The Meaning of Death

[aliantha]

if you understand the Christian point of view, you must know that (on our planet, anyway) we, humans, hold special import as God's creations.

No. No no no no no. NO. This is why Christians get us into so much trouble, rus.

This is the basis for Manifest Destiny. This is the basis for America's subjugation of peoples we deemed different, and therefore subhuman: Native Americans were forced to lose their religious beliefs and languages; African-Americans were enslaved. This is a big reason why the United States is in Iraq, fer cryin' out loud -- because George W. Bush believes that all humans need to be Christians *and* all good Christians need to live in democracies.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about how the Bible doesn't mean that, that humans are imperfect and will interpret the word of God imperfectly, etc., etc., etc. But I am telling you that this is the fatal flaw in Christianity. We humans are NOT better than anything else in God's creation. When we believe that God wants to save us especially, we are setting *ourselves* up for a fall.

I respect your belief in Christianity, rus. Clearly you've thought about this long and hard, and this is the right answer for you. But others have different ideas about religion, different beliefs about religion -- and we are not wrong.

[Fist and Faith]

Demanding a "meaning" for your life, and what happens in it, more often than not leads to pain and sorrow. People would be far happier without such unattainable expectations.

Wayfriend, if you understand the Christian point of view, you must know that (on our planet, anyway) we, humans, hold special import as God's creations. So our meaning/significance is in the purpose God has for us. Not in a meaning I make up for myself. That nullifies the charge of aggrandizement.

Perhaps what they're saying, rus, is that choosing a set of beliefs that give your life meaning, and choosing a meaning yourself, are not so different. You needed your life to have a meaning that was of significance, and you chose it.


On another note, I bought than freakin' book you're always going on about. We'll see if I can get through it. I'm not good with books that are not novels.

And, in the interest of fairplay, I bought The God Delusion. I'm not overly driven to read such books, since I largely agree with the basics already. Not much room for making me think in new directions. Still, could be good. Heh.

[aTOMiC]

I find the discussion so far in this thread quite interesting. "The Meaning of Death" specifically one's own death I gather. Well, death itself is a transition whether you believe in an afterlife or not. If you don't believe in a soul then you transition to a state of eternal nothingness. Your inanimate body will decay and eventually return to the soil from whence it came. That fate awaits us all, or at least it is the fate our physical bodies have in store.

The meaning of one's death, or the meaning assigned to the end of a person's life is relative. If there is no afterlife there is no meaning perceived by the dearly departed. It's just over. Period. Of course those that were aware of your existence, who continue to live, will be left to ponder the meaning of your life and death. But you who have died won't give a crap because you can't. So for atheists the meaning of death is literally placing a period of punctuation at the end of the sentence of one's life.
From that point of view there isn't a lot more to talk about.

For those that believe in a soul/spirit/creator there is a plenitude of meanings, issues and consequences to be discussed. Will I enter Heaven or Hell? Will I be reincarnated. Did I please my god or God enough to rate some kind of reward? 72 virgins. Paradise. All the fattening deserts I can eat with no guilt, etc.

I suppose what I gather from this discussion is that it primarily speaks to the believer. The non believer has very little in the way of comment since there is pretty much only one meaning their death will have.
A permanent end to their lives.

Now if we're discussing the broader sense of the concept of "meaning" then we might get into death as it relates to the entire species of man, animals, plants, planets, star systems, galaxies and lastly the universe itself. But that would make my head ache so I'll just bow out here.

[wayfriend]

Of course those that were aware of your existence, who continue to live, will be left to ponder the meaning of your life and death.

You gloss over that, but I think that that is the most important thing.

My life means a lot to a small number of people, and it means a bit of something to a whole lot more. And when I'm gone, it will have some degree of impact on those people. That's the real meaning of my life, as I see it.

Struggling to mean something to God seems fruitless to me. If he's infinite, he needs nothing from me. And struggling to mean something to oneself is rather tautological, and so doesn't seem like work.

So meaning something to others is where I think all the emphasis must lie.

[Fist and Faith]

My life means a lot to a small number of people, and it means a bit of something to a whole lot more.

Your life, of course, means nothing to any of us.

[aTOMiC]

Of course those that were aware of your existence, who continue to live, will be left to ponder the meaning of your life and death.

You gloss over that, but I think that that is the most important thing.

I gloss over that because it seems self evident to me. It's the rare individual that lives in this world and has no lasting (or at least temporary) impact on the people he leaves behind. Of course a person's death will have some kind of meaning to the living. What that meaning is depends on those people and I'm pretty sure that if a person doesn't have an afterlife and isn't a ghost floating about watching what happens at their funeral or eavesdropping in on conversations their friends and family have about them after they die, they will NEVER know what their death will truly and honestly mean to others. At best you can only speculate, draw conclusions based on what people say to you or how they act around you but in the end you don't really know anything for certain.

Therefore if that meaning is genuinely unknowable then I guess there isn't much reason to spend time thinking about it.

