I wonder what the people who voted 3 but not 1 are thinking. If reality is subjective, I don’t see how it makes sense to say that “our senses perceive reality [roughly accurately]”.
I voted for 1, 2 and 3, and they didn’t have much impact. I believed in them before I became an atheist, since God appeared to have created a logical universe. He might have left some holes for miracles, but parting the Red Sea once doesn’t mean it parts every week.
I gotta say, I wonder those things, too.
In all fairness, if they didn’t check the second box, it doesn’t need to make sense to leave 1 unchecked while checking 3.
“I believe in reality, but it doesn’t look to me like it makes any fuckin sense.” Like that?
I think he meant that if they don’t believe in logic or rationality, there is no reason to expect their answers to make any sense! I LOLed at it. (Literally.)
This topic makes my head hurt. i’d rather start believing in God than answer it.
I assumed that the intent was something like – and please excuse my imprecision – “the universe operates on regular, well-formed rules”.
The intent being both that “logic and reason are useful tools…” AND that there is no such thing as “supernatural”.
Voted for options 3 and 6. I could have easily voted for 1, 2, and 3 if I’d chosen to interpret the questions a little differently. The answers I did give have to do with a vague Zen-ish outlook which I am not competent to explain.
The second option doesn’t really make semantic sense. “reality” is not capable of being imbued with reason or logic, only understandings and explanations of it are.
The answer to the first is that obviously the universe is capable of existing without subjective perceptions of itself, and obviously we can accurately perceive part of it with our senses. Operationally, I would say the perception IS the reality.
I believe the universe is big. Really big. Like you just wouldn’t believe how mind-bogglingly big it is…
And option 3.
Only if you say reality doesn’t exist at all. If it has no objective existence, and no perceived existence, what does it mean to say it exists?
I went for option 1 and “this poll sucks”.
I ticked option 1 because it’s something I’ve considered before, and it occurs to me that labels like “subjective” and “illusion” are relative terms. IOW the existence of a single subjective reality implies the existence of an objective reality.
I ticked “this poll sucks” because the phrasing of many of the statements sounds like the kind of traps that are often set in debates.
For example, I assume that the universe is rational, and I act as though it is. However, I make no claim about the universe, so I hesitate to call it a “belief”.
1,2,3 (though I repent of two, due to points made by several astute dopers). Also, your poll doesn’t suck.
I do believe, however, that the Universe is capable of being understood via use of reason and logic and that it is composed of the following:
Existence (sometimes called creation)
Which can be divided into Space-Time, Energy-Matter and Information
We are accustomed to perceiving space and time as being two different things, and while each may be distinct, they can also be described as two aspects of a greater entity. Very similar is the distinction/relationship between matter and energy.
Information is a bit different. But, while it may be stored or expressed in different ways, using different forms of energy or matter (with respect to time and/or space), it isn’t those things. This is an area in which my interest in philosophy exceeds my knowledge of it.
In any case, these five aspects of reality constitute the totality of what exists and I believe in nothing that cannot be expressed in terms of them.
You’ve apparently bought into the notion that “objective” and “subjective” are appropriate ways to slice and dice things up analytically in the first place.
I don’t.
When objectivity is assigned to something ("This brick I’m holding in my hand is objectively a brick, it’s not just a brick ‘in my opinion’ "), the “something” is in practice actually a meaning, not reality itself.
Subjectivity, when assigned to something (“I find this wallpaper subjectively beautiful; the beauty is in my head, it’s not a quality you can measure or test for in the wallpaper itself”), is in practice also actually a meaning but more to the point a meaning of something, not some ephemeral process that exists only in the head of the beholder.
A closer look reveals that all perceptions of reality are interactive; the person who perceives experiences themselves in interaction with that which they perceive. “Objective” and “subjective” are not characteristics of very much of anything except for being opinions or predictions about the extent to which any other (real or potential) perceiving person would predictably and dependably perceive things the same way. The location of meaning remains interactive, though, either way.
I think “objective versus subjective” is just sloppy thinking overall, hence my assertion that reality need not be described by either term, and that it is not, in fact, accurately described by either term.
Interesting. I think some folks–e.g., Mijin, are wary of saying that they believe in something, because sometimes Creationists try to put science and Creationism on equal footing by claiming they’re both beliefs. That argument strikes me like saying democracy and fascism are on equal footing because they’re both political philosophies: it’s a totally spurious argument. For myself, I’m perfectly comfortable saying that I believe in things as an atheist, without saying that my beliefs are no better than a Creationist’s. There’s really no trap intended, and I cannot imagine any trap that could be triggered by claiming that (some) atheists believe in things that wouldn’t be a totally lame and stupid trap.
I believe it doesn’t fucking matter because the existence of our species is less than a blip on the universal radar.
It wouldn’t be accurate to say I haven’t considered these questions. I went through several formative existential crises in my younger years. But now I am thoroughly apathetic. Whether my belief is right or wrong doesn’t affect *anything *on any significant scale. I prefer not to waste my time. So I don’t believe anything anymore. I go through my days living life as I always have and everything seems to keep working the same way it has before. I don’t care about anything else.
nyah.
Well said.
And for myself, I’m perfectly comfortable saying that I lack belief in things as an atheist. I’m fine with the possibilities grey provides and don’t need the black and white boxes you have framed this question with. Your description in this thread of your own beliefs seems very strict to me: no randomness, no messy things that can’t be explained or tested, straight up logic. You say you don’t understand religious beliefs; I don’t understand how you manage to fit the universe into your model.
You seem to have framed the poll as “Do you agree with 1,2, and 3 or do you disagree with 1, 2, and 3”, which leads me to think you had the expectation that all atheists would fall on one side of that binary. Are you surprised that some reject the binary you presented?
Sorry, I should have been more blatant in pointing out the irony.
You see the only poll question that allowed for the rejection of belief was “I believe your poll sucks.”
Let me take them one by one.
I believe there is a reality that is not subjective.
Nope. I observe that there is a reality that is not subjective. No belief involved.
I believe that reality is logical and/or rational.
Nope. Reality is that which exists. Logic and rationality are human constructs. Matter obeying natural laws is neither logical or rational. Perhaps you meant that the universe can begin to be properly understood using logic and rationalism. If so I would say that you have made a sound hypothesis. No belief required.
I believe that our senses can (partially and semiaccurately) perceive reality.
I observe that similar events in the universe create similar reactions in the sense organs of Homo Sapians. No belief required.
I’ve never considered any of these questions before.
False.
I’ve considered these questions but have no answer to them.
False
I believe the opposite of statements 1, 2, and/or 3.
False
I do not believe in an objective universe. I observe it. No belief required.
I do not believe that reality is logical and/or rational. See above. No belief required.
I do not believe that our senses can (partially and semiaccurately) perceive reality. I observe that this is how, not only our, but all, senses of all species work.
I’m not sure what it would mean to believe in these questions.
False
You are trying to inject belief into the conversation and refusing to accept that it is perfectly reasonable to reject all belief, even belief that I am real. “Do I exist?” is as much a relic of outdated magical thinking as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”