(no subject)
Sigh...I've been wheedled and cajoled into returning to LJ. So I figured I'd start with something basic and work my way up to actual wisdom and hilarity. So...the "belief" thingie, from scrollgirl
In God? Difficult question to answer. I am essentially agnostic, believing that the existence of an omnipotent (which, in the context, is what I assume is meant) deity can be neither proven nor disproven objectively. Not that anything can be perfectly objective, but within the limitations of how we function in the world, functional objective proof is sufficient to convince me of the existence of, say, giraffes, but not God. I live my life as if there were no god in the sense that the existence or non-existence of a God has neglible influence on any decisions I make. However, I'm not in any way impressed by atheists, who are, to my thinking, operating under no more -- and often much less -- credibility than those who believe absolutely in the existence of God without proof. In final analysis, I'd take Pascal's wager -- cause if there is no afterlife, I don't see much repercussion in a deathbed conversion. Sure, it may be hypocritical...but what does that matter if my psyche is annihilated? I won't be around to feel bad about my hypocrisy.
In ghosts? No. I do so love a good ghost story, and spent many an evening when I was much younger reading about the Tower of London and the Drury Lane and places with tradition. But I never believed them. They're more like morality fables than anything else, the stories of the living coming face to face with their own values, their own stupidity, their own cultural traditions.
In aliens? Meh. I suppose, though the statistical likelihood of any ever having visited Earth is staggeringly small. And the formulaic analyses of the likes of Sagan aren't particularly convincing, especially given that we have extremely little evidence about everything from the actual probability that life can arise in a given environment to the incidence of planets amenable to life (or even whether non-carbon based life forms can arise or whether they can arise in conditions other than the ones that prevailed and prevail on Earth.) We have simply too little information to make an informed guess. And, I suspect, most people would immediately correlate "aliens" with "higher life forms." I have a slightly easier time believing in the simplest microbial forms existing, because those require less carefully calibrated environments...the question is, in that case, whether these have any real chance to evolve further. I know some scientists have argued that the existence of any life is enough to give us greatly increased hope for "intelligent" life...but this is mere speculation. Just because organisms can evolve doesn't mean they have, or will ever have the opportunity. Except, of course, here on Earth. If the universe were infinite in both time and space, I'd be a little more willing to consider it a statistical likelihood. Barring that, though, I'm optimistic but extremely skeptical.
In Bigfoot? Ummm...no....though I have seen some big-assed shoes in stores before.
In fairies? Well, I was friends with a gay guy who referred to himself as a 'fairie.' Not an unapt description, given that he was maybe 100 lbs and 5 foot naught.
In ESP? No, but I'm reserving judgment for the most part. The human mind is a truly complex organ.
In superstition? Not as a general rule...but it's well-established that a great many superstitions have very understandable foundations. Not most, mind you. Still, just taking certain herbal remedies and certain prohibitions -- not eating pork, for instance, makes a lot of sense in a society based in a desert environment with little means of preserving meat. It falls under "religion", I know, but I consider it essentially superstitious because it seems to have not theological or metaphysical rationale.
In equal rights for gays? Certainly. But not in special privileges. Sexual preference is neither a merit nor a demerit, any more than cultural identity, gender, or favorite Jelly-Belly flavour. It's just idiotic to discriminate against someone because of what sort of people that person finds attractive.
In equal rights for women? Is this question for real? Hell yes! Same disclaimer as above, of course.
In psychics? As with ESP, except that I'm less inclined to believe in psychics for the simple reason that there are so damned many obvious frauds out there.
In appearance? I'm gonna take a stand here and piss some people off and say that appearance is relevant sometimes. Vision is one of our senses, perhaps even the most used of our senses, and it is a primary means of conveying information to the brain. Certainly we can choose to parse and translate the information once it's been processed, but we can't escape the need to deal with the information. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder, and if one person forms a different value judgment than another based on the same visual information, that's the magic of individuality. Both evaluate appearance, though.
That said, I'll give the obvious caveat that appearance is only a single factor, and people who give it undue weight are generally narrowminded and lacking in most evolutionary advantages. There was a time in our evolution where smell was given an extremely high preponderance of credibility. But we have higher cognitive functions now, and replacing smell with sight does great injustice to our abilities.
