading them.


dan - Jan 19, 2008, 7:28a
As a man who runs a business I came to the conclusion many years ago and from pratical experiance that Capitalism is not Free Enterprise. Capitalism abhors competitions, and it's not the State that's the probem, it's simply that Capital and power centralize. I consider myself a Left Libertarain. Libertarians from the econimic side are disatrously naive.


Russ - Nov 17, 2008, 7:45p
Most non-libertarians like yourself find it necessary to define libertarian thinking(usually incorrectly or incompletely) before tearing it down. And it's strange, but most of the attempts to describe libertarian thinking (at least the attempts that originate from non-libertarians) attempt to define it in a sort of hyper-pure form, the impractical and unbending idealogy that can only make sense to radical ego-centrists. Imagine if I attempted a dissertation on "pure democracy" or "pure communism" or "pure capitalism"? Our world has never seen any one of these pure ideals put into practice on the ground. And so it is with libertarianism. So why not consider a society that puts personal liberty and responsibility first and social service issues second (instead of abandoning them)? I therefore respectfully suggest that you stop discounting libertarianism as an impractical idealogy and start considering the profound positive influence it could have on a free society were it ever implemented like other idealogies - that is, the leading political and social influence rather than a dominating and all-consuming force.


nikhil - Nov 17, 2008, 8:46p
Russ,

If you come back to this, I'd be curious about how you, as a libertarian, would change policies that are in place today? I appreciate the sentiment of your comment, but find it very vague. Any specific policy changes would help me better understand your point.


Rob - Jan 12, 2009, 3:26p
This raises some good points. I got into libertarianism for a while, but the dogmatic reliance on the market to solve all our problems was a big turn-off. Socially, I believe in as much freedom as possible. I don't believe in legislating morality or good taste. I'd like the government to be a support structure that helps people, not something that dictates how they should live. I also think there's room for free enterprise - I don't condone true socialism - but I don't think laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing either. The government should provide protection of resources and the environment. It should protect certain workplace rights, such as safety and a minimum wage (I'm less sold on living wage). I think there's room for a national health care plan too, which wouldn't go over too well with most libertarians.


Mr Speaker - Feb 5, 2009, 7:21a
Great article.


Sandro Shanidze - Mar 25, 2009, 11:41a
100% agree with you, I have the same problem of my friends believing ,,everyone by themselves" would work.


Jiggers - Jul 15, 2009, 3:57p
As a social libertarian I found the article interesting. I tend to agree with Russ that it is flawed to look at "pure" libertarianism. By advocating libertarianism as an ideology you encourage change of the current big brother attitudes ever increasing held by governments worldwide. The example of the individual who could even "run for mayor" is a good example of micro-politics within a community in action. This, for me is an example of how a person can be empowered by libertarianism to take initiative, the result being one the entire community is happy with, hopefully even the band members after some reflection upon how their actions affect others (in an ideal situation).

The essay states that " Many libertarians are pro-choice, less because they believe in a woman's right to choose, and more because they believe that the government sure as hell shouldn't tell a woman whether to give birth or not", I ask if there are any stats. to back up this statement because although I would agree that there may be a few I would disagree with saying "most".

I have found that the more well considered libertarian-socialism (contemporary anarchism as opposed to classical anarchism or pure liberalism) does not just concentrate on the liberties or rights of each individual, it empowers each individual and encourages them to become an active part of their community - this focus respects the rights of each individual while helping them to feel a sense of responsibility towards the well being of the community as a whole.

To those who say they believe in pure liberalism I would say that yes encouraging each individual to be independent are important but how would it be a good thing for all?


Scott - Jul 15, 2010, 2:07p
Russ, to answer the question, the ideals stated are very similar, in theme, to the ideals set forth in the "Libertarian Manifesto" which is called Anarchy, State and Utopia, by Robert Nozick. In short, Nozick argues that as minimal a state as possible should be developed. He further states that he believes democracy to be incompatible with libertarianism...

The first, and most important, answer to your question about putting personal liberty ahead of social justice would arise from a simple concept, which came first? Human existence is but a blip in the span of Earth's history. Nature reigns supreme. Nature is what is shared by all mankind. Where Nozick misses the boat in his description of why a man is entitled to the entire amount of the fruits of his labor is in his first description of the acquisition of property.

He states, unequivocally, that if someone takes a liberty from you, that man then owes you compensation. What he misses is that the very original acquisition of land violated the rights of another man; it had to. By taking a tree and cutting it down, my rights to the aesthetic beauty of that tree and the oxygen producing capacity of that tree have been violated. All of nature exists for the benefit of all mankind. As soon as one man "acquires" that property, he is really taking my liberty away.

It is not relevant whether he makes a product that will enhance existence. He has taken something FROM me and the rest of mankind. As such, he would owe us compensation. That compensation would be owed to society as ongoing payments for it's continued use... redistribution.

I believe that a market structured society better equips a society to ensure the welfare of all born into that society. A man may be granted property rights, but it is with the explicit implied instruction that ownership of the land and cultivation requires a societal debt on the part of the owner. That debt funds the many programs a society needs to function.

Further, Nozick misses another very important concept... the definition of a DOMESTIC enemy. A domestic enemy is not simply the man who commits the crime. Do you wait until your car is out of oil and the engine blows up to take it to a mechanic? I sure hope not!

