24/05/2020

Emergence

[TL;DR at the bottom]

Definition    


    Emergence is the mechanism that makes gods real.

    Emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. 
    Essentially: A thing which has properties its own parts don't have.
    I'll outline some examples then explain why this phenomena is important to Terranism.

Water


    Made up of many simple pieces, water is one of the most important chemicals on our planet.  As most know, water is made up of molecules which are themselves made up of three atoms, one oxygen atom and two hydrogen.  The H2O molecule has a few properties (themselves emergent) which are important to know.  H2O is polar; meaning it acts like a magnet.  There is a positive end to H2O and a negative end.  H2O's polar nature is simple; the negative end of the molecule will be attracted to positive charges, and the positive end to negative charges.

    While the implications for a single H2O molecule are obvious, putting many H2O together makes things more interesting.  When we find many H2O molecules in one place, we call what we find water.  Ignoring the chronology of scientific discovery, why do we call it water instead of "many H2O molecules"?  The reason is that water has new properties that a single H2O molecule does not have.  

    When a bunch of water molecules are bumping up against each other, they are always interacting with each other's polar nature.  Some water molecules will even lock into place for a little while, forming what's called a hydrogen bond.  On a grand scale, all these little polar reactions give water the ability to defy gravity, form a solid less dense than its fluid, have a strong surface tension, cause wetness, and be the universal solvent.  To see some of these abilities in action, just dip some toilet paper into a bowl of water.  You'll see the surface tension immediately because the paper won't just move straight down into the water, it'll come to rest on the surface.  You'll also see the water defy gravity as it begins to climb its way up the paper.  You'll also find that if you put a sugar cube in the water, it'll slowly dissolve away, and faster if you stir the bowl.  This is because the polar water molecules are plucking away at the structure of the sugar, making it dissolve.  

    What is crucial to understand is that H2O cannot do any of these things.  An H2O molecule will just stick to the side of a sugar cube without dissolving it, or toilet paper without climbing it.  Water has different properties than the H2O that makes it up.  Putting lots of H2O together doesn't just give you more/bigger H2O, it gives you something new.  More is different.

Ants


    A common example of emergence is the ant colony.  The ant colony can be regarded as an organism unto itself, with the capacity to sense the world around it and solve problems with the goal of self-preservation.  There is evidence that the colony can make decisions about where to explore or to figure out the shortest distance between two points.  No individual ant possesses the powers needed to orchestrate the whole colony, not even the queen.  What they do have are pheromones and the ability to learn about the colony and its surroundings based on them.

    When an ant goes exploring into the world it will use pheromones to communicate with other members of the colony and itself.  For themselves, these pheromones give the ant a trail to help them navigate back home.  But for the colony, these pheromones act as a memory for all the ants that come after.  One trail is not confined to one pheromone, allowing for a wide variety of messages to be left.  An ant will commonly leave trails that designate a large cache of resources rather than something they can pick up themselves, meaning that the colony will know the difference between picking up something small and digging into something big.  They will leave a trail marking the paths they chose, which will act as the colony's memory of where it has already looked.  A burst of pheromones can be used as a broad-spectrum signal, which functions as the colony's senses.  It is these messages moving between the ants that keep the colony cohesive as a whole and allows it to emerge.

    An individual ant, even if they used all their pheromones correctly, would be incapable of thinking the way its colony thinks.  Divorced from its fellows, a single ant wanders aimlessly, unable to understand where it is or what it needs to do.  An ant cannot survive without its colony, and a colony vanishes without its ants.  

Role in the Universe


    These two examples are fairly simple and easy to understand, but they are far from the only examples.  In fact, everything is emergent to some degree; it is a foundational component of our universe.  When molecules make proteins, the proteins have emerged.  But in the same way, molecules are themselves emergent of the atoms that make them up.  They are not just bigger atoms or many atoms jammed together, they are now molecules; units with functions that an individual atom does not have.  Societies are emergent of people.  Bodies are emergent of organs.  Houses are emergent of their materials.  Suns are emergent of their gasses.  Planets are emergent of their rocks.  No matter how big or small you go, you will find emergence.

