Exploration of the Religious Thinker: Interview #4 - DPR(oberts)

Welcome to the ERT, the place where we endeavour religious thoughts.

Today on the show, we have DPR [TheDredPriateRoberts] who identifies as Agnostic on his profile but seeks to not be labelled at all. It is important that we take note that he is unlabelled and non-theistic rather than a non-denominational Theist or Deist, so that we take into account that this individual doubts God's existence altogether.

Doubting doesn't just mean lacking conviction and that is something we certainly wish to prove on this show. 

What are you sure of, with regards to reality and a creator?

Do you find it offensive when people suggest that agnosticism is merely being too cowardly to convict yourself to a faith?

oofff that's a tough one, I'm not sure I can say I'm sure of much really,  I guess I look at things as odds if you will, for instance I've explored a bit on intelligent design, which is more likely i.d. or just some random happening, obviously that's a rabbit hole so won't get into the specifics.  I like the idea of string theory with different dimensions and different levels.  If that theory is true, really to any extent then I think there are multiple realities, how that relates to us I don't know.

being offended is a choice, people can't offend you unless you allow it and choose to feel it, people can say what they want, but something or someone judgemental like that, that obviously doesn't know me, I would just dismiss them out of hand.

To my knowledge, string theory doesn't demand multiple realities, instead it has onion-like layers of reality. It also doesn't deny multiple realities, it just doesn't demand it.

Interestingly, M-Theory seeks to stop string theory denying a singular reality by having an 11th 'true creator' dimension and even a 12th dimension which is where pure randomness occurs and where 'something' and 'nothing' can at times be equal and explains perhaps how reality can enable there to be anything despite originally there being an absence of all that there is now.

Anyway, let me ask you more about your multiple reality theory. If we have multiple, parallel universes so to speak, do you ever feel unfairly lucky that you're the version of DPR that isn't in deep poverty, agony etc? Do you ever envy the DPR versions who are doing better in life than you are? Do you feel that if we are just running one of many realities, that moral decisions matter less as no matter how good or evil we are, the evil is happening anyway in one of the other ones?

(hadn't heard of the 12th, that's a new one for me, haven't read up on it in a while)

IF (big if) there is a creator, multiple realities, I think our counterparts would be us and not really counterparts.  When I think of the present and attempt to put it into context since the beginning of man to the end (if there is an end) our experience is infinitesimally small.  Since we are just a collection of our experiences it seems rather unfair so to speak to miss out on all of that and whatever else there is.  While I don't think we would directly experience them, rather experience them as an observer which as a "higher being" that experience would probably be just like what we experience now, just as "real".  when I try to comprehend the vastness of this reality and the possibility of being able to explore it all it makes sense to me as it would be a purpose.  I think if you had everything you ever wanted, you'd cease to exist as you'd no longer have any desires or purpose.  I don't recall which religion believes you are reincarnated until you desire nothing and simply disappear, something like that anyway.

as a multiverse, reality being one could live any life that existed or will exist, maybe that's what we are doing for the experience.  hard to believe I'd do this again though ahaha

one of many realities, sure I would say that's a possibility

the thing about good and evil....... again if there is this progression and assuming we only have 1 mortal life, what we do here is so trivial compared to the infinite.  If there is a biblical heaven then same thing, whatever horrors have been experienced here are trivial to the joy or whatever is promised in heaven.

Consider a baby getting their first immunizations, many times they scream and cry, often if the parents are new they get upset as well, until I explain the context that, that experience is the worst thing that has happen to them (the baby) in their entire life (of usually 7 weeks)  So if there is something more I think that analogy would be the same for us.

M-theory adds on 2 dimensions, not just 1. What it says is that there is the 11th where things randomly alter themselves and interchange energy with matter and such. In the 12th is complete and utter interchangeability between absense of things and presence of things, in this dimension things come out of nothing quite literally and turn back into nothing too.

Both Taoism and Buddhism think this. Buddhism says that's a good thing, Taoism says it just happens to be the case.

Hinduism suggests that eventually if good enough of a person in each life, you eventually stop getting reincarnated and allowed to rest (thus desiring nothing more) but it doesn't directly say there's an ending.

Are you saying that our suffering and all bad things in this reality are part of a greater experiment? I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the ending of what you said.

good and bad, you can't have one without the other, if heaven is how it's described then, as some say, we are already in hell, no matter the most extreme joy you could feel, can't compare to what heaven holds, that's my understanding anyway.  The way I see it in context with a possible heaven, other realities etc that we talked about before, this mortal life is rather insignificant.  Which then begs the question why bother with it at all?  it's difficult to put it all in to some kind of perspective, at least not one I understand enough yet.  I find I do a lot of "if/then" statements and patterns of thinking, especially on this subject.

the age old question, what is the meaning of life?

My hope is that I will get to pursue knowledge and attempt to know everything there is to know.

Where do you believe that morality begins? How should we approach it?

man you ask some difficult questions.  

Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.
Dalai Lama

my definition of love is a bit crass but so am I, this should not be considered absolute either, 

We don't love other people, we love how they make us feel about ourselves, we are self centered, self absorbed etc  It's impossible to define fully but this is true in many ways imo.

The same is true with morality I think.  safety in numbers, needing those who can do what you need but can't, there's a practicality to it.

Your approach to love is a very feline one. Well, very animalistic in general but especially cats are known to particularly 'love' based solely on superficial things (yet they feel very deep to the cat and it's not pseudo-love).

The problem with your approach is, of course, that no single human can possibly have enough contact with other humans in the community, society and/or country such that they have developed feelings towards what those people do or act like. Thus, we cannot base our morals on that alone if we seek to be a moralistic society.

What is your retort to me saying that?

I had never thought of it that way but I don't particularly disagree.  However I would say this is how love and morality began and it changed, evolved.  What I find interesting is similar beliefs, "morality" can be seen in nature in different parts or times in our society.  Canadian geese mate for life which in many ways could be compared to some of our morality.  Not having indiscriminate sex prevents spread of s.t.d.s the break down of the nuclear family and society which I think we are witnessing now.  Morality also helps prevent hostility, violence, increases they chance of surviability of the species.