[Avatar]

Yeah...your life and death are meaningful only to the people who remain, and mourners grieve more for their own loss than yours, since you're not experiencing any once you're dead.

--A

[rusmeister]

Saying that I am unable to view the world through any view but my own is like saying that I am unable to view the world through any (prescription) glasses but my own. Sure, I could look through other lenses, but the view would not be as accurate. It is the correction of my vision to a standard of what is right - the true view - that matters. You are essentially saying that I should be able to see that everybody is right. I'm saying that most people see parts of the elephant, but I can see the whole elephant. It's arrogant - unless it's true. And that is the question.

No, I have not said what I'm trying to say clearly enough.

Not being able to see the world through my eyes is not the problem. The problem is repeating that the view through my eyes cannot be different from yours. The arrogance is in hearing me say, over and over, that I do not believe, not even buried deep somewhere; that I am not struggling with, or fighting against, believing - yet repeatedly telling me that I do believe, and I most likely will accept it one day. Discounting the possibility that I really do know my own mind and heart better than you do is where the insult lies.

Your view cannot allow that I am right because my view excludes the possibility that the other views are correct (although it allows that they see parts of the truth). You can't say that you are right and then say that I am right which concludes that you are wrong. Self- contradiction. Perhaps if you expressed your idea in a different way...?

My view is that we have different psychological needs. Yes, it seems nearly all people search for meaning. That is objective fact. (Probably. I'm willing to assume it is.) But the same answers do not satisfy all people. That is also objective fact. Your answer does not satisfy me, and vice versa. Perhaps your psyche is not comfortable with choices in some matters. Perhaps, where this topic is concerned, you need to know the one, true answer, so you can pursue it with all your heart and soul. (Erm... See below for soul. ) Perhaps your psychological makeup would be like a kid in a candy shop who is unable to choose from among so many, and so can't pick at all. (That's just a general possibility. I'm not saying that's why you, or anyone in particular, believe what you believe. Your psyche could choose what it's chosen for another reason.)

I, otoh, like the idea that everybody's different psyches are able to find satisfactory answers in whichever way works best for them. Even if your answer insists all others are wrong, it's right for you.

On soul...OK, how about, "the thing that animates the body and disappears completely upon death"?

Nothing animates the body. Bio-chemical electricity and all that is why we're alive. Our brains and bodies are more complex than computers in some ways, even if less efficient in others. But the principle is the same. When there's no energy going through the system, it is a lump of flesh or metal.

Chesterton does not at all assume that his readers accept his POV. he starts from what we generally know, and that particular book is one that is especially sensitive to unbelieving POV's.

I'll check it out. (I'm off work today. Hmmm.... )

On God actually appearing (to us now in our current state) - I would say that none of us would be able to say anything casual to a numinous being of total power right "in front of" us, so to speak. It would dwarf the idea of having Godzilla right in front of you. If we could do anything other than fall to our faces in abject fear it would be due to foolishness more than anything else. Especially if you realized that you were just a program that the Programmer was inspecting and deciding whether to delete or save - and learning that you were infected with a virus that has made the case hopeless to anybody but the Programmer to solve. There could be no talk of anything but crying for mercy and to be saved. (You have to get to that part of the diagnosis before we can talk about God's love and what THAT means)

Heh. OK, it could to that way. However, God could limit his presence to a point that is entirely convincing of his identity, but not overwhelming in the Godzilla seinse. A simple enough thing for an omnipotent being to do. But he wouldn't have to appear in any way. He could simply make me believe that he exists. Implant the knowledge in my mind. (The Changelings did that on Star Trek: Deep Space 9, eh? Of course, they went further, and genetically manipulated their followers' species so that they had no choice but to worship them.) God wouldn't have to change how I feel about anything, merely change me so that I'm certain he exists. Or show me evidence. My point is that knowing he exists does not remove my free will. I would still get to decide whether or not to follow him. Wasn't Satan his right-hand man? In God's presence all the time? Still, he chose not to follow. His free will was intact.

Hi Fist,
I find it odd that you should read into my words the idea that you DO believe or that you necessarily will one day. I thought I was championing free will – the right to reject God and not believe. It’s rightness or wisdom is another matter altogether. I do question that. But I do not say that you DO believe or that you necessarily will. Only that you will make that choice. And it is not usual to make it once and for all time. In general, the choice is made again and again, every day. At this point, we should not (I hope) be reading insults into each others’ posts. Disagreement, even violent disagreement, over who is right is not the same thing as belittling a person.

I hadn’t even gotten to the point of speaking about what satisfies people. The one assumption that I would like to question in all that is whether a person can correctly divine that what seems to satisfy them is what they actually need. I’d say that that perception is a primary cause of evil and suffering – because the default perception is to prefer self over others, and anything that satisfies the self is something that we naturally approve of. Anyway, if individual preferences are not what we actually need, then the perceptions are based on a bent, or flawed, view of the universe and we should hold such satisfaction as suspect.

To say that nothing animates the body is absurd. You might as well say that nothing animates your electronic devices. Very well, if it IS merely bio-chemical electricity, then what is the source of that? Where does that come from? How does it enable our appreciation of beauty?

