A gallery of personal creeds

[mknorman]

Each of us probably has a creed, even if we haven't yet articulated it. By 'creed,' I mean a set of defining beliefs along with their rationales. So, here's the challenge: winnow your beliefs down to a compact and complete list of assertions that describe your 'doctrine' (however mutable) on secularism, rationalism, atheism, and the like, and post them here.

I realize that the above is a little vague, but I think that it has to be. I want to provide the most latitude for you to choose what is important in your creed. Maybe you view your atheism as an incidental concern to your scientific materialism, for example. Or maybe you don't want to touch on a/theism at all, but feel that inquiry is your guiding principle. Or maybe you're a Stoic, an Epicurean, or a Perspectivist, and this is what guides your thinking. It's as if we're all sailors on a sea, and I'm asking you to describe where you're going and the design of your rigging. I can't then ask you to describe your sloop and how it helps you to tack upwind, because you are always going downwind and have opted for a square rig.

There is an art to this, correct? If, as some say, art is selection, then the set of categories that each of us chooses to emphasize--and the claims we assert in each category--properly define a work of art. Creeds are therefore probably a kind of self-portrait of the soul. This is my roundabout way of saying that you might think carefully about each item in your creed.

Now, The Rules*:

1)List as many bolded categories as you need to define a creed that accurately defines the essence of your belief system as it pertains to the a/theism issue. (E.g., 'I. Gravity,' or 'IV. Materialism.')
2) For each category, list at least one underlined assertion about reality. (E.g., '1. Things are attracted to the Earth,' or '7. What we can sense is all that there is.')
3) For each assertion, optionally provide a warrant for that assertion, along with any supporting data and any qualifications. Perhaps a syllogism, a scientific result, a(n uncontroversially) self-evident fact, or so on. (E.g., 'b. We can visually see that all unsupported objects fall toward the earth, unless they are moving at orbital velocity or expend energy to stay airborne,' or, 'd. Both psychoactive medications and brain injuries can change the essential nature of a human being, so this essential nature must be contained in the brain.')
4) Feel free to engage in personal apologetics, just do it after the creed so that others can easily read the uninterrupted creed.
5) Also feel free to acknowledge the unresolved portions of your creed. For example, if you struggled in articulating a certain point or have left out an important category because you are undecided. Just do this outside of the creed proper, before, after, or instead of your apologia.


Now some suggestions for the readers. First, I'd hate to see people getting beaten over the head in other topics with the creeds they've posted here. So, let's try to keep in mind both that people's creeds may change with time and that people may not have properly articulated themselves here. Also, let's try to keep this a mere gallery of creeds, with perhaps the odd compliment thrown in for truly outstanding examples. To that end, if you strongly disagree with the elements of a creed you see here, I think we'd all prefer it if you created a new topic centered around a thoughtful question/proposition for discussion, or a YT response, or so on.

I'll try to put a creed of my own up soon, to serve as an example. If you have one you can hammer into the format outlined above** and can get it up before I can, feel free. I'll try to find a way to highlight a couple of exemplars as time goes on so new additions can get a good idea of what's wanted.

Know that I realize that a creed will take a bit of work. I think that the value of the creed, both for the author and the readers, makes it worth the effort. With that in mind, this is certainly an experimental effort, and one thing experiments can do is fail. I'm OK with that. That said, I look forward to reading people's personal creeds!

*They're just there so that you think before you break them. It's just about formatting so that we can easily scan them.
**Or leave in the original format, after you've thought about it.

p.s. Feel free to post a new creed if yours changes. You might consider linking to your most recent creed in your profile.

 

[PuppetXeno]

Wow, seems like an awful lot of work..

Want me to write a paper on everything I've learned in life so far? The only thing I know for sure is that I exist because I'm consciously conscious, and I have to deal with an outer world whether I like it or not - even if this outer world is just an illusion, which is not clearly not true, there is no escape from it. I wake up every day of my life in this same universe and it's become rather bothersome, to be honest.