Society has the same problem, poverty and illiteracy are the root cause of crime. They are as much an enemy of the state as a drug dealer. Poverty and illiteracy ARE within the realm of the states protection against domestic enemies.

I have read "A Theory of Justice" am 2/3 through "Anarchy State & Union" with "Spheres of Justice" awaiting...

Name
Comment
	Thanks! Your comment will be published in a few minutes.

omar - Apr 8, 2007, 11:31a
nikhil, two things. first, why do some societies forbid prostitution, and not others? while this may be seen as a somewhat extreme example, i think you can connect this idea with what's happening with IRBs. there's a combination of two things: what is believed to be reprehensible, and what is believed to negatively effect both the participants and the society at large.

on the level of the participants, IRBs are supposed to be advocates and protectors of the people who are participating in the experiment. you say that an experimenter should explain everything to the participant, give them all the information, and make sure they are adequately, and hopefully completely, informed.. but how do we know that the participant can adequately gauge the risk? sometimes people need help at this, and i don't see the experimenters as necessarily having the best interests of the participants in mind. that's why they need a special advocate. i think the restrictiveness of the rules is partly pragmatic: can they really ensure that every participant is adequately informed and understands their rights? probably not, so restrict experiments to such a degree that even if the participant agrees to something that they don't fully understand, the potential risk is still quite low.

hmm, that's likely the goal, but as you point out, the implementation seems to be lacking. part of being a participant advocate is putting the experimenter through all the required hoops to make sure they are, as much as is reasonable, considering the participant and the possible effects on the participant. but it certainly sounds like in some instances the IRBs do nothing for either the participants or the experimenters. and that's unfortunate.


jessica - Apr 9, 2007, 9:38p
sounding more libertarian every day...


nikhil - Apr 23, 2007, 5:26p
Just to be clear - I'm advocating that there be 2 routes to research approval:

1) If you're going to pay your participants, use the IRB process

2) If you aren't going to pay your participants, you're approved!

Name
Comment
	Thanks! Your comment will be published in a few minutes.

omar - Apr 4, 2007, 9:10p
that vacuum thing is pretty hypnotic if you set it to full coverage of dirt.. it's like the game dig-dug (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug).

what does it have to do with microworlds? is there some simple probabilistic model that determines where the vacuum will go?

as for your "two people" problem.. you think that's the right split, as opposed to focusing and being super-productive and structured during the work day (say the morning hours) and the second style later in the day? or maybe give yourself a day a week to think about more general things, and let your mind wander. my mind usually does that at night, though i've hoped to schedule more hours for that wandering..


nikhil - Apr 5, 2007, 9:56a
yeah, there's a super-simple probabilistic model for where the vacuums will go. the vacuums and dirt are placed randomly on the board, and on 10% of its moves each vacuum can randomly change direction. of course you could easily implement as clever a strategy as you can think of.

the problem with splitting time within the day is that my mood generally tends to be stable across the day - so if I feel like being spontaneous, that's how I feel during the entire day. and if I feel hyper-productive, I'll feel that way all day long until the wee hours of the morning. so i don't think the intra-day split would work for me.


jessica - Apr 7, 2007, 1:50p
i couldn't help but peek into your source:

   for(x = 0; x < worldSize; x++) {
     this._loc[y][x] = empty;
     if (Math.random() < percentDirt) {
       this._loc[y][x] = dirt;
       numDirt++;
     }

do you think god used something similar when he created the world in 7 days?



nikhil - Apr 7, 2007, 1:58p
i don't think god likes logic, even with a dose of randomness thrown in. i'm sure he prefers to be much more unpredictable.


jessica - Apr 9, 2007, 11:15a
but, logic can be unpredictable...


nikhil - Apr 9, 2007, 12:23p
'tis true, as demonstrated by the simple microworld. but i suspect, but don't know for sure, that greater unpredictability, like that seen in an individual (observed introspectively and through behavior), social collection of individuals, or nature in general, may not be the product of such a straightforward logic system.

more tangibly, how does the percentDirt value get set initially, and how does it change over time and space? in other words, i find it staggering that we live in a world where, for our purposes, the natural "laws" don't seem to be changing at all. we may just be measuring over too small a time scale, but such a static world seems a bit strange to me...

more importantly, perhaps, is how does your knowledge of the laws change your behavior within the logical system? if i know how i'm supposed to act given the rules, i may act differently just to spite them. of course, there's a huge difference between a social rule and the law of gravity... i guess it boils down to whether you believe that free will truly exists - if you do, it could be a potent source of unpredicability in individuals and (possibly) nature.

this could be manifest in code along the lines of

  fw = truly_random_number_generated_by_free_will_equivalent;
  fw2 = truly_random_number_generated_by_free_will_equivalent;

  if (fw > threshold) {
    // check to see if line fw2 is defined;
    if (!codeAt(fw2)) {
      randomly generate n lines of code starting at line fw2;
    }
    jump to line fw2 and continue execution;
  }

of course there would need to be some mechanism to ensure some level of overall stability, but perhaps something like this type of scheme could work? i guess it's still code so still follows the rules of logic (cause and effect), but perhaps it would achieve a better level of unpredictability? i guess much of this depends on whether *true* randomness can be generated...

as Penrose likes to say, the world is likely deterministic (logical) but not computable ahead of time...i'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.

Name
Comment
	Thanks! Your comment will be published in a few minutes.