In auras? Electromagnetic? Sure. Those are fairly well established. New-Age "you and I are meant for hot sex" auras? Not a chance.
In true love? Why not? I'm a skeptic and a tad cynical still, as should be obvious from my other answers. But true love seems as reasonable a concept as any I've heard lots of people promote as inexorable fact. Is it biochemistry? Sure. Is that all there is to it? Possibly, but I choose to believe otherwise. If it's a convenient fiction, it's damned convenient for me. So I'll go ahead and believe in it and take Pascal's wager and just end up happy. I don't need to know all the absolute facts...I'd much prefer spending an afternoon in bed snuggling and laughing with my own true love. And watching Buffy DVD's, of course.
In happy endings? Again...why not? Happiness is individual, after all. There's no actual reason there can't be. I think most of the people arguing against them are arguing on the basic presupposition that there are no happy endings. Circular logic. Sure, they phrase it differently, but that's the gist. "Happy endings just don't happen" or "nobody can be always happy" aren't particular good reasons for discrediting the idea.
Now...
Have I seen a happy ending? I honestly don't know, cause "ending" is such a slippery word. Where does one thing end and another begin? We could talk about death as an ending -- a reasonable enough idea, considering that humans are pretty much the ones we're talking about with this phrase, and death is the last measurable termination of individuality. So do people die happy? Sure. Do they have lives that are on the balance happy? Certainly. I have so far. After all, unless one means perfectly happy ending, one must assume that some sort of measurement and balancing of factors is involved. Since I don't believe in "perfect" anything, I'll go out on a limb and say that general happiness is an attainable goal.
In abortions? Grudgingly. They aren't what I'd call great ideas. They're traumatic, they're philosophically debateable, and many of the major arguments propounded in their favor are the sieves in the river of logical deduction. But some arguments make a great deal of sense, and until I have better reasons to oppose them, I'll favor them as an option. Preferably a last-resort option.
I am very much opposed to 3rd-trimester abortions, though, because they...it's just a visceral reaction to what they do to an almost-fully-formed baby. Could I defend my position logically and philosophically? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the visceral is my primary criterion for opposing them, so it doesn't matter that much whether I can defend the position on the other bases.
In Santa? Ho ho ho! Ho ho ho ho ho ::cough...err, nevermind.
In soulmates? As in Plato? No. As in a more generic idea of two people that seem meant for each other, two people that just connect better with each other than either ever could with anybody else? Statistically, quite likely. Whether these two people actually meet, on the other hand, is a much different question. To quote Harlan quoting Tanaka Katsumi: I know that my true friend will appear after my death, and my sweetheart died before I was born. And so it goes....
In magic? Only in the picture shows.
In evolution? In general, yes. But evolution's been reduced to a very generic concept that few people seem to understand well. It's not a completed science, and people need to realize that we are still refining and developing the theories as well as unearthing new evidence to support and even confound existing theories.
In cloning? I'm gonna be in a minority here, but I'm not in any way opposed to the use of the technology. The ethical issues are there, yes, but they are no more profound or irresolvable than the generic ethical issues that permeate much of science anyway. Certainly, we should keep a close eye on the application of the cloning, especially when it touches on the issue of human rights, but we shouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand because we're worried that someone might, you know, use this technology. And stem-cell research is, imho, one of the richest and most important fields of study today.
In fraggles? Yes
In werewolves?
Werewolf!
Werewolf?
There. There wolf. There castle.
Why are you talking like that?
I thought you wanted to.
No, I don't want to.
Suit yourself. I'm easy.
In vampires? Uh, not in the supernatural sense. I do believe that people have acted like vampires for whatever psychological or medical reasons they suffered from.
In miracles? In the manifestations of a divine will? No, obviously. As in extremely unlikely events? Sure. I will even go so far as to say I want to believe in events that give some evidence of a beneficial nature in the universe. But...a freak lightning bolt that kills the axe murderer attacking you is a miracle; the freak lightning bolt that kills you is a tragedy.
In existing thylacines? Not enough evidence to judge. Sure, I believe there could be.
In Nessie? No. Cold water. Several million years. Modern technology brought to bear in searching the lake. Et cetera...nope.