I believe that all that my mind is sits in my head, and my body is a tool for my creativity, the first primary tool to interact with the outer world. In fact, my body is already part of this outer world, where my mind is my inner world.

I believe the only way to succesfully deal with the outer world is by understanding it's mechanisms. The only way to understand it's mechanisms is by studying it: observing, experimenting, and it helps to investigate/gather information other people have collected aswell. I assume that other people and all animal life are similarly constructed with an inner world and an outer world, though different people and different animals may deal entirely differently with them. This assumption is based on observed similarities between me and other people and animals in behaviour (dealing with outer world).

I believe that one should never simply adopt any information as rigidly true or real, especially if it concerns things one cannot observe or experience oneself. The inner world is a great place to play with information and run "simulations" if you wish, to verify validity. At the same time, the mind is easily fooled, usually by the absence of readily available counter-information. Therefore, one should never stop gathering information (and run more "simulations").

It is right here where I will stop to expand on anything I believe in, because there are simply way and way too many things I know and find interesting enough to mention - I can write a library full given enough time. I have outlined my basic perspective on which all else is built...

 

[AntiSkill42]

I'm still not far in my studies. But when I'm done this will be my creed:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

 

[mknorman]

You're right. This creed stuff is too hard.

There must be another way.

 

[AntiSkill42]

sorry for taking the shortcut...
its not very original. but it suits me.

 

[mknorman]

sorry for taking the shortcut...
its not very original. but it suits me.

I meant no snarkiness. I was working on my own and it was just a big undertaking to do it 'properly.' The whole exercise was motivated by my perception of the level of debate on these forums, which is appalling. Go into a thread on any slightly controversial topic and all you find are blanket declarations ('I reject subjectivism'), imprecise terminology, and debate aimed at winning rather than learning. (Just try asking for clarification on a foundational term in the debate. It works only rarely.) The kind of work I was advocating would only be worth it if undertaken amidst a group of peers that understood the value of the exercise (to help each of us develop a leaner and more focused set of core intellectual values) and were willing to commit the time to achieve it.

My core beliefs are not shaken in the least by the level of debate here, but it would have been nice to find a place where people spoke here like, for example, DasAmericanAtheist, HairyReasoner, and TheoWarner do on YT. Any real pursuit of knowledge, and any real desire to spread knowledge, requires at least the level of thoughtfulness displayed by those three. In my limited experience so far, the posters here have been as fickle, as ruled by their emotions, as sloppy, and shown as much reactionary fervor as any creationist.

The only questions now are, "Why is it this way?," and, "What do we do about it?" Is it this way because of the demographics of the site? Is the internet really hopelessly swamped with 12-year-olds? If so, our efforts at elevating the discourse may ever be mired in frustration. Or is it because the participants here don't seek knowledge, but rather seek only to beat the other guy? This is no subtle distinction. The one who wants only to beat the other guy will, in the long run, cop out by choosing prey who are easy to defeat in debate. (This is why everyone loves to hate VFX, I fear.)

The ones who want to learn, who want to grow and wrestle with the deep truths of the matter, will seek to ask themselves the hard questions, and to ask them of each other with sincerity rather than with rhetorical intent. Can you see the difference? Mentally ask the question, "How can you be sure that there is an absolute moral law despite the fact that different cultures have different moral systems?," first in a tone that truly seeks the answer, and second in one that seeks merely to show that the opponent is full of shit. The former tone is what will better each of us. The latter will destroy us; will occupy us with holding each other down until the mediocrity of faith rises in triumphant unanimity.

The kind of work that needs to be done is staring us right in the face. Thunderf00t, Das, Hairy, QualiaSoup, TheraminTrees, and Theo are doing it, each in their own way. The real costs are heavy and manifold. It costs money. Theo recommends, for example, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Will to Power, Beyond Good and Evil, The Anti-Christ, Ecce Home, and The Gay Science as 'essential reading for anyone who wants to survive modernity.' He also obliquely recommended On Bullshit. He's drawn on all of these to elegantly and eloquently dissect fundamentalists. Oh, and he recommends the books in The Fundamentalism Project. That's $200 worth of books. I've got Nietzsche and Bullshit on order. It costs time. Reading, rereading, and understanding these works, along with the many others out there, take time. It costs socially. None of these ideas are popular. I never see these guys on the forum. They're out there thinking and working full time. We need an army of Theos and Thunderf00ts fighting for reason, not just a handful.

