You are on page 1of 3

the argument for minimalism

i agree with atheists that deification of humans is a mental disease we need to cure. The first st ep
is raising awareness. Please visit the following websites and watch a few vids when you have
time:
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingAtheist

When we buy something or when we pay at tention to s omet hing,we directly/indirectly support it .
When we buy a mindless/ins ipid teen-magaz ine or idolize some teen-heart-t hrob, we s upport
them and all they stand for: commercializ ation, homogeniz ation, exploitation, coercion, sheep-
ification,.. - in general, a ll the meaningles s at tribut es of modern societ y. We become sheep and
the money-mongers get richer off it.

When we subscribe to the latest 'spiritual fad' -w het her it be Jay Weidner or Fred Burks , we
glean a few truths but mostly are simply making them richer .. When we endorse Obama becaus e
we're black-skinned or believe in 'equal opportunity'/affirmative-action, we're actually being
divisive becaus e our r eas ons for backing him are inappropriate. When w e join the A sian
Coalition because we're afraid 'Asians don't have enough say in America' or we want to push the
Asian-A merican agenda, w e'r e just as wrong .. When we push Chris tianity becaus e we 'know'it 's
right (the 'fact' Jesus gave his life for our sins), this is Sin.

i will present a (not t he only) minimalis t view and my argument for it:
1. we exis t (we're not s ome dream/fantasy/illus ion)
2. there is right and w rong (there is some morality as sociat ed with this universe)
3. God exist s (t he Prime Cause / Creat or and She's a Girl)
4. She only needs one t hing: our acknowledgement
5. there is a minimal/optimal set of Basic Human Rights and they are identifiable
6. there is a minimal/optimal set of values that engenders an enduring human civil ization
7. there is an optimal pat h to maximize meaning for humanity

How did i arrive at all of this? Was it magic? Divine inspiration? Or did i simply apply the
systems approach to the God-human system?

Underlying above is the assumption: minimal is best. i cannot prove that; i can only give
evidence against the contrary: historically, when w e ins is t one religion/ideology is Right over
others, what us ually results is war (death, des truct ion, upheaval, w as te (of time and resources),..).
The Crusades. Iraq. The Cold War. T he New Cold War (between Islam and the West) .. Implicit
in all modern religions is an extended set of statements codifying each: the Bible, the Quran, the
Talmud,.. and minimal set of tenets associated with each uniquely ident ifying t hem: Jesus Saves,
M ohammed was His prophet, Yahweh chose us,..This divisive set of mutually exclusive values
will destroy us if we're not careful. Please reread that last statement as many times required for it
to really 'sink in'.

Atheists are purists /absolut e minimalis ts and i admire t hem. i would be honored to be mentioned
in the same breath/sentence as those above. But t his extreme is unnecessary and in my opinion,
wrong. When we eliminate God from the God-human system, we decrease the overall meaning of
the system. Goal seven above is the ultimate aim for this version of minimalism.
So lets go through the list above step by st ep:
1. If t his were some dream/fantasy, it must have an equivalent set of attributes to mimic an actual
reality to such 'resolut ion' / precis ion that makes it ess entially equivalent t o an act ual realit y. For
example, if this 'reality' was just a dream in some sadist ic god's mind, t he level of det ail,
consistency, and precis ion makes it equivalent t o the real thing. So what i'm saying is that even if
this IS a dream, it's so precise that essentially - it's real.
2. If t here were no right and wrong (no absolute moralit y), everything is fair game and this w orld
would surely end in s elf-destruction. T hat's jus t the practical considerat ion. M ost of our laws and
morality grew out of the Golden Rule but even that's not perfect. What about theIridium Rule? ;)
Or the God Rule: Love? You slap me in the face (maybe i deserved it). Should you be punished?
Should we waste resources on a judge/ jury to decide? Or should i simply accept it gracefully? For
the sake of argument, i say: "Sam, offer the other cheek." Isn't that the ess ence of Love:
acceptance, forgiveness, trus t, respect ,.. People need rules and consequences for breaking them;
what the minimal s et is for that - i'm not especially interested in . But they s hould be based on an
agreeable minimal set of Basic Human Right s (violating them is criminal) . . So this has been
largely a practical discussion: w e need concept s of right and wrong in order to survive as a race.
3. please see WfM
4. If w e can agree on point 3, She must have some attribut es. She's infinite, She's omnipotent ,
She's omniscient ,.. These say nothing about Her except She's Infinit e which every deist
recognizes .. In WfM i argue She's a cont inuum engineer s econd to none. She's Loyal to Her
creation but this says nothing more than She Loves us. The minimalist 'fact' She needs our
acknowledgement provides the basis for mutual Love which, to me, is more core to Her being
than Infinity. M ight s ound like i'm playing with words but as a devout minimalist , i assure you -
it's not. We cannot accept Her love if we don't acknowledge Her .. We cannot recognize Her as
Prime Cause without acknowledging Her. The minimal need/attribu te of God is
acknowledgement.
5. This argument follows 6 so see below .
6. Our civilizat ion is based on social relations hips. Enduring relationships always have two
essential characteristics regardless of their type/kind: trust and respect. Further, i argue they are
one-in-the-same; you can't have one w ithout the ot her. i trus t you to respect m e as i MUST to
even HOPE for them: this is the best version of the Golden Rule i can propose .. In all these
writings, implicit is the statement: i Trust You to Respect M e i(pray the divine in you will
respect the divine in me). If you cannot, i will do my best to forgive you. The reverse is my
ONLY expectation of other human beings; if i fuck-up, i expect you t o do your best to forgive
me. M y consistent readers will know this is the only time i've explicitly used the word expect.
7. If w e can basically agree on point s 1 through 6, we necessarily come to a point in the
discussion where we must agree on something meaningful for humanity. M eaning is not arbitrary
as morality is not. There must be a continuum: some things more meaningful and some things
less. Our actions and perceptions (how we see things / how we interpret them) can be more
meaningful or they can be less. H ow we relate to each other can be more meaningful or less ..
These interactions should not be arbitrary or based on any one particular value-set associated with
some arbit rary religion or else t he cycle of violence and revenge will cont inue forever until our
eventual self-destruction. We must break t he cycle with: aw areness of the problems associated
with religions/ideology, awareness of religion-specific problems (in cluding at heis m), agreement
on how to dig ourselves out of this collective hole (that is rational/reas onable), and act ually
moving forward in a positive direction.
Not all change is good; it is our obligation to find the common path to greatest meaning.

You might also like