In existing dinosaurs? Unless one counts Pat Buchanan, no.
In interracial marriages? Certainly. There's almost no good reason to even question this, except, as Scroll pointed out, the cultural issues. And then it's something that's nobody's business except the two people involved. Really, now, an objection to interracial marriages not actually involving you is both inane and deeply bigoted.
And since the context of the question is clear, I'm not gonna bother talking about "race" as a concept. "Race" has been integrated into the language as a means of distinguishing skin colour and cultural variations. The objections to it spring in a large part from usages of the word in contexts that have nothing to do with the real world -- Tolkien, for instance, and dwarves and hobbits and elves. No-one has ever seriously applied the term to differentation between species. It is a worthless term in most situations, of course, useful only in certain necessary cases where it acts as shorthand in a physical description (say, for instance, 911 calls, or missing person alerts or means of finding someone on a blind date.)
In adoptions? Definitely
In saving the rainforests? Yes. Not an ecologist here, but it strikes me as common sense not to, you know, destroy one of our major sources of oxygen. But that's just me. And even if the destruction of the rainforest wasn't catastrophic....where do we stop? How do we turn back?
In saving dying species? On a limited scale. Nature has done quite well in creating and taking out numerous species throughout the planet's history. Humanity -- despite the cries of both ecologists and ecological conservatives alike, is very inefficient at both. But intervention isn't necessarily wrong...just not the panacea that we think. Nor is it something that has to be done at all costs.
In the human race? Yeah, I do. We really, really suck sometimes...but we can be something special. Sometimes, we already are.
In recycling? Eh, it's a good idea hindered by inconvenient facts about efficiency and cost and relevance.
In blue tigers? Yep! Check scrollgirl for my reason why. And look here for further reading!
In tattoos? I got one, so yes.
In plastic surgery? For me? Probably not except in necessary cases of accidental deformity. For others? I don't care. It's really none of my business.
In love in general? Yes.
In animal rights? Insofar as they shouldn't be caused willful pain or be treated cruelly, yes. I do have a much-beloved cat, after all. Insofar as they should have equal rights to humans, not in the least.
In the death penalty? Abstain.>
Edit: Check out my icon -- blue tigers rule!
In God? Difficult question to answer. I am essentially agnostic, believing that the existence of an omnipotent (which, in the context, is what I assume is meant) deity can be neither proven nor disproven objectively. Not that anything can be perfectly objective, but within the limitations of how we function in the world, functional objective proof is sufficient to convince me of the existence of, say, giraffes, but not God. I live my life as if there were no god in the sense that the existence or non-existence of a God has neglible influence on any decisions I make. However, I'm not in any way impressed by atheists, who are, to my thinking, operating under no more -- and often much less -- credibility than those who believe absolutely in the existence of God without proof. In final analysis, I'd take Pascal's wager -- cause if there is no afterlife, I don't see much repercussion in a deathbed conversion. Sure, it may be hypocritical...but what does that matter if my psyche is annihilated? I won't be around to feel bad about my hypocrisy.
In ghosts? No. I do so love a good ghost story, and spent many an evening when I was much younger reading about the Tower of London and the Drury Lane and places with tradition. But I never believed them. They're more like morality fables than anything else, the stories of the living coming face to face with their own values, their own stupidity, their own cultural traditions.
In aliens? Meh. I suppose, though the statistical likelihood of any ever having visited Earth is staggeringly small. And the formulaic analyses of the likes of Sagan aren't particularly convincing, especially given that we have extremely little evidence about everything from the actual probability that life can arise in a given environment to the incidence of planets amenable to life (or even whether non-carbon based life forms can arise or whether they can arise in conditions other than the ones that prevailed and prevail on Earth.) We have simply too little information to make an informed guess. And, I suspect, most people would immediately correlate "aliens" with "higher life forms." I have a slightly easier time believing in the simplest microbial forms existing, because those require less carefully calibrated environments...the question is, in that case, whether these have any real chance to evolve further. I know some scientists have argued that the existence of any life is enough to give us greatly increased hope for "intelligent" life...but this is mere speculation. Just because organisms can evolve doesn't mean they have, or will ever have the opportunity. Except, of course, here on Earth. If the universe were infinite in both time and space, I'd be a little more willing to consider it a statistical likelihood. Barring that, though, I'm optimistic but extremely skeptical.