Time is drawing short. The human experiment is running, and noxious fumes are pouring out the laboratory windows. What will save the day is an educated populace. The realization that there is nothing out there other than us is not the end of the mental effort we must expend, but rather it is the beginning of a lifelong dedication of the time, resources, and hard thinking--of which the beginnings I have undertaken are but the tiniest portion--necessary to make oneself a meaningful part of the solution rather than a speck at the margin.

Now that we see what is at stake and have been shown a hint as to the way forward, who of us can opt for the easy way?

 

[PuppetXeno]

I hate to break this to you, but

Time is drawing short.

falls in the category "end-time thinking" or "apocalyptics", and immediately sets off my BS detectors.

On the other hand, you do make a point. It's good to learn how to think outside your personal frame of reference, and it's good to learn how to get your point across in a debate.

Other than that, I read quite some disappointment and frustration in your post aswell as impatience, and you have to understand that although those active youtubers you mention are well-reasoning people, not all well-reasoning people are inclined to be active youtubers (to boil it down).

Life is not so black and white. There are many shades of grey, and many colours aswell.

As the old saying goes: If you want to change the world, start with yourself. I'd like to put it this way: You'd feel a whole lot better and be a whole lot more constructive if you wake up and smell the roses, instead of waking up and urging others to smell the roses, "or else".

 

[Canto]

Why should anyone have to define themselves into a neat little box?

What I believed 10 years ago is not totally what I believe now.
What I believed yesterday is not quite what I believe now.

The issues we are forming our beliefs on are not black and white and change with each new perspective we entertain. If the issue shifts our belief in that issue must shift also. It seems rather pointless to create a creed that will define me and my views on things when it will just have to be revised later. Otherwise, you are walking through life with eyes fixed on a point and everything outside of that narrow view gets ignored.

Things get accomplished in this world not by virtue of a narrow focus but by virtue of understanding that the focus is just a small fraction of a much larger whole and how that focus fits in with everything else.

The only statement I would make on my views of life is this. I vow to move through this life with my eyes and mind open ready to take in everything the universe has to show me.

 

[mknorman]

It seems rather pointless to create a creed that will define me and my views on things when it will just have to be revised later. Otherwise, you are walking through life with eyes fixed on a point and everything outside of that narrow view gets ignored.

And why plant a vegetable garden this year, when you know you're just going to have to plant another one next year? And plus, for the whole growing season you'll be fixated on the damn carrots and taters, wholly unable to even contemplate fruits or grains, to say nothing of beer and meat.

It's almost as if the level of debate in here were somehow lacking.

 

[King Tyrant Lizard]

I believe the purpose of humanity is to establish a society according to the systems described by Benito Mussolini in "The Doctrine of Fascism".

 

[Saladin]

The kind of work that needs to be done is staring us right in the face. Thunderf00t, Das, Hairy, QualiaSoup, TheraminTrees, and Theo are doing it, each in their own way. The real costs are heavy and manifold. It costs money. Theo recommends, for example, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Will to Power, Beyond Good and Evil, The Anti-Christ, Ecce Home, and The Gay Science as 'essential reading for anyone who wants to survive modernity.' He also obliquely recommended On Bullshit. He's drawn on all of these to elegantly and eloquently dissect fundamentalists. Oh, and he recommends the books in The Fundamentalism Project. That's $200 worth of books. I've got Nietzsche and Bullshit on order. It costs time. Reading, rereading, and understanding these works, along with the many others out there, take time. It costs socially. None of these ideas are popular. I never see these guys on the forum. They're out there thinking and working full time. We need an army of Theos and Thunderf00ts fighting for reason, not just a handful.

