Provide an argument for your belief system

[JA]

Are you a Liberal? Conservative? Nationalist? Socialist? Or something else? Do you have any set of religious beliefs, such as Catholicism, Evangelical Baptist, Sunni Muslim, Reformed Judaism, Atheism, Hinduism, or something else? Is there any philosophy to which you subscribe, such as Existentialism, Platonism, Stoicism, or one of the numerous others? If so, you can take this as your opportunity to share why you hold those sets of beliefs, argue for them (perhaps to persuade others), and maybe just give other folks here more information about your belief system if you believe it’s misunderstood, not well known, or unique to you.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I would actually like to see this thread flourish, though I am loath to articulate the full extent of my (lack of) sincere beliefs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My political belief system can best be described as "Live and let live, but don't get cucked by the owning class."

As far as religion goes, I suppose some form of progressive Anglo-Catholicism fits the mold.  I stray from the term "liberal" for its Spongian associations.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

My political belief system can best be described as "Live and let live, but don't get cucked by the owning class."

As far as religion goes, I suppose some form of progressive Anglo-Catholicism fits the mold.  I stray from the term "liberal" for its Spongian associations.

Forgive me, because I asked you once before, but I probably did not ask articulately enough—why do you believe?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My political belief system can best be described as "Live and let live, but don't get cucked by the owning class."

As far as religion goes, I suppose some form of progressive Anglo-Catholicism fits the mold.  I stray from the term "liberal" for its Spongian associations.

Forgive me, because I asked you once before, but I probably did not ask articulately enough—why do you believe?

At the risk of sounding trite, I am going to borrow a C.S. Lewis quote: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."  I was raised Christian.  It's the path I've known since birth.  The Gospel allows me to better understand myself, and it casts a small light by which I try to understand everything else.  I believe that the mission of every Christian is to live like Christ and grow in our ability to do so, especially when it is least convenient for us, and even doubt (which is a key component of my faith) grants us the opportunity to walk a humbler path more in line with the life example set by Jesus.

For me there is something that the overarching story of purpose and redemption offers that is infinitely better than a purely natural or materialistic outlook.  And when I pray, I become intimate with a higher "force" that I feel like I've known my entire life.  If I didn't have faith, I would be lost.  But Christ carries a torch that compels me to keep moving during even the darkest hours of my life.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but that is why I believe - and practice - the Christian faith.  I believe because through Christ, I see truth.

[Lechasseur]

I don't have an ideology that's present in America, but I'm probably a mix of One Nation Conservative and High Tory. The former because I oppose class warfare and support a social market economy but at the same time I believe the elites have a moral duty to take care of society and help those less fortunate than them, and High Tory because I'm a supporter of traditional institutions and values (although I've evolved on some things such as gay rights).

Then for religious beliefs, I'm a Christian who was raised in the Church of England. I still am one but I'm probably closer to Unitarian Christianity (if I managed to find a NON-UU Unitarian Christian Church I could see myself changing churches) at this point in terms of beliefs though. Why? Anglicanism because I was raised in the church and it's my church in a cultural sense, and Unitarianism because it just simply best fits my religious views (the UU don't though), these beliefs being for example the oneness of God and the right to inquiry and free interpretation of the Scriptures.
If ever I would go to a church whose origins aren't in the Reformation, it would be the Orthodox Church, because the liturgy is beautiful and I think the church has strong values.

I can't say I have any specific philosophy.

[dead0man]

I don't really have a "belief system".  People with these "belief systems" often seem like they have to tow the line, and I hate towing the line....or at least forced to tow the line by my allegiances.  I'm a skeptic and anti-authority.  I think people should be able to do whatever they want, including things I think are stupid and wrong, as long as they ain't hurting anybody that doesn't want to be hurt.  You want to fight to the death in a cage? Enjoy!  You want to do inject pure cow urine into your lungs because you think it will allow you to breath underwater?  Who the hell am I to stop your science?  I'm also glad not everybody shares my views, that would be boring.  It's better that there are socialists and alt-righters.  It's good to have Catholics and Muslims around.  As long as everybody agrees not to go around punching people with different labels in the face, we're all fine.  None of these groups can "take over", not here.  Not now.  And it's good to have these people around to remind the rest of us why they suck.


edit-I don't really "do" religion.

[Torie]

I am Godless, but I believe in the Golden Rule, and live and let live to the extent wise and practicable. What is wise and practicable as to the extent individual autonomy that should be permitted, as well as any other public policy issue, flows from and is based on data and empirical research, and what has been shown to work, and what has not. Beyond that, I tend to dislike ideology and belief systems. It boxes one in, and closes minds, in my experience.  KISS is my motto as to overarching belief systems. That is one reason, that I tend to dislike dense philosophical tomes and philosophical discussions. They tend to lead to nowhere useful in my experience.