In Bigfoot? Ummm...no....though I have seen some big-assed shoes in stores before.
In fairies? Well, I was friends with a gay guy who referred to himself as a 'fairie.' Not an unapt description, given that he was maybe 100 lbs and 5 foot naught.
In ESP? No, but I'm reserving judgment for the most part. The human mind is a truly complex organ.
In superstition? Not as a general rule...but it's well-established that a great many superstitions have very understandable foundations. Not most, mind you. Still, just taking certain herbal remedies and certain prohibitions -- not eating pork, for instance, makes a lot of sense in a society based in a desert environment with little means of preserving meat. It falls under "religion", I know, but I consider it essentially superstitious because it seems to have not theological or metaphysical rationale.
In equal rights for gays? Certainly. But not in special privileges. Sexual preference is neither a merit nor a demerit, any more than cultural identity, gender, or favorite Jelly-Belly flavour. It's just idiotic to discriminate against someone because of what sort of people that person finds attractive.
In equal rights for women? Is this question for real? Hell yes! Same disclaimer as above, of course.
In psychics? As with ESP, except that I'm less inclined to believe in psychics for the simple reason that there are so damned many obvious frauds out there.
In appearance? I'm gonna take a stand here and piss some people off and say that appearance is relevant sometimes. Vision is one of our senses, perhaps even the most used of our senses, and it is a primary means of conveying information to the brain. Certainly we can choose to parse and translate the information once it's been processed, but we can't escape the need to deal with the information. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder, and if one person forms a different value judgment than another based on the same visual information, that's the magic of individuality. Both evaluate appearance, though.
That said, I'll give the obvious caveat that appearance is only a single factor, and people who give it undue weight are generally narrowminded and lacking in most evolutionary advantages. There was a time in our evolution where smell was given an extremely high preponderance of credibility. But we have higher cognitive functions now, and replacing smell with sight does great injustice to our abilities.
In auras? Electromagnetic? Sure. Those are fairly well established. New-Age "you and I are meant for hot sex" auras? Not a chance.
In true love? Why not? I'm a skeptic and a tad cynical still, as should be obvious from my other answers. But true love seems as reasonable a concept as any I've heard lots of people promote as inexorable fact. Is it biochemistry? Sure. Is that all there is to it? Possibly, but I choose to believe otherwise. If it's a convenient fiction, it's damned convenient for me. So I'll go ahead and believe in it and take Pascal's wager and just end up happy. I don't need to know all the absolute facts...I'd much prefer spending an afternoon in bed snuggling and laughing with my own true love. And watching Buffy DVD's, of course.
In happy endings? Again...why not? Happiness is individual, after all. There's no actual reason there can't be. I think most of the people arguing against them are arguing on the basic presupposition that there are no happy endings. Circular logic. Sure, they phrase it differently, but that's the gist. "Happy endings just don't happen" or "nobody can be always happy" aren't particular good reasons for discrediting the idea.
Now...
Have I seen a happy ending? I honestly don't know, cause "ending" is such a slippery word. Where does one thing end and another begin? We could talk about death as an ending -- a reasonable enough idea, considering that humans are pretty much the ones we're talking about with this phrase, and death is the last measurable termination of individuality. So do people die happy? Sure. Do they have lives that are on the balance happy? Certainly. I have so far. After all, unless one means perfectly happy ending, one must assume that some sort of measurement and balancing of factors is involved. Since I don't believe in "perfect" anything, I'll go out on a limb and say that general happiness is an attainable goal.
In abortions? Grudgingly. They aren't what I'd call great ideas. They're traumatic, they're philosophically debateable, and many of the major arguments propounded in their favor are the sieves in the river of logical deduction. But some arguments make a great deal of sense, and until I have better reasons to oppose them, I'll favor them as an option. Preferably a last-resort option.
I am very much opposed to 3rd-trimester abortions, though, because they...it's just a visceral reaction to what they do to an almost-fully-formed baby. Could I defend my position logically and philosophically? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the visceral is my primary criterion for opposing them, so it doesn't matter that much whether I can defend the position on the other bases.