Don't you have a public library wherever you live? An Amazon.com account? Access to Wikisource? Aren't there any thrift stores nearby? You could probably cut those book costs in half, if not more, with more careful shopping.

Nobody expects you to read and digest these works overnight. Take your time, we're not in a race.

 

[King Tyrant Lizard]

I'll bet all the knee-chi stuff is on project gutenberg.

 

[mknorman]

@Saladin and KTL:

Wise words, both of you, re. the cost and pacing of literary conquest. 2 things not made explicit that are relevant, though: 1) I've read Beyond Good and Evil, and have an appetite for more, hence the haste for myself, and 2) My point was not so much about the cost of these particular books as of the cost of the endeavor at scale.

On (1): I'm not as young as I used to be, and this trend is continuing at an alarmingly predictable rate.

On (2): There are books, I think, that one should own, if we can be permitted a usage of 'should' contextualized by the moral good of being well-read and articulate. The kind of rereading, note-taking, and dog-earing that is likely in the kind of study required would make check-in time at the local library a little awkward. Then there is the advantage of having a library of one's own from which to lend to your closest friends and selected potential converts. Not to mention being able to read excerpts directly into a YT video on a moment's notice, ala D double A in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vekEm7gaTS8 (language NSFW, mental imagery NSF soul).

I readily grant that used and public library books can play a role in the arsenal of an active and nimble mind, but surely a personal library is at times a great advantage. Here is where I think we need to count the cost.

I appreciate the candor and thought evident in both of your replies.

@Saladin: The biggest chunk of those costs is in the Fundamentalism Project books. They're just spendy, and it's a whole series. If I was unclear, I've ordered the Nietzsche BS books from Amazon, in paperback (except for BS, which is only available in hardcover), and all new. TFP will have to wait until the employment situation improves. Hilo, Hawaii is not really a hive of intellectual activity, so the used book selection is a little spare locally. How we suffer for our arts!

 

[Canto]

The thing that bothers me most here, is that you seem to be expecting everyone to conform to your method of learning and debating.

The level of debate outside of debate clubs and debate societies is bound to be less than strenuous. I know that I'm not here to debate. I'm here to learn and be able to speak amongst and with people who can correct me when I'm wrong. This forum is fairly one sided since AmazingMuslim disapeared so its not so much about debating eachother its about conversing on topics of mutual interest.

As to your "must read" list, I disagree. A "must read" list varies from person to person. Why we read those books and what we are looking to learn from what we read are different from person to person. I'm not interested in Philosophy myself so those books will never make it to my "must read" list. I do own On Bullshit, its a good but short read and its fairly common sense. I got it because a professor reccomended it to me after I admitted that I had bullshitted my way through a research paper for him and still got an A. I read a lot of books. Plenty of it is just plain old escapism fiction. A good chunk of it is scientific literature. A smaller portion that tends to outdo the rest in terms of page count would be the religious and antireligious books.

Planting a garden year after year is a practical excersize with many benefits. Updating a creed everytime somthing changes the way I define myself seems superfluous.

 

[mknorman]

The thing that bothers me most here, is that you seem to be expecting everyone to conform to your method of learning and debating.

No. Rather, what I am pointing out is the incompatibility of the kinds of 'argumentation' I've seen in these forums with a sincere desire to acquire new knowledge. A sincere desire that would, for example, stand in marked and defining contrast to a theist's or creationists infuriatingly typical (though not universal) desire to find that what s/he already believes is true.

The level of debate outside of debate clubs and debate societies is bound to be less than strenuous. I know that I'm not here to debate. I'm here to learn and be able to speak amongst and with people who can correct me when I'm wrong.

And in this we see your fundamental confusion on the issue, which I think is a confusion of terminology. The level of 'debate' in debate clubs and societies is abysmally poor, precisely because they're not about being 'here to learn and be able to speak amongst and with people who can correct [us] when [we're] wrong,' but rather are about kicking ass and taking names, so to speak. 'Debaters' in debate societies will gladly use straw men, sweeping generalities, ad hominem attacks, and whatever other rhetorical tricks they think that they can get away with to 'win' the argument. The pursuit of knowledge is not the goal in such contests. While you may not be here to 'debate,' you probably are here to debate, in the sense that you're here for the noble purposes you outlined of seeking truth and being open to correction.