On GKC – I appreciate your faith in my recommendation. If you read through it, you’ll certainly be a little better armed to debate me! I think that if everyone here read it, they might abandon their illusions that Christianity is merely a delusion. (They may think it false, but not foolish.)

Actually, you could say that God DID create us that way, initially (with an awareness of His presence), and it was the Fall that cut us off from that awareness. On satan – I think that a common Christian response would be that He wants us to choose Him because of Who He is – not because He is all powerful, or because we have scientific evidence (in which case there is no need for faith – it is not faith), but because we really do prefer what He is to the alternative – of preferring our selves, and in us there is no (source of eternal) life or truth. Again, if I may refer to Puddleglum’s speech from “The Silver Chair”:

As the story goes, Jill and Scrubb, two children from our world, have traveled to the magic world of Narnia. Jill meets Aslan the lion – the archetypal Christ for Narnia – and is given a mission to save Prince Rilian from the clutches of an evil witch. Jill and Scrubb later meet Puddleglum and all three found their way to the Underworld, an underground kingdom ruled by the witch.
But before the prince can be rescued, the witch uses a magic fire and magic mandolin to cause the foursome to forget about Narnia all together. But nagging memories of their “pre-existence” in Narnia keep bubbling to the surface. The witch uses logic to explain away their memories of Narnia.
At last, Jill has a final thought bubble to the surface…

For the last few minutes Jill had been feeling that there was something she must remember at all costs. And now she did. But it was dreadfully hard to say it. She felt as if huge weights were laid on her lips. At last, with an effort that seemed to take all the good out of her, she said:
“There’s Aslan.”
“Aslan?” said the Witch, quickening ever so slightly the pace of her thrumming. “What a pretty name! What does it mean?”
“He is the great Lion who called us out of our own world,” said Scrubb, “and sent us into this to find Prince Rilian.”
“What is a lion?” asked the Witch.
“Oh hang it all!” said Scrubb. “Don’t you know? How can we describe it to her? Have you ever seen a cat?”
“Surely,” said the Queen. “I love cats.”
“Well a lion is a little bit – only a little bit, mind you – like a huge cat – with a mane. At least, it’s not like a horse’s mane, you know, it’s more like a judge’s wig. And it’s yellow. And terrifically strong.”
The Witch shook her head. “I see,” she said, “that we should do no better with your lion, as you call it, than we did with your sun. You have seen lamps, and so you imagined a bigger and better lamp and called it the sun. You’ve seen cats, and now you want a bigger and better cat, and it’s to so called a lion. Well, ‘tis a pretty make-believe though, to say a truth, it would suit you all better if you were younger. And look how you can put nothing into your make-believe without copying it from the real world, this world of mine, which is the only world. But even you children are too old for such play. As for you, my Prince, that art a man full grown, fie upon you! Are you not ashamed of such toys? Come, all of you. Put away these childish tricks. I have work for you all in the real world. There is no Narnia, no Overworld, no sky, no sun, no Aslan. And now, to bed all. And let us begin a wiser life tomorrow. But first, to bed; to sleep; deep sleep, soft pillows, sleep without foolish dreams.”
The Prince and the two children were standing with their heads hung down, their cheeks flushed, their eyes half closed; the strength all gone from them; the enchantment almost complete. But Puddleglum, desperately gathering all his strength, walked over to the fire. The he did a very brave thing. He knew it wouldn’t hurt him quite as much as it would hurt a human; for his feet (which were bare) were webbed and hard and cold-blooded like a duck’s. But he knew it would hurt him badly enough; and so it did. With his bare foot he stamped on the fire, grinding a large part of it into ashes on the flat hearth. …
“One word, Ma’am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. “One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if their isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”

And THAT'S what we want ourselves - friends who have faith in us, not merely automatons serving out of fear or servility. He wants us to choose Him because we love what is good and right, not because He's bigger or stronger. The friend who has faith in you when things look dark is a friend indeed.

[rusmeister]

if you understand the Christian point of view, you must know that (on our planet, anyway) we, humans, hold special import as God's creations.

No. No no no no no. NO. This is why Christians get us into so much trouble, rus.

This is the basis for Manifest Destiny. This is the basis for America's subjugation of peoples we deemed different, and therefore subhuman: Native Americans were forced to lose their religious beliefs and languages; African-Americans were enslaved. This is a big reason why the United States is in Iraq, fer cryin' out loud -- because George W. Bush believes that all humans need to be Christians *and* all good Christians need to live in democracies.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about how the Bible doesn't mean that, that humans are imperfect and will interpret the word of God imperfectly, etc., etc., etc. But I am telling you that this is the fatal flaw in Christianity. We humans are NOT better than anything else in God's creation. When we believe that God wants to save us especially, we are setting *ourselves* up for a fall.

I respect your belief in Christianity, rus. Clearly you've thought about this long and hard, and this is the right answer for you. But others have different ideas about religion, different beliefs about religion -- and we are not wrong.