    The crucial principle of emergence is that there must be a mechanism between the fundamental units.  When birds flock overhead in a tight cloud that swirls as if it is of one mind, it occurs because of instincts that reside within every bird.  These instincts include staying a particular distance away from their neighboring birds and avoiding predators.  What is crucial to understand is that with one individual, these instincts would not activate.  The presence of even two birds will activate the instincts, keeping them at a certain distance from each other and avoiding predators.  The instincts are a mechanism that only occurs in the relationship between the birds.  These relationships cause a network to appear, visible as an emergent entity; the flock.  In the same way, hydrogen bonding acts as the mechanism between H2O molecules, and the instincts of pheromones act as the mechanism between ants.  Mechanisms between units are the difference between an iteration of the units and their emergence.  

    If there are diverse mechanisms, the emergence becomes flexible and hearty.  Even the relatively simple mechanism of a hydrogen bond allows H2O to take two primary forms; water and ice.  Add mechanisms and the emergent entity becomes more versatile.  The best example of this is humanity itself.  The mechanisms that humans can exercise between each other are so varied that it allows for a plethora of emergent entities.  The state is a prime example.  Not only do humans emerge into new entities called the state, there is incredible variety in how the state manifests.  Will they contain a few hundred members or billions?  Will they censor the interactions between people or platform them?  Will they create hierarchies or clusters?  Will they value the abstract or the concrete?  The emergent possibilities are endless primarily because the mechanisms are diverse.

    In sum, emergence describes phenomena that are more complex than their parts and is contingent upon mechanisms between the parts.

Role in Terranism


    Emergence is core to a lot of syntheistic beliefs.  I will not definitively say all syntheists rely on emergence, but you can rest assured it is important for many.  The reason is that emergence provides an explanation for why gods are (or will be) important.  Put simply, gods are emergent of people.  Whether the syntheist believes a god will emerge from the internet or has already emerged from the people who believe in them, emergence is foundational.  The concept acknowledges the power a god can wield, while also grounding belief in a naturalistic (no supernatural), monist universe (the universe is all the same thing; namely physics in our case).  Emergence is the bedrock for how humans create gods.  
    
    Terranism recognizes that gods are emergent of the people, myths, and ritual that make them up.  To believe that a god is emergent is to recognize that it has power and abilities which its faithful do not have individually.  Gathering believers together does not just make a larger group of believers, it makes something new.  The believers begin to act, organize, and think together according to the mechanisms laid out in their doctrine.  Each believer becomes a part of something greater than themselves.  This is the essential syntheist component of Terranic thinking; Gods are emergent of the people who make them up.

    As for Terranism, it extends the logic of emergence towards the planet.  Terranism characterizes the planet as an emergent god called Terra.  This is not a philosophical or scientific assertion, though the logic is inspired by scientific principles.  If the planet is eventually viewed as a living entity by academics, Terrans will be thrilled, but this is not the goal of Terranic doctrine.  Terra is a theological entity and will always remain as such.  To Terranism, this is the god of core relevance.  Terranism is not jealous of its god, it is willing to share it with others and it is willing to accept other gods into its pantheon.  Terra's emergence is the only necessary god belief within Terranism, other gods are freely accepted or denied by Terrans.  Terra is not a personal god, so a Terran may adopt or invent personal gods according to their needs.  Nor does Terranism assert that Terra is the only god of its caliber, personal or otherwise.  After all, if the god has a following, it has power that a Terran is free to partake of.  All that Terranism asserts is that the planet is emergent, a living entity unto itself that is likely unconscious.  The future may hold a conscious Terra; perhaps sparked by the futuristic realization of a "singularity" caused by the internet or some other mechanism.  However fun to think about, it is not relevant at the current time.  As far as Terranism is concerned, the planet is emergent as a god, and we call it Terra.  

    TL;DR - Emergence describes the phenomena of a whole having novel properties from the parts that make it up.  Terranism asserts that planet earth emerges into a god we call Terra and worship as core of any Terranic pantheon.  


Further Reading or Viewing:


17/05/2020

What is Syntheism?

[TL;DR at the bottom]

Definition


    Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism
    Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
    Syntheism: [the belief] that the proper approach to the concept of God is that humanity has created, creates, or will eventually create God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntheism

    Syntheism is not a real word yet; we know this because there's only a Wikipedia article on it, Merriam-Webster knows nothing about it, and my word processor doesn't understand me. The red squiggly line plagues my writing. Since it's not a real word yet, I'm going to take liberties with its definition.

    A more specific definition of syntheism: belief that a god or gods are man-made.

    The etymology of the word uses syn- to mean with, or together, and -theos for god. Valid interpretations of the word can be "with god", "composite god", "make god", etc. The word emphasizes the pieces that compose a god. This foundational definition allows for a wider variety of worldviews that could be dramatically different than my own. It is partly for this reason that I have decided to define specific beliefs I call "Terranism" rather than just call myself a syntheist.