This forum is fairly one sided since AmazingMuslim disapeared so its not so much about debating eachother its about conversing on topics of mutual interest.

This comment reveals all, I think. I was not here when AM was here, so I can only rely on your report (and the archives) about how it was different then. So, please correct me if I've missed the flavor of the distinction in the comments that follow. My guess is that what you would say was vigorous debate with AM could better be classified as 'strong disagreement,' hence your comment about things being more one-sided now. And here's the rub: I'll bet that, for both sides, the debates with AM were not generally about improving understanding but rather about showing the other person to be stupid or wrong.

As to your "must read" list, I disagree. A "must read" list varies from person to person. Why we read those books and what we are looking to learn from what we read are different from person to person. I'm not interested in Philosophy myself so those books will never make it to my "must read" list. I do own On Bullshit, its a good but short read and its fairly common sense. I got it because a professor reccomended it to me after I admitted that I had bullshitted my way through a research paper for him and still got an A. I read a lot of books. Plenty of it is just plain old escapism fiction. A good chunk of it is scientific literature. A smaller portion that tends to outdo the rest in terms of page count would be the religious and antireligious books.

This is the basest sort of straw-man argument and a textbook example of the low level of debate I'm talking about, as well as its inevitable consequence. Watch and learn.

As for calling it my '"must read" list', this is factually incorrect in the first place and misleading in the second. It is factually incorrect in that, if it is anybody's must read list, it is TheoWarner's. It is misleading in that the phrase 'must read list' implies universality, whereas TW, and indeed my quote of TW, clearly indicate a very meaningful qualifier, 'for anyone interested in surviving modernity.' If you are not interested in 'surviving modernity,'--roughly and loosely speaking this means understanding the true nature of religious activity and its roots in an essential human trait discovered by Nietzsche--then you can happily ignore the reading list. I don't know how one could do so and still claim to have a thirst for knowledge, but that is a separate matter about which reasonable people could, I guess, disagree.

The 'inevitable consequence' that I alluded to earlier is that, by making the above-quoted remarks which, I have shown, constitute a straw man, you have not contributed to your own nor my understanding. By getting it wrong, by overgeneralizing, and by not abiding by the principle of charity, you have at most 'won' in your own mind. And this in a conversation that was not a contest in the first place. This is exactly why the 'level of debate' issue is not some subjective hard-on that one user has and can therefore be ignored by others as a matter of taste, but is instead the only way in which this forum is going to have the kind of utility that you yourself so eloquently described when you said that you were "here to learn and be able to speak amongst and with people who can correct me when I'm wrong."

Planting a garden year after year is a practical excersize with many benefits. Updating a creed everytime somthing changes the way I define myself seems superfluous.

And, in this you have again hit the nail on the head without even realizing it, and in circular form. The garden analogy was meant to imply exactly that creating a personal creed would have immediate value in that you would have an articulated set of beliefs that you, and others, could scan for inconsistencies, this apart from its permanence or transience, much like a vegetable garden produces food.

You have also betrayed either your dishonesty or your tunnel vision in that you failed to address the portion of the analogy that dealt with your obviously unfounded claim that having a creed amounts to having blinders. (The bit about focusing on the taters and carrots, to the exclusion of beer and meat.)

If I were you, I would ask myself if I wasn't just reacting against the proposition that some hard work, monetary expenditure, and other real costs might be required in order to gain knowledge over time, rather than actually reacting against some bigot on the internet who wants to impose his beliefs on you.

 

[PuppetXeno]

mknorman, your idealogy doesn't stand a chance of succeeding, because too few people agree with you, and because you fail to acknowledge that there are other equally valid approaches to learning and debating.