I wish we followed better the Golden Rule around here in our interpersonal interactions. That opinion of mine I don't think will surprise anyone.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I guess I could try providing an argument for liberal internationalism.

Well, I think the historical trends and virtually all examples are quite clear on that- whenever a country embraces capitalism and allies with the west, its economy flourishes- see Japan, South Korea, Israel and more. Meanwhile, countries like Venezuela or Cuba, that continue to stubbornly cling to anti-western views and systerms, are failing hard. Even countries that try to challenge the West, such as Russia or China, might be growing in strength and influence but their people are very much still suffering, without any prospects for a better future. So when a country embraces the model of liberal democracy, the ruling class actually suffers (corruption is limited and they can no longer cling on to power no matter what, at least not officially) while the situation of the population gets far better. Sure, I recognize that there are still elites in liberal democracies, such as the billionaire class, and I do support combatting against their influence. But it's much better than in countries where these elites actively rule and do what they want with people's money and rights.

Of course, this doesn't mean complete capitalism- I believe that liberal democratic governments need to use their prosperity and wealth to help the population with free healthcare, subsudized education and housing, and a robust, effective welfare system. That's essential- when you're growing and prosperous but your people remain, for example, uncovered, I believe that to be very inadequate, and in all the countries that have universal healthcare we can see that it works.

But this isn't just economical- one has to embrace western democratic values of progress, freedom and equality. I have yet to see an example of a country that remained with a strongly conservative society but did see the economic growth and prosperity that comes with embracing liberalism, because it seems like naturally, when society is too conservative and unready for democracy, they elect strongmen who subsequently usher in corruption. And for them to be corrupt, the markets have to be controlled by them, so it spirals to the situation we see in many countries like Russia, China or Venezuela.

And it's not just a matter of economy- I strongly believe in the concept of human society, and our need to protect fellow human beings everywhere, even if I do see the importance of nationalism and caring for your nation first. So I think we should advocate for liberal values like LGBTQ rights, feminism and democracy EVERYWHERE, whenever it's logical.

[SingingAnalyst]

Religiously, I am Christian. Politically, I am moderate with a bit of a contrarian streak.

Religiously, like probably 90% of the world's population, I am a Christian because that is how I was raised. One reason I remain a Christian, in addition to the hope of eternal life, is the emphasis Jesus in his ministry placed on (1) forgiveness and (2) coming to the aid of those who are suffering.

Nearly 2000 years later, "pop" and clinical psychologists agree that holding grudges is not healthy. No one should be "guilted" into forgiving someone before they are ready-- and in certain cases I believe nonforgiveness to be a perfectly moral option-- but particularly in the case of misunderstandings and accidental offenses, appropriate forgiveness is good for both parties.

Politically, I tend to be drawn to candidates who I believe are being attacked unfairly (see point (2) in paragraph 2). I voted, reluctantly, for Bush in '92 for this reason; similarly, two years later, during the "red wave", I voted for Richard Austin (D) for MI Secretary of State (he lost). I tend to mix my ballot with Dem, GOP, independent, Green and Libertarian candidates; however, I do not believe that candidates (or their committees) who engage in deceptive advertising should be rewarded.

Perhaps my greatest shortcomings are overestimating others' (1) intelligence; (2) tolerance for ambiguity; and (3) attention spans. As a teacher, especially, I have learned to explain things that I consider obvious; more recently, I have learned to do this in life as well.

I am pleased to see so many young people on Atlas. Stay hopeful; your life is just beginning. Never stop learning and growing; I certainly haven't stopped, at 51.

[Mopsus]

"Time is a flat circle". Everything "new" is an iteration of something "old", because a product of the same universal cycle of expansion and contraction. Control over this cycle is the foundation of power in this world, and the moral justification for any hierarchy. It is also the foundation of religion.

[RFayette]

As someone who naturally tends to question things and had an agnostic phase, I very much believe Christianity on the basis that I believe it is evidentially true.  

I think the best defense of Christianity I have ever read (albeit a bit fiery for my taste) was written by Tertullian , nearly 1900 years ago, in particular the 21st chapter.

There is strong evidence for the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  I believe that Christ rose from the dead and that the disciples didn't go to their graves for a lie; I think there is solid historical evidence for the miracles in the New Testament (especially the crucifixion darkness) and even today.  

I think there are also strong scientific and philosophical arguments for a creator God in general - in particular fine tuning, the Big Bang showing the universe had a definite beginning, as well as various ideas like the moral argument. 