Worldview

    
    Understanding how a god is made is crucial to a syntheist worldview. What does a god consist of? If a syntheist believes that a god is man-made, what are the pieces humans use to make this god? More naturalistic beliefs would assert that gods consist of ideas, are emergent properties of a group, or a technological singularity. Those who hold supernatural beliefs might see the gods as consisting of a magical aether that is shaped by the people who believe in it. I don't know of anyone who holds that belief but it's fun to think about.

    A temporal quality is also important since a created entity definitely has a beginning and may have an end. These beliefs can be strictly in the present or can explore other temporal spaces. Beliefs about the god-like qualities of a Singularity (a super-intelligent AI that will come into existence sometime in the future) have syntheistic qualities but place belief in a prophetic depiction of the future; humanity will create a god. Inversely, a syntheist may believe that gods were something of the past but which are no longer around; humanity has created gods. These beliefs are not exclusive, they may co-exist with each other.

    There is also no restriction that a syntheist for one god cannot also be a theist for another god. Many mainstream religious people likely fall under this description concerning ancient gods. For gods like Thor and Zeus, a mainstream Christian might assert that those gods were inventions of human imagination; qualifying their belief as syntheist. Interestingly, the same mainstream Christian would likely be an atheist towards other current religious gods, like the Allah of Islam or the Shiva of Hinduism. About Greek mythology, they might say "The Greek gods are an interesting part of that ancient culture's mythology," while for modern-day Hinduism they might say, "no, I don't believe in Shiva." The crucial distinction between these positions is that the Greek gods are not a present threat to their beliefs while the Hindu gods could be. A syntheist statement is likely to be rooted in empathy, while an atheist statement is likely to be rooted in disagreement.

    This variety within the syntheist definition is partly why I feel the need to outline a specific doctrine for myself. If I tell someone I'm a syntheist, a significant amount of information is conveyed, but it is still vague. In the same way that if a person identified as a theist there would still be more questions to ask. Calling myself a Terran will be a more effective identity.

My Syntheism


    
So then, what kind of syntheism serves as the foundation for Terranism? My syntheism is that I see gods as emergent entities that are a product of communal or individual belief. Gods are contingent upon their followers, but their power is greater than the sum of their followers. To look at believers is to see pieces of a whole, like neurons in a brain or organs in a body. A god can have a real, tangible impact on the world through its believers, in the same way, the mind can have a tangible impact on the world through the hands. I see gods as fundamentally human phenomena, but which take on a life of their own which no individual believer can control. As far as I understand, this phenomenon is supported by natural processes so I do not claim any supernatural belief. Briefly: Gods are true but not fact.

    There is a difference between believing in a literal entity that exists outside of yourself and believing in the relevance of that entity (however fictitious) in your life. You don't have to believe in a god's existence to understand how important that god is to yourself or others. Atheists understand this deeply. Atheists define themselves in a negative relationship to someone else's god. They do not believe in a god's existence, but yet they carry an identity which describes them in relation to a god; "I do not believe in your god, therefore I am an atheist". Many theists also understand this about atheists, even though they may miss the point. I don't know how many theists make the bad-faith argument: "why do you talk about God so much if you don't believe in Him?" Of course, this says less about the god itself and more about the people in the atheist's life, which is the point many theists miss. But even if that question is bad, it reveals the truth that g
ods are important even if you don't believe in them. 

    As a syntheist, I've chosen to embrace this truth. If atheism defines itself negatively in relation to a god, syntheism defines itself positively in relation to a god. I do not claim that any god exists independent of me or humanity, but I do claim that any god can be real. The importance of a god on someone's life cannot be understated, whether as a personal, shared, or outsider belief. Belief shapes the way people live and act, whether for good or bad, which makes gods so important. By identifying as syntheist I embrace this reality of a god filled world. Gods are true but not fact.

Kinds of Emergent Syntheism

 
   This truth opens the door to new possibilities. To begin with, it allows a syntheist to follow a god while retaining their ability to think critically. A person immersed in a particular god-fearing culture may remain within it with the goal of contributing to it. Such a person, unburdened by divine judgement, may help to guide the community they're a part of into more beneficial ideas and practices. The belief that their god is real would avoid cognitive dissonance; since a god is emergent from the community, belief by participation is a valid way to contribute to the power of their god and direct how that power is wielded. Therefore, phenomena like the "cultural Christian" may be restated as the "syntheist Christian", consisting of people who are proud of their community and tradition while rejecting that their god exists beyond them. 