So many responses required; I have to do triage here...
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "special import". It does not translate into "better".
The trouble is that most people wear a label while knowing little to nothing about the history of the label they wear. It is true, again, that people have done terrible things in the name of faith. My charge is that, regarding Christianity in its historical context (something most of you either don't do, or do properly beginning only with the Reformation) those people were, in general, very far from the faith, and that the faith itself condemns the kinds of actions that you properly condemn. So what then should be considered as Christianity proper? Certainly not anything/one at all that claims the name.
Where you will find the greatest consensus is in faiths that acknowledge the Nicene Creed, and have done so for hundreds of years. This rules out to a great extent the incredible multiplication of denominations in the 19th and esp. 20th centuries. Also, the practitioners of traditional faiths cannot generally be said to represent the faith itself. They err, they sin, they don't know their own faith very well (Bush, for example), and so what they think of as "Christian as often as not does not meet the tests of traditional Christianity. If you trace the divisions back far enough you realize that the Reformation was born of the failures of the Roman Church, and that Protestantism, with all of its consequences, arises out of that (kind of like Agent Smith from "The Matrix"). If you trace back the fault line of the Roman Church, you find the abuses arising out of papal authority - something that the Eastern Church never claimed and therefore never abused - and never experienced a reformation, either. My own take is that this points to the Eastern Church as being the most valid expression of Christianity - but even setting that aside, the abuses you refer to are practically all a result of western Christianity, and the kinds you all vent against today are the children of Protestantism.

In Orthodoxy, the Bible is not the exclusive source of authority, and so individuals cannot take and interpret it any way they like. Things like Russian imperial expansion were done outside of the Church, without a "manifest destiny" - in fact, it was the most unbelieving rulers that did the most for expansion - Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great (titles, titles)..., and arguably the most believing rulers (Nicholas the 2nd) that reversed the trends. Blacks were enslaved by the most unbelieveing peoples and slavery flourished precisely where religion was most absent - the Southern colonies were commercial ventures - it was the Northern colonies that held fervent religious beliefs and slavery was largely not tolerated. Christianity ELIMINATED slavery wherever it grew (as a serious proposition of faith, rather than as a fashion to follow), broadly speaking.

Your complaints, while just, are really irrelevant to the Eastern Church, and for me, it's another reason to point to Orthodoxy. In short, you have found a fatal flaw in certain forms of protestantism, not in Christianity as a whole.

[Fist and Faith]

I find it odd that you should read into my words the idea that you DO believe or that you necessarily will one day. I thought I was championing free will – the right to reject God and not believe.

I am not rejecting God. Satan rejected God. Do you understand what I mean? While many women have rejected my sexual advances, you have not.

But I do not say that you DO believe or that you necessarily will.

-You think I'm "about ready [to accept my feelings and beliefs for God.]" I do not have feelings for, or belief in, God
-You think that, when the chips are down, I will choose whether to accept or reject God. I will not. For me, God is not among the choices.

Only that you will make that choice. And it is not usual to make it once and for all time. In general, the choice is made again and again, every day.

Just as you choose to reject my sexual advances again and again, every day, eh? I'm not trying to be silly with this analogy. Your feelings about my sexual advances toward you are exactly the same as my feelings about God. You think, "What?!? How can I have been rejecting your sexual advances toward me when you haven't made any?!?" The answer is that you have not rejected them.

At this point, we should not (I hope) be reading insults into each others’ posts. Disagreement, even violent disagreement, over who is right is not the same thing as belittling a person.

Yes, the disagreement is perfectly fine. And, as I said, I know "insult" is inaccurate, because you have not been doing what you're doing intentionally. You simply don't understand the minds/hearts of some of us. I'm trying to make you understand, so you can stop assuming certain things about us. The true insult would be if you hear me saying this again and again, and continue saying what you've been saying. As much as to say, "You're fooling yourself. All people believe in God. Some of you are just fighting it."

I hadn’t even gotten to the point of speaking about what satisfies people. The one assumption that I would like to question in all that is whether a person can correctly divine that what seems to satisfy them is what they actually need.

All well and good. But who's to say it's not what they need? No particular thing has worked for all people who have tried it. Not my beliefs, not yours, not any other. It's impossible to say, "THIS will work for all." History has proven that that is not the case. So we're all left with examining ourselves to see what we think, feel, and believe, and trying different things, until we find what we actually need.

I’d say that that perception is a primary cause of evil and suffering – because the default perception is to prefer self over others, and anything that satisfies the self is something that we naturally approve of. Anyway, if individual preferences are not what we actually need, then the perceptions are based on a bent, or flawed, view of the universe and we should hold such satisfaction as suspect.

I emphasized the key word. You believe individual preferences are not what we actually need, because that goes against your religious beliefs.

To say that nothing animates the body is absurd. You might as well say that nothing animates your electronic devices. Very well, if it IS merely bio-chemical electricity, then what is the source of that? Where does that come from? How does it enable our appreciation of beauty?

