-
8/6/2019 the argument for minimalism
1/3
the argument for minimalism
i agree with atheists that deification of humans is a mental
disease we need to cure. The first step
is raising awareness. Please visit the following websites and
watch a few vids when y ou
havetime:http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondellhttp://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingAtheist
When we buy something or when we p ay at tention to something,we
directly/indirectly support it .When we buy a mindless/ins ipid
teen-magaz ine or idolize some teen-heart-throb, we sup port
them and all they stand for: commercialization, homogenization,
exploitation, coercion, sheep-ification,.. - in general, a ll the
meaningless at tribut es of modern society. We become sheep andthe
money-mongers get richer off it.
When we subscribe to the latest 'spiritual fad' -whether it be
Jay Weidner or Fred Burks , weglean a few truths but mostly are
simply making them richer .. When we endorse Obama becausewe're
black-skinned or believe in 'equal opp
ortunity'/affirmative-action, we're actually being
divisive because ourreasons for backing him are inap propriate.
When w e join the AsianCoalition because we're afraid 'Asians don't
have enough say in America' or we want to push theAsian-American
agenda, we're just as wrong .. When we push Chris tianity because
we 'know'it's
right (the 'fact' Jesus gave his life for our sins), this is
Sin.
i will present a (not t he only) minimalist view and my argument
for it:
1. we exis t (we're not some dream/fantasy/illus ion)2. there is
right and wrong (there is some morality associated wi th this
universe)3. God exist s (t he Prime Cause / Creat or and She's a
Girl)4. She only needs one t hing: our acknowledgement
5. there is a minimal/optimal set of Basic Human Rights and they
are identifiable6. there is a minimal/optimal set of values that
engenders an enduring human civil ization7. there is an optimal
path to maximize meaning for humanity
How did i arrive at all of this? Was it magic? Divine
inspiration? Or did i simply app ly thesystems approach to the
God-human system?
Underlying above is the assumption: minimal is best. i cannot
prove that; i can only giveevidence against the contrary:
historically, when we insist one religion/ideology is Right
overothers, what usually results i s war (death, des truction,
upheaval, waste (of time and resources),..).
The Crusades. Iraq. The Cold War. T he New Cold War (between
Islam and the West) .. Implicitin all modern religions is an
extended set of statements codifying each: the Bible, the Quran,
theTalmud,.. and minimal set of tenets associated with each
uniquely identifying t hem: Jesus Saves,
Mohammed was His prophet, Yahweh chose us,..This divisive set of
mutually exclusive valueswill destroy us if we're not careful.
Please reread that last statement as many times required for itto
really 'sink in'.
Atheists are purists /absolute minimalis ts and i admire t hem.
i would be honored to be mentionedin the same breath/sentence as
those above. But t his extreme is unnecessary and in my op
inion,wrong. When we eliminate God from the God-human system, we
decrease the overall meaning of
the system. Goal seven above is the ultimate aim for this
version of minimalism.
-
8/6/2019 the argument for minimalism
2/3
So lets go through the list above step by st ep:1. If t his were
some dream/fantasy, i t must have an equivalent set of attributes
to mimic an actual
reality to such 'resolut ion' / precis ion that makes it
essentially equivalent t o an actual reality. Forexample, if this
'reality ' was just a dream in some sadist ic god's mind, t he
level of det ail,consistency, and precis ion makes it equivalent t
o the real thing. So what i'm saying is that even ifthis IS a
dream, it's so precise that essentially - it's real.
2. If t here were no right and wrong (no absolute moralit y),
everything is fair game and this worldwould surely end in
self-destruct ion. T hat's jus t the practical considerat ion. Most
of our laws andmorality grew out of the Golden Rule but even that's
not perfect. What about theIridium Rule? ;)
Or the God Rule: Love? You slap me in the face (maybe i deserved
it). Should you be punished?Should we waste resources on a judge/
jury to decide? Or should i simply accept it gracefully? Forthe
sake of argument, i say: "Sam, offer the other cheek." Isn't that
the ess ence of Love:
acceptance, forgiveness, t rus t, respect,.. People need rules
and consequences for breaking them;what the minimal set i s for
that - i'm not especially interested in .. But they s hould be
based on anagreeable minimal set of Basic Human Right s (violating
them is criminal) . . So this has beenlargely a practical
discussion: we needconcept s of right and wrong in order to survive
as a race.
3. please see WfM4. If we can agree on point 3, She must have
some attribut es. She's infinite, She's omnip otent,She's
omniscient ,.. These say nothing about Her except She's Infinit e
which every deist
recognizes .. In WfM i argue She's a cont inuum engineer second
to none. She's Loyal to Hercreation but this says nothing more than
She Loves us. The minimalist 'fact' She needs ouracknowledgement
provides the basis for mutual Love which, to me, is more core to
Her being
than Infinity . M ight sound like i'm playing with words but as
a devout minimalist , i assure you -it's not . We cannot accept Her
love if we don't acknowledge Her .. We cannot recognize Her asPrime
Cause without acknowledging Her. The minimal need/att ribu te of
God isacknowledgement.
5. This argument follows 6 so see below.6. Our civilizat ion is
based on social relat ionships. Enduring relationships alway s have
twoessential characteristics regardless of their type/kind: trust
and respect. Further, i argue they are
one-in-the-same; you can't have one without the other.i trust
you to respect me as i MUST toeven HOPE for them: this is the best
version of the Golden Rule i can p ropose .. In all thesewritings,
implicit is the statement: i Trust You to Respect Me (i pray the
divine in you will
respect the divine in me). If you cannot, i will do my best to
forgive you. The reverse is myONLY expectation of other human
beings; if i fuck-up, i expect you t o do your best to forgiveme.
My consistent readers will know this is the only time i've
explicitly used the word expect.7. If we can basically agree on
point s 1 through 6, we necessarily come to a point in the
discussion where we must agree on something meaningful for
humanity . Meaning is not arbit raryas morality is not. There must
be a continuum: some things more meaningful and some thingsless.
Our actions and perceptions (how we see things / how we interpret
them) can be more
meaningful or they can be less. H ow we relate to each other can
be more meaningful or less ..These interactions should not be
arbitrary or based on any one particular value-set associated
withsome arbit rary religion or else t he cycle of violence and
revenge will cont inue forever until our
eventual self-destruction. We must break t he cycle with:
awareness of the problems associatedwith religions/ideology,
awareness of religion-specific problems (in cluding at heism),
agreementon how to dig ourselves out of this collective hole (that
is rational/reasonable), and act uallymoving forward in a positive
direction.
-
8/6/2019 the argument for minimalism
3/3
Not all change is good; it is our obligation to find the common
path to greatest meaning.