[TJ in Oregon]

I had a dream once in which someone asked me why I am still Catholic and in the dream I responded, "Because God is real and He loves me." That seems like a better answer than I could ever give while awake, so I'll use it as an outline here.

As for the first half of the answer, evidence for God's existence can be seen in the existence of causality in the universe and asking from where its power is derived. Why is there something rather than nothing? One can grasp on for answers in all sorts of places, but none, in my view, provide a satisfactory explanation except that there is a first cause from which all other causes derive their power. This is a point I've argued seeming ad nauseum on this forum.

It has been occasionally remarked, and understandably so, that the above is boring, abstract, and sterile. But I think that's because it's a little underdeveloped. The God of classical theism, and ultimately Christianity, isn't the distant big computer in the sky executing an algorithm; He has a will. Evidence of teleology in the universe is perhaps even more controversial than the existence of God in the first place, yet I would submit that it is even more obvious. If we take the strictest of materialists seriously (and frankly they are the materialists most worthy of being taken seriously) and consider the possibility that all is naught but atoms and the void, it becomes utterly unintelligible that these pixels on a screen could convey anything. But the pixels clearly say something, they point at something, they demonstrate intentionality, at least on the part of an exercise of the will by a human actor. Well, if there is a God as we discussed above, sustaining the universe in existence, then it's an act of his will, dripping with divine language all pointing at something.

And that universe includes us, created by God and pointing at something. So why were we created? Christianity tells us we were created out of love and for love. Now, Christian love is not the same as emotional feeling or sexual attraction, but is an act of the will to the good of another. Thus man was created to live in society, lest love would not be possible. The greatest of love is toward not just another man but toward God himself who wrote us into existence. Some see in that a kind of constraint in how they must live their lives, and admittedly it is true. Truth is always and necessarily restrictive in the sense that it is the selection of one answer rather than many others that we could choose from at will. Truth requires us to make changes in our lives and in what we believe in, and sometimes that's very inconvenient. When I was younger the burdensome aspects were more apparent, but more recently I've come to see that when God puts up a fence, it's really a guardrail against something I think would make me happy, but it ultimately wouldn't. Pleasure is a strange thing in that it acts like a drug, demanding more and more to elicit the same response. Ultimately we were not made for this world at all, and once I see that, it all starts to make more sense. Ultimately we were made by God for union with God.

[DC Al Fine]

I had a dream once in which someone asked me why I am still Catholic and in the dream I responded, "Because God is real and He loves me." That seems like a better answer than I could ever give while awake, so I'll use it as an outline here.

That's all a very good discussion of why you are a Christian, but it doesn't really speak to why you are a Catholic specifically.

[TJ in Oregon]

I had a dream once in which someone asked me why I am still Catholic and in the dream I responded, "Because God is real and He loves me." That seems like a better answer than I could ever give while awake, so I'll use it as an outline here.

That's all a very good discussion of why you are a Christian, but it doesn't really speak to why you are a Catholic specifically.

That's a fair point. I'll address it.

I am a Catholic, specifically, because Catholicism is Christianity in its fullest. I think Protestantism in particular is a series of simplifications of Christianity (e.g. sola this sola that) resulting from individual thinkers taking an element of Christianity and elevating it beyond its proper place. For example, when it comes to salvation or where doctrines come from or what practices are necessary of a Christian, Catholicism really is the All-of-the-Above answer to most theological false dichotomies.

I also think that Christianity has an element of ritual to it that is missing in many branches of Protestantism by reducing the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist to mere symbolism. I think that both the words of Christ in all four Gospels as well as the overwhelming weight of Christian tradition point to the Eucharist as a ritual sacrifice and one that cannot simply be left unpracticed for the purposes of relationship or pedagogy.

Lastly, I think that much of modern Protestantism, and indeed all too much of the thinking of modern Catholics, follow the philosophical darkening of the intellect that occurred as a result of the Enlightenment, from its discarding of teleology as an inherent part of the universe and from its intense over-focus on a purely political understanding of freedom to the detriment of freedom as freedom from sin. The results of this mechanist and radical liberal thinking are the unraveling of Christianity in the developed world, particularly the mechanist ideas leading to a loss of belief in the existence of God and the radical liberal thinking toward a loss of faith in God's goodness as an authority higher than ourselves.

To me anyway, it seems that Catholicism is the natural conclusion to this line of thinking, that Christ's antidote to the mechanist and radical liberal excesses of modern society is particularly the institutional Church that he himself founded, whatever may be the warts of its members.