Alas, I have very little understanding of the brain. How its synapses, different sections, different structures, etc, can give us our minds is way beyond me. However, I know that nothing we do or think happens without measurable activity in the brain. Nobody has ever been wired up with sensors, and done/thought/spoken anything without the machines measuring brain activity, eh?

On the other hand, there's never been the slightest hint of anything not of the brain that is telling ions to gather in one place, setting off synapse activity, causing any thought or action. An immaterial soul plucking the brain's strings? How does that work?

On GKC – I appreciate your faith in my recommendation. If you read through it, you’ll certainly be a little better armed to debate me! I think that if everyone here read it, they might abandon their illusions that Christianity is merely a delusion. (They may think it false, but not foolish.)

I don't think it's foolish. I just don't believe it.

Off to work now, so I'll read the rest of your post later.

[wayfriend]

My life means a lot to a small number of people, and it means a bit of something to a whole lot more.

Your life, of course, means nothing to any of us.

Ow.

I know your wrong. Because "avid loathing" isn't nothing.

[Avatar]

--A

[rusmeister]

I find it odd that you should read into my words the idea that you DO believe or that you necessarily will one day. I thought I was championing free will – the right to reject God and not believe.

I am not rejecting God. Satan rejected God. Do you understand what I mean? While many women have rejected my sexual advances, you have not.

Fear not - at the first sign of such advances, I will surely reject them - and not only because I'm married!

But I do not say that you DO believe or that you necessarily will.

-You think I'm "about ready [to accept my feelings and beliefs for God.]" I do not have feelings for, or belief in, God
-You think that, when the chips are down, I will choose whether to accept or reject God. I will not. For me, God is not among the choices.

On the first, "AAAAAGH!" I do NOT assume you have beliefs and feelings for God!!!
On the second, I dispute that, because you don't know that (for example) if you finish the book I recommended, that your view of God might not shift a little bit - or any other event in your life as such a cause. But I do accept that at this time you perceive nothing and I do not assume that you (secretly) do.

Only that you will make that choice. And it is not usual to make it once and for all time. In general, the choice is made again and again, every day.

Just as you choose to reject my sexual advances again and again, every day, eh? I'm not trying to be silly with this analogy. Your feelings about my sexual advances toward you are exactly the same as my feelings about God. You think, "What?!? How can I have been rejecting your sexual advances toward me when you haven't made any?!?" The answer is that you have not rejected them.

All this means, put into simple language, is that you have not yet experienced a cause in your life to make you consider the God question differently. And "yet" is the key word.

At this point, we should not (I hope) be reading insults into each others’ posts. Disagreement, even violent disagreement, over who is right is not the same thing as belittling a person.

Yes, the disagreement is perfectly fine. And, as I said, I know "insult" is inaccurate, because you have not been doing what you're doing intentionally. You simply don't understand the minds/hearts of some of us. I'm trying to make you understand, so you can stop assuming certain things about us. The true insult would be if you hear me saying this again and again, and continue saying what you've been saying. As much as to say, "You're fooling yourself. All people believe in God. Some of you are just fighting it."

I disagree that that is what I have been saying. It is entirely different from suggesting that you simply haven't experienced God yet, which IS what I am suggesting, based on your statements. IOW, you have misunderstood me, sir!

I hadn’t even gotten to the point of speaking about what satisfies people. The one assumption that I would like to question in all that is whether a person can correctly divine that what seems to satisfy them is what they actually need.

All well and good. But who's to say it's not what they need? No particular thing has worked for all people who have tried it. Not my beliefs, not yours, not any other. It's impossible to say, "THIS will work for all." History has proven that that is not the case. So we're all left with examining ourselves to see what we think, feel, and believe, and trying different things, until we find what we actually need.

Would you go so far as to say, "Who's to question what people need?" You keep speaking of "what works", which to my mind bears assumptions that I think are questionable - after all, to an alcoholic, getting that extra high works for them - but healthy people might see the danger in wrongness in the alcoholic's assumption. So the very framing of the question as "what works "doesn't work" for me.

I’d say that that perception is a primary cause of evil and suffering – because the default perception is to prefer self over others, and anything that satisfies the self is something that we naturally approve of. Anyway, if individual preferences are not what we actually need, then the perceptions are based on a bent, or flawed, view of the universe and we should hold such satisfaction as suspect.

I emphasized the key word. You believe individual preferences are not what we actually need, because that goes against your religious beliefs.

Again, referring to the alcoholic, we will judge that his standards of what he needs are wrong and harmful, for himself and for others. It is not a question of religious belief per se - although certainly a religion works as a "Rosetta stone" that can make sense of everything. Obviously, some individual standards must be judged to be objectively wrong. Where, then, do you draw the line?

To say that nothing animates the body is absurd. You might as well say that nothing animates your electronic devices. Very well, if it IS merely bio-chemical electricity, then what is the source of that? Where does that come from? How does it enable our appreciation of beauty?

