Conservative Reformation

I am generally a conservative person (although not necessarily in the political sense). I feel that change is important in any system, but there is a difference between wanting change and needing change. When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses he was upset about the selling of indulgences, not at the entire concept of the Catholic Church. This eventually led to Reformation, but I believe the Lutheran Church is still the closest of the Protestant Churches to the Catholic Church. I attended a small Catholic church service once and I was surprised how close it resembled my Lutheran church’s service (although I should note that the large Italian Catholic services I have attended did not resemble my church). In 1999, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation even made a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Justification was one of the main issues during reformation and both organizations agreed that this document was exempt from previous excommunications between the two churches. I thought it was also interesting that the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches both use the division of ten commandments established by St. Augustine It varies from the Jewish ten commandments and is not necessarily adopted by all protestant churches in that form.

Also, it is my understand that Lutherans are generally viewed as conservative with respect to monetary issues and current events.

Martin Luther Changed the World

I will admit that Martin Luther did go a bit crazy near the end of his life, but he still was the father of reformation and a very important man in the history of the world. He took on the largest church in the world and changed Western society. On top of that he translated the New Testament into German (eventually leading to the English King James version), no longer limiting the Bible to those who knew Latin and Greek.

Nowadays you always hear about the great wars and great discoveries that changed the world, but one man changed the world without war or new technology (although the printing press did help). Martin Luther’s story is inspiring even if you are not a Christian. He showed that if you truly believe something, fight for it, no matter how large your opponent may be.

So that is why I am a Lutheran. Why I am a Christian is for another post.

We were discussing a special form of existence since it applies to entities and does not apply to things that are not self aware. Entities are not necessarily confined to being human, but could include animals and higher beings. Generally it does not include things like rocks or water.

- My friend argued that for something to exist as an entity, it must be able to think. Since he was self-aware that he can think, it stands to reason that he exists.
- My argument was that we only believe that we are thinking. Our thoughts may only be a projection of a higher power or being.

- My friend then argued that if your thoughts are projections of the higher being, it would stand to reason that you are the higher being and exist as a human in a limited capacity yourself.
- I then argued that being a projection of a higher being does not mean you exist. I could tell a computer to solve a mathematical problem for me, but the computer would still not exist as a self-aware entity. The computer just thinks that it can do math on its own. I also believe that I cannot consider a “higher being” version of myself to actually be me, since the division of consciousness would make us different entities, but I’ll leave that explanation for another discussion.

At this point we both agreed to disagree just not in so many words. And I think we began talking about quantum mechanics, cat murder mysteries and trees falling on distant planets (more discussions for another time). What do you think about existence? Can we prove our own existence or is it pointless to try?

Post Scriptum: Me and my friend do not actually talk like this, I’m just trying to avoid problems with semantics by saying ‘entities’ and ‘higher beings.’

The best way to describe solipsism is to imagine that you are in a dream (for a more modern twist, you are in your own private “matrix”). Everything you experience and feel is all in this dream. All the objects, plants, animals and people are part of it. Even your own body is just part of the dream.

The people in this dream are the most important part. Do they think for themselves or are they just acting the way you expect them to act? Remember that it is your own dream and everything they do is in your head. You cannot prove they are acting for themselves; you can only prove that it is your dream. This describes “The Problem of Other Minds,” which is a critical part of solipsism.

Now imagine that you cannot wake up from this dream (or that there is nothing but certain death outside of the matrix). That is what solipsism is.

One argument against solipsism supports the idea that other people can have feelings and thoughts based upon the fact that other people feel pain. If you see someone acting hurt you can understand and relate to their pain. Therefore their thoughts and feelings must be similar to yours. I disagree with this train of thought and present my own analogy: if someone has an itchy nose, they sneeze. You have no proof they actually felt itchy, except that you saw them sneeze. Solipsism goes against the common idea that observation equals proof. An observation is merely something you perceive and proof is something that is absolutely correct. In solipsism is it understandable difficult to prove anything.

Solipsism may sound like a lonely philosophy, but it does not mean that everything around you is not real. Every person you meet still has a personality and a life; food still tastes good. The only thing different is what you believe. Do you believe in solipsism?

If not, I challenge you to find a simpler life-philosophy or to prove that solipsism is incorrect.

My philosophy is that all concepts are based on two things: logic and chaos. Logic represents everything you know and understand about a concept. Chaos represents all the unknown and random parts of a concept. For example if you roll a die, you know it will fall on one of the six sides, however you do not know which one.

For a more in depth way of thinking about it: Pick something, it can be anything. Then make a list of everything you know about it. Afterwards make a list of everything you do not know about it.  What you do not know might include: how it works, what it is made of and where did it originate. If it is like a die you might also not know what it will do.  Make sure to keep everything relevant.  After you have completed your lists, all of the properties you wrote down make up what that thing means to you. It should work for any object or idea.

To sum everything up, everything is a concept and concepts are made out of logic and chaos. I challenge you to find a more fundamental way of describing everything.

Descartes said Cogito Ergo Sum: “I think therefore I am”. This statement is widely accepted as proof of existence.

There is one problem: thinking is a result of existence, but Descartes said existence is a result of thinking. So you have circular reasoning that does not get you anywhere.

Descartes later rephrased his statement to: “I am, I exist.” But that does not mean much either. What if someone asked you: “Prove that you exist.”
Well then all you have to say is “I am.”
And then he has to go “Oh very good point. I didn’t think of that.”

In my opinion Descartes’ statements do not really prove existence. I think the concept of existence is so pure that it cannot be based on anything else. You cannot prove your own existence any more than you can disprove it.

What we are left with is a form of Pascal’s Wager. Pascal argued that it does not matter if God exists or does not exist; you are still better off believing in God rather than face the possibility of eternal damnation.

In my case I cannot prove my own existence, but it is still better for me to believe I exist than to face the pointlessness of not existing. So my statement is this: “I believe I exist.” It implies that I cannot prove my own existence, but I must believe in it for the only other choice is not to exist. You may say that I am arguing semantics, but I feel there is a strong difference between my belief in existence and Descartes’ necessity of existence because of thought or being.

Please comment and respond. I would really like feedback on my philosophy and I challenge you to prove your own existence. It is much harder than you think.