[Santander]

Nationalist and socialist but I call myself libertarian to trigger Gary Johnson types.

[muon2]

I am trained as a scientist, but as a citizen I vote for my government and have tried to use a rational basis for my votes. I've tried to extend that rationality to the process of governing as well. I generally find that my rational basis better fits conservative principles found in traditional Republicanism. Here's a brief summary of my core principles of governance, and a fairly TL;DR exposition of how I might argue for them based on my training. You may note that at times these principles could work against each other, and that is true. It's why balancing tests are something I generally support as a means to resolve competing principles.

Principles for governance:
I. New information will necessitate change and goverment is an agent to manage change.
II. Governmental decisions should be made on the most complete information possible.
III. Governmental decisions should provide a level basis for everyone to adapt to new information and subsequent change.
A. Change should be managed sufficiently gradually so that the substantial part of the population has time to adjust to new information.
B. Change should be managed consistently to avoid unecessary localized differences in information.
C. Information and its use should be decentralized to the extent possible while managing change.

My argument:
1. Information theory is heavily derived from the branch of physics called statistical mechanics. In particular the ability to make decisions is based on how much information is missing for that decision. That missing information is associated with the entropy of statistical mechanics.
2. The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy must be conserved, and a particular type of conservative process is one which is adiabatic. In physics an adiabatic process is one where changes are fast enough to not lose heat or matter, but slow enough that the system is always effectively at equilibrium. An adiabatic change is the most ideal in terms of minimizing the change in entropy. My equivalent statement is that changes that are managed so that they are not wasteful yet slow enough so that society maintains equilibrium are the most efficient at minimizing information loss.
3. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system must never decrease with time. Even if individual areas within a system may have decreased entropy other areas must increase entropy such that the total system must not have decreased entropy. My equivalent statement is that information will generally be lost over time, even if individuals are increasing in information.
4. In physics coarse-graining is the process where we move from the vast number of variables governing the behavior of individual particle to averages that describe the macroscopic properties of large systems. Coarse-graining always comes with the loss of information and gives rise to entropy compared to the behavior of individual isolated particles. My equivalent statement is that changes designed to act on larger groups as opposed to smaller groups or individuals come at the expense of the loss of information.

[Torie]

I wonder if anyone has ever written a statement similar to Muon2's regarding his public policy/political belief system in the history of man. Granted, the odds would be more likely if there were more hard science folks in politics, beyond a rare few.

While fascinating, the statement has such generalized principles, that I am not sure how useful there are in individual practical applications. That I suspect is particularly true with the bits about entropy. But just because it might not provide much traction where the rubber meets the road, it is nevertheless fascinating.

And one aspect of his statement that  is practical, and important, is to try to get at the facts, and objectively operate from those. And that means sometimes not rushing into things, because we don't have all the facts, or need more research, and/or dry runs, to try to predict better what will be the real, rather than hoped for or imagined, outcomes of policies that are adopted, and to minimize the unanticipated negative aspects which pop out unexpectedly and bite one in the butt. Thus to cite a particular example for me, my caution about how to refashion our medical services structure, to cover all in the most economically efficient way possible while preserving a reasonable amount of individual choice.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

My beliefs are rooted in what I know to be true from biology: we are a single species of relatively little genetic diversity and we are more alike than different. That is not to say we shouldn't  celebrate our differences, but we should be careful not to inflame or emphasise them too much. There is a great love amongst many in emphasising sub-identities and groups - tribes, religions, nations and races - and believing this is a useful endeavour. To me, this is poison. It both hurts the individual, who is forced to subordinate themself to their group lest they be viewed as traitorous; and humanity as a whole, which becomes balkanised along these abstract lines for no reason. We should strive to recognise our unity, to create a worldwide governing structure to grant us our rights and to end war, exploitation, national conflicts, borders (ultimately), bigotry and poverty: for an egalitarian, democratic and global society.

Our needs as humans are very similar, and it follows that our rights to have these needs met are also similar. Most people want to live in what they consider dignity, normally with their families and friends as well. All humans deserve housing, resources, healthcare, quality education throughout their life, sufficient free time, and freedom to do as they please in a manner that does not harm others. To me, that is a birthright, no matter where you are born or your own personal abilities.

The main thing that prevents us from allowing these birthrights to be granted is scarcity, which can be artificial or natural limitations that mean the human population is genuinely prevented from being granted adequate resources. However, I have faith in science and technology. I believe a world of post-scarcity can be reached with the development of self replicating machinery, ultra cheap solar cells and energy storage devices, widespread automation that will liberate billions from drudgery and laboratory creates foodstuffs that can save our ecosystems from the exploitation we force upon them.