Alas, I have very little understanding of the brain. How its synapses, different sections, different structures, etc, can give us our minds is way beyond me. However, I know that nothing we do or think happens without measurable activity in the brain. Nobody has ever been wired up with sensors, and done/thought/spoken anything without the machines measuring brain activity, eh?

On the other hand, there's never been the slightest hint of anything not of the brain that is telling ions to gather in one place, setting off synapse activity, causing any thought or action. An immaterial soul plucking the brain's strings? How does that work?

Obviously, this could go in any direction at all. Most of those directions are useless for the purposes of our inquiry. Religion claims to offer answers to many of these questions, that are outside the sphere of practical science. One could:
a) attempt to reinvent the wheel and discover truth on one's own. (Not terribly wise - a scientist would point out how foolish that would be in the realm of science, without taking into account all that hundreds of generations have learned and endeavored to pass on.)
b) attempt to learn from the rest of humanity. A rather small number of major world religions, as well as atheism/agnosticism, appear to offer truth (or a lack thereof). We can then consider the truth of each of these on its merits - however, as I have tried to communicate regarding Christianity, most here do not really know its merits at all, only the demerits of some of its parts.

On GKC – I appreciate your faith in my recommendation. If you read through it, you’ll certainly be a little better armed to debate me! I think that if everyone here read it, they might abandon their illusions that Christianity is merely a delusion. (They may think it false, but not foolish.)

I don't think it's foolish. I just don't believe it.

Off to work now, so I'll read the rest of your post later.

Again, my thanks for your courtesy, interest, and patience!

[aliantha]

My charge is that, regarding Christianity in its historical context (something most of you either don't do, or do properly beginning only with the Reformation) those people were, in general, very far from the faith, and that the faith itself condemns the kinds of actions that you properly condemn.

I can agree with you, up to a certain point. Unfortunately, my point in history is a lot earlier than yours.

My feeling is that as soon as we got farther out than the disciples, error began to creep into the process. As I understand it, most of the books in the New Testament were written hundreds of years *after* the death of Christ. Paul's letters were contemporaneous, I assume. Were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written by the disciples themselves, or by others later? Anything not written by eyewitnesses is, in my view, subject to embroidering upon the truth. Anything that was written *hundreds* of years after the fact -- well, have you ever played the children's game called "Telephone"? Words may become distorted and facts may be misremembered in a *very* short period of time.

The Nicene Creed was written, what, 700 or so years after Jesus' death? And it was created by a committee, which was, yes, trying to make it hew as closely as possible to the church's Truth, but was also trying to make it palatable to everyone involved in the conference.

We've had this disagreement before, Rus, and I'm sure we will continue to disagree on this. Whether Jesus was the son of God or not, he said some impressive things about how we should treat one another, and I respect him for that. But I believe that once the disciples, the eyewitnesses, were out of the picture -- which happened well before the Roman/Orthodox split -- the church became less and less reflective of the Truth as time went on.

I know you disagree with me. And that's okay.

[rusmeister]

My charge is that, regarding Christianity in its historical context (something most of you either don't do, or do properly beginning only with the Reformation) those people were, in general, very far from the faith, and that the faith itself condemns the kinds of actions that you properly condemn.

I can agree with you, up to a certain point. Unfortunately, my point in history is a lot earlier than yours.

My feeling is that as soon as we got farther out than the disciples, error began to creep into the process. As I understand it, most of the books in the New Testament were written hundreds of years *after* the death of Christ. Paul's letters were contemporaneous, I assume. Were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written by the disciples themselves, or by others later? Anything not written by eyewitnesses is, in my view, subject to embroidering upon the truth. Anything that was written *hundreds* of years after the fact -- well, have you ever played the children's game called "Telephone"? Words may become distorted and facts may be misremembered in a *very* short period of time.

The Nicene Creed was written, what, 700 or so years after Jesus' death? And it was created by a committee, which was, yes, trying to make it hew as closely as possible to the church's Truth, but was also trying to make it palatable to everyone involved in the conference.

We've had this disagreement before, Rus, and I'm sure we will continue to disagree on this. Whether Jesus was the son of God or not, he said some impressive things about how we should treat one another, and I respect him for that. But I believe that once the disciples, the eyewitnesses, were out of the picture -- which happened well before the Roman/Orthodox split -- the church became less and less reflective of the Truth as time went on.

I know you disagree with me. And that's okay.

With a respectful bow -
Your comments on history show that they need informing. The books of the New Testament were all written from AD 50 - AD 95, more or less. The writers were all apostles or in the first wave of converts. The Gospel of Luke is the only one that is not eyewitness.

Arguments have gone back and forth on whether AD 33 is actually the date of Christ's death, but the best scholarship available to my knowledge confirms that date. That puts the entire NT as (mostly significantly less than) 60-odd years after Christ's death (one generation), and the last books - by St John, for example, were of living witnesses - he lived to a ripe old age, and was the only one of Christ's disciples to do so. The rest were all put to death.

When a person writes memoirs about his life we generally don't assume that he screws up many or most of the facts, even though the events took place 20 or 40 years prior.