    Another possibility is that a syntheist creates their own gods. While not uniform, some neo-pagans engage in practices that have many syntheist qualities. They may search for a god that speaks to them personally, then build a personalized set of rituals that value the god. Since a syntheist's ontology is founded in naturalism, the practice of creating a personal god ex nihilo is entirely acceptable. No god exists outside of humanity to challenge belief in anything a person may come up with. Therefore a syntheist may construct a god according to their needs or choose a dead god to resurrect. 

    An unsavory possibility is of a militant syntheist who destroys gods. For some, the belief that gods are emergent from humanity is destabilizing enough to make them reject their gods. A militant syntheist may push people to this realization in order to cause them to leave their faith. Additionally, a militant syntheist may infiltrate a group of theists with the purpose of making them doubt their beliefs enough to reject their god. Falsely gaining the trust of theists for the purpose of destroying their faith is not something I can condone however; such behavior appears immoral to me. But it must be noted for further clarity of syntheist beliefs: syntheists themselves would be largely immune to a militant syntheist's tactics. To a syntheist, who already agrees that their god does not exist, doubt would not be an issue to them and thus would not be useful leverage to a militant syntheist. For a syntheist, belief in a god is closely connected to their belief in a community; there isn't much ontological vulnerability in their stance. To destroy a syntheist community, you would have to convince them that their god does, in fact, exist.

Application


    The syntheist movement is very new.  It is a new idea with few adopters at this point, but that's what makes it exciting.  I believe it holds the potential to move spiritual and religious beliefs forward.  With a bit of work, it seems primed to be the foundation for a new wave of religious thought that is not antithetical to science and our modern understanding of the universe.  My little Terranic project is exploring this new space, but I wonder if syntheism will become a standard for new religious movements across the globe.  Already we see promising groups like The Satanic Temple, various neo-pagan groups, and Wiccan covens which espouse atheistic and syntheistic ideas even if they don't directly promote them.  Noden is an experimental group in Stockholm which is one of the few explicitly syntheist groups in the world.  This idea is in the beta stage, being tested to see where its strengths and weaknesses are.  There is a general criticism that syntheism lacks a central leader or doctrine, but those who say that are missing the point; syntheism is an identifier like atheism or theism, the explicit doctrine is up to the group or individual who holds that identifier.  Terranism will be my attempt to define a syntheist doctrine for myself.  

    TL;DR - Syntheists believe that god or gods are man-made, and the Terranic interpretation is that gods are emergent of humans.  Syntheism describes a fundamental belief rather than an explicit doctrine.

Further Reading:
Syntheism - Creating God in the Internet Age by Alexander Bard and Jan Soderqvist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntheism
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us

15/05/2020

An Odd Project

   I plan to use this blog to explore my beliefs and identity.  I'm calling them Terranism.
    
    Once a Christian, I have spent the last few years exploring and learning what it means to be outside of faith.  Honestly, it feels great and it would make far more sense to just keep going like this.  But my comfort and happiness haven't stopped me from obsessing over the mechanisms that make religion work, and why it had been so important to me.  The things I've learned and continue to learn have become a happy burden on my mind, pushing me to wonder how I can use it.  This project is what I've decided to apply my fascination to.
    Originally this was an atheist project.  I wanted to craft an "atheist religion" which might still be possible, though it's fanciful.  However, Alain de Botton seems to already be working on that so I'll just leave him to it.  Additionally, I no longer consider myself an atheist, so starting an atheist religion under that pretext would be a bit silly.  
    Instead, I hope to make a syntheist religion.  My inspiration comes from the likes of Alexander Bard, the American movement of Spiritual naturalism, and the writings of Karen Armstrong, Donna Haraway, and Yuval Harari.  Unlike the "syntheist movement", I prefer to use the word "syntheist" as a classification, in the same vein as "theist" or "atheist", rather than as an explicit doctrine.  I call myself a "syntheist" only as much as a Christian would call themselves a "theist"; they would, but only to broadly classify themselves. 
    Finally, I make no special claims that will assist me in this project.  I am not a god and I have no divine right or authority granted to me by any god.  I am a private individual who is not a recognized scholar, and I claim no academic authority.  I do not have exhaustive knowledge about religion or spirituality, and I claim no divine inspiration.  
    And with that, my odd project begins.
    Thus I declare,
    I am a Light Terran and I follow Terranism.  

    I am the Prophet of Terra.