There's something I learned during my student times (I studied textwriting, involving linguistics, prose, poetry, mass communication and other things). Now writing and debating is less about the exact words or arguments you use, but more about the style you apply, the way you present them. It's about finding a balance between message and package. An ugly package remains unopened, the message goes unnoticed. A woolly and elaborate package will take a lot of time to open, the message may get lost in the process and some people with less patience will not even attempt to open it. Then there's also "product placement"...

Now see where I am going.. You come with a message stating that people on this forum should educate themselves more, preferrably (apparently) by reading a list of books you've compiled. Interesting thought, but your post is long, elaborate, drips with anger, disappointment and frustration, and is aimed at people who are already in the league of reason.... for their own reasons, at that. Not your reasons, their reasons.

Instead of making a huge point out of this, you could also simply participate in the forums, and give the right example. Point out the people's flaws where they make them, instead of trying to convince your stance is the only right one, because nobody will buy into that.

 

[Canto]

I believe that in this case, my attitude stems more from my dislike of using the internet for "serious business" than my interest in putting forth effort and money.

I would say that LOR right now is a work in progress. There is a mix of people ranging from the monday morning QB to those that are actively in search of knowledge.

What do I believe strongly in? Freedom of Speech, Human Rights, and a rational and reasonable outlook on the world/universe we live in. I wont compromise my values or my sense of self. I do not believe in fairy tales, ghosts and goblins, or anything else that I cant see for myself. I believe in evidence and the search for truth, wherever that may lead us. I openly admit that if evidence for any or all of the plethora of gods and goddesses were to be given that my stance on the importance of religion would change. I reject claims of divine origins, instant creation, 6000 year old earth, and of any other religious dogma. I am open to hearing other points of view even when they are diametrically opposed to my own, this does not mean I will accept them. I do not sit and ponder over the intricacies when it comes to forum posting. I post off the cuff, stream of conciousness, and improvisationaly.

My value system can be described as biblical though I would say that they are rational. I believe in chastity but not to the extent that marriage is the only time you should have sex with another person. I believe that in a relationship where both partners are honest and open with eachother, the physical aspects of love are made all the more special and worth sharing. I agree that we shouldnt kill, lie, steal and the rest of the commandments that deal solely with the quality of my physical life. Moderation is a virtue.

I am who I am. I wont apologize for that.

And I'll close this by saying simply, I am a student, a son, a caretaker and an imbecile. Fortunately there is a bright side to being an imbecile when you can recognize that fact. I am capable of rectifying my lack of knowledge.

 

[mknorman]

mknorman, your idealogy doesn't stand a chance of succeeding, because too few people agree with you, and because you fail to acknowledge that there are other equally valid approaches to learning and debating.

There's something I learned during my student times (I studied textwriting, involving linguistics, prose, poetry, mass communication and other things). Now writing and debating is less about the exact words or arguments you use, but more about the style you apply, the way you present them. It's about finding a balance between message and package. An ugly package remains unopened, the message goes unnoticed. A woolly and elaborate package will take a lot of time to open, the message may get lost in the process and some people with less patience will not even attempt to open it. Then there's also "product placement"...

Now see where I am going.. You come with a message stating that people on this forum should educate themselves more, preferrably (apparently) by reading a list of books you've compiled. Interesting thought, but your post is long, elaborate, drips with anger, disappointment and frustration, and is aimed at people who are already in the league of reason.... for their own reasons, at that. Not your reasons, their reasons.

Instead of making a huge point out of this, you could also simply participate in the forums, and give the right example. Point out the people's flaws where they make them, instead of trying to convince your stance is the only right one, because nobody will buy into that.

Had you gotten one thing about what I had said correct, I would be infinitely more inclined to not write you off completely. Your reading of my position is wholly unsupported by the comments I have made.

 

[PuppetXeno]

Then I failed to understand your message (and apparently failed my professional training in semantics). And I failed to deliver my own message. In all, however, you do not come off as a very pleasurable person I'd enjoy conversing with. I'll leave you to yourself then. Goodbye, and good luck.