The Nicene Creed was formulated much later (325-381 AD). In this case, though, it is a formulation of what was passed on, both orally and preserved in Scripture and was the essence of what all of that Tradition agreed upon - meaning it was the most rock-solid stuff of the faith.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

I sense a certain assumption in your statement about "making it palatable to everyone" which seems to take personal taste for granted as a guiding factor. It is an application of the mindset of modern pluralism onto people who rejected pluralism outright. People were concerned with what the truth was, not what they liked or personal opinion (although that can creep in, it is the collegial factor that works to keep it out - this is also why Orthodoxy makes more sense for me than Roman Catholicism). It was what was agreed upon that passed, and was further confirmed by being tested/reviewed over time. There were some Council proclamations that were later changed/cancelled, and one Council that was itself nullified.

Obviously, what you believe may be subject to change as your knowledge of the history changes. One thing I attack as viciously as I can now is typical public school approaches to history, both in organization (the lumping of the disciplines into an amorphous "social studies", for example) and in content (especially the "me-centered" approach of making the child the center of the historical circles drawn around him). Chesterton properly condemns the reliance on historians and history textbooks, rather than primary sources. If the interpretation is wrong, then the history you think you know is essentially false - the facts may be right, but how they are understood is wrong. It could be quite a shock to learn that you have been indoctrinated to believe something all your life that simply is not true.

[Fist and Faith]

But I do not say that you DO believe or that you necessarily will.

-You think I'm "about ready [to accept my feelings and beliefs for God.]" I do not have feelings for, or belief in, God
-You think that, when the chips are down, I will choose whether to accept or reject God. I will not. For me, God is not among the choices.

On the first, "AAAAAGH!" I do NOT assume you have beliefs and feelings for God!!!
On the second, I dispute that, because you don't know that (for example) if you finish the book I recommended, that your view of God might not shift a little bit - or any other event in your life as such a cause. But I do accept that at this time you perceive nothing and I do not assume that you (secretly) do.

And yet there are all the things I've mentioned. Although I say I have no feelings and beliefs about God, you believe I am nearly ready to accept them. And, though you say I have, I have not rejected God any more than you have rejected my advances.

Still, you have now said:

I disagree that that is what I have been saying. It is entirely different from suggesting that you simply haven't experienced God yet, which IS what I am suggesting, based on your statements. IOW, you have misunderstood me, sir!

I'll try to remember that this is your position, if you try to remember to word things this way instead of the ways you have been so far. OK? (Yes, such misunderstandings happen all the time. Even in rl. Maybe with greater frequency via the internet.)

As for something changing in my life, ok, I cannot rule out all possibilities. If I am the recipient of a divine revelation, I would likely not reject it as evidence of God's existence.

But really, that's what it's going to take. You telling me God exists is not evidence that God exists. Every person in the world telling me God exists would not be evidence that God exists. (Though it would warrant a good amount of investigation.) And if the first two chapters are any indication, The Everlasting Man isn't going to even offer me any evidence, much less give any that is convincing. If any evidence or logic was going to prove God's existence, it likely would have been done by now. Not just with me, but with everyone. Just as we all have sufficient evidence and logic to believe in gravity.

The situation is explained if God does not exist. Of course, it's also explained if God is an all-powerful being who is making sure we do not get this kind of evidence and logic.

Either way, I have not noticed that people believe because of evidence and logic. It appears to me that they believe because of what they feel. You and I have discussed this already. I do not feel anything at all about God. And I've heard some extremely good systems of belief. Glorious, beautiful faiths!! And internally consistent as well. Books like Conversations With God and Eknath Easwaran's introductions to his translations of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita are examples.

And I've known a few people of amazing faith. Furls Fire is one of my favorite people in the world. (And I've never even met her! ) I do not feel the way I do about her in spite of her beliefs. I feel as I do because of her beliefs. It is a pure faith in God and love. Absolutely rock-solid. Firm in its correctness and rightness, but not judgemental. I could go on and on about it, and never do more than scratch the surface of how wonderful her faith is, or how much I think of her.

All this means, put into simple language, is that you have not yet experienced a cause in your life to make you consider the God question differently. And "yet" is the key word.

In the face of all I just said, I feel nothing. You think I haven't been exposed to the right stuff? That's not the answer. Do you think a personal tragedy will make me feel what any of these are saying? Bloody unlikely.

I hadn’t even gotten to the point of speaking about what satisfies people. The one assumption that I would like to question in all that is whether a person can correctly divine that what seems to satisfy them is what they actually need.

All well and good. But who's to say it's not what they need? No particular thing has worked for all people who have tried it. Not my beliefs, not yours, not any other. It's impossible to say, "THIS will work for all." History has proven that that is not the case. So we're all left with examining ourselves to see what we think, feel, and believe, and trying different things, until we find what we actually need.

Would you go so far as to say, "Who's to question what people need?" You keep speaking of "what works", which to my mind bears assumptions that I think are questionable - after all, to an alcoholic, getting that extra high works for them - but healthy people might see the danger in wrongness in the alcoholic's assumption. So the very framing of the question as "what works "doesn't work" for me.