In Santa? Ho ho ho! Ho ho ho ho ho ::cough...err, nevermind.
In soulmates? As in Plato? No. As in a more generic idea of two people that seem meant for each other, two people that just connect better with each other than either ever could with anybody else? Statistically, quite likely. Whether these two people actually meet, on the other hand, is a much different question. To quote Harlan quoting Tanaka Katsumi: I know that my true friend will appear after my death, and my sweetheart died before I was born. And so it goes....
In magic? Only in the picture shows.
In evolution? In general, yes. But evolution's been reduced to a very generic concept that few people seem to understand well. It's not a completed science, and people need to realize that we are still refining and developing the theories as well as unearthing new evidence to support and even confound existing theories.
In cloning? I'm gonna be in a minority here, but I'm not in any way opposed to the use of the technology. The ethical issues are there, yes, but they are no more profound or irresolvable than the generic ethical issues that permeate much of science anyway. Certainly, we should keep a close eye on the application of the cloning, especially when it touches on the issue of human rights, but we shouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand because we're worried that someone might, you know, use this technology. And stem-cell research is, imho, one of the richest and most important fields of study today.
In fraggles? Yes
In werewolves?
Werewolf!
Werewolf?
There. There wolf. There castle.
Why are you talking like that?
I thought you wanted to.
No, I don't want to.
Suit yourself. I'm easy.
In vampires? Uh, not in the supernatural sense. I do believe that people have acted like vampires for whatever psychological or medical reasons they suffered from.
In miracles? In the manifestations of a divine will? No, obviously. As in extremely unlikely events? Sure. I will even go so far as to say I want to believe in events that give some evidence of a beneficial nature in the universe. But...a freak lightning bolt that kills the axe murderer attacking you is a miracle; the freak lightning bolt that kills you is a tragedy.
In existing thylacines? Not enough evidence to judge. Sure, I believe there could be.
In Nessie? No. Cold water. Several million years. Modern technology brought to bear in searching the lake. Et cetera...nope.
In existing dinosaurs? Unless one counts Pat Buchanan, no.
In interracial marriages? Certainly. There's almost no good reason to even question this, except, as Scroll pointed out, the cultural issues. And then it's something that's nobody's business except the two people involved. Really, now, an objection to interracial marriages not actually involving you is both inane and deeply bigoted.
And since the context of the question is clear, I'm not gonna bother talking about "race" as a concept. "Race" has been integrated into the language as a means of distinguishing skin colour and cultural variations. The objections to it spring in a large part from usages of the word in contexts that have nothing to do with the real world -- Tolkien, for instance, and dwarves and hobbits and elves. No-one has ever seriously applied the term to differentation between species. It is a worthless term in most situations, of course, useful only in certain necessary cases where it acts as shorthand in a physical description (say, for instance, 911 calls, or missing person alerts or means of finding someone on a blind date.)
In adoptions? Definitely
In saving the rainforests? Yes. Not an ecologist here, but it strikes me as common sense not to, you know, destroy one of our major sources of oxygen. But that's just me. And even if the destruction of the rainforest wasn't catastrophic....where do we stop? How do we turn back?
In saving dying species? On a limited scale. Nature has done quite well in creating and taking out numerous species throughout the planet's history. Humanity -- despite the cries of both ecologists and ecological conservatives alike, is very inefficient at both. But intervention isn't necessarily wrong...just not the panacea that we think. Nor is it something that has to be done at all costs.
In the human race? Yeah, I do. We really, really suck sometimes...but we can be something special. Sometimes, we already are.
In recycling? Eh, it's a good idea hindered by inconvenient facts about efficiency and cost and relevance.
In blue tigers? Yep! Check scrollgirl for my reason why. And look here for further reading!
In tattoos? I got one, so yes.
In plastic surgery? For me? Probably not except in necessary cases of accidental deformity. For others? I don't care. It's really none of my business.
In love in general? Yes.
In animal rights? Insofar as they shouldn't be caused willful pain or be treated cruelly, yes. I do have a much-beloved cat, after all. Insofar as they should have equal rights to humans, not in the least.
In the death penalty? Abstain.>
Edit: Check out my icon -- blue tigers rule!