I’d say that that perception is a primary cause of evil and suffering – because the default perception is to prefer self over others, and anything that satisfies the self is something that we naturally approve of. Anyway, if individual preferences are not what we actually need, then the perceptions are based on a bent, or flawed, view of the universe and we should hold such satisfaction as suspect.

I emphasized the key word. You believe individual preferences are not what we actually need, because that goes against your religious beliefs.

Again, referring to the alcoholic, we will judge that his standards of what he needs are wrong and harmful, for himself and for others. It is not a question of religious belief per se - although certainly a religion works as a "Rosetta stone" that can make sense of everything. Obviously, some individual standards must be judged to be objectively wrong. Where, then, do you draw the line?

"How's that working for you?" seems a good response. An alcoholic may lose his family and friends. He may become extremely ill. He may die. In no sense, however, does his doing what he thinks "works" at a given moment work in the long term. We all know that immediate gratification must sometimes be passed by for long term needs and/or desires. I don't decide to not go to work this week in order to hike through the woods, because I wouldn't have a job when I got back.

"What works" for me, in the sense that we're now discussing, does work in both long- and short-term ways. At least I don't have any particular reason to believe it won't work in the long term. And the possibility that it won't see me safely through some horror in the future does not cause belief in God to bloom in me.

To say that nothing animates the body is absurd. You might as well say that nothing animates your electronic devices. Very well, if it IS merely bio-chemical electricity, then what is the source of that? Where does that come from? How does it enable our appreciation of beauty?

Alas, I have very little understanding of the brain. How its synapses, different sections, different structures, etc, can give us our minds is way beyond me. However, I know that nothing we do or think happens without measurable activity in the brain. Nobody has ever been wired up with sensors, and done/thought/spoken anything without the machines measuring brain activity, eh?

On the other hand, there's never been the slightest hint of anything not of the brain that is telling ions to gather in one place, setting off synapse activity, causing any thought or action. An immaterial soul plucking the brain's strings? How does that work?

Obviously, this could go in any direction at all. Most of those directions are useless for the purposes of our inquiry. Religion claims to offer answers to many of these questions, that are outside the sphere of practical science. One could:
a) attempt to reinvent the wheel and discover truth on one's own. (Not terribly wise - a scientist would point out how foolish that would be in the realm of science, without taking into account all that hundreds of generations have learned and endeavored to pass on.)
b) attempt to learn from the rest of humanity. A rather small number of major world religions, as well as atheism/agnosticism, appear to offer truth (or a lack thereof). We can then consider the truth of each of these on its merits - however, as I have tried to communicate regarding Christianity, most here do not really know its merits at all, only the demerits of some of its parts.

I've read this a couple times, and I just don't know what you're saying.

What I'm saying is this. Let's take a hypothetical. If the body is animated by a soul, and that soul was outside the body, it would have to manipulate it by physical means. Literally, like a marionette's strings. Maybe something else, but it would have to be physical. And the soul would have to have some physical component, hands would work, to manipulate those strings.

Putting the soul into the body does not change the requirements. How does the soul make my arms rise to this keyboard, and my fingers type?

Again, my thanks for your courtesy, interest, and patience!

Right back atcha!

[rusmeister]

And yet there are all the things I've mentioned. Although I say I have no feelings and beliefs about God, you believe I am nearly ready to accept them. And, though you say I have, I have not rejected God any more than you have rejected my advances.

No argument. I don’t know what you have hitherto rejected except what you tell me. All I say is that I see a spider on your back that you don’t see yet. Saying, “Prove it to me!” is useless. You either believe or don’t believe. Tomorrow you might wake up and believe. Or not. Right now you don’t.

I word things the way I do (tautology required here). I will try to recode into “your language” to the best extent that I am able. Fair enough?

If you are reading TEM looking for PROOF that God exists, you’re not going to find it. What can be found in its pages is food for thought on things that require explanation in our lives that modern philosophy simply does not explain. In the second part, he discusses how it is that Christianity offers that explanation. You should really stick through the exploration of the history (that we think we already know) in the first half of the book. But if you are just reading in order to reject the thinking, that would be like me reading “The God Delusion” or Russell’s essay (“Why I am not a Christian”) only for the purposes of ignoring what it is trying to say. It’s hardly attempting to understand the “enemy’s” point of view.

Some things in faith ARE supported by logic. In fact, all of the parts that are not purely mystical in Christianity ARE ultimately supported by logic. Insisting that religion is necessarily an antithesis to logic is illogical – it shows a lack of in-depth knowledge about what the major religions teach – which, having been through millennia of testing by a large swath of humanity are worth seriously considering. Historically speaking, as Chesterton says, it is the village that is sane. It is the loner (the individual divided from humanity) who is crazy.

On the other major religions, yes, they have large bits of truth as well, as you point out. That is the problem with them from the Christian point of view. That they do say some things that really are true and profound.

I would ask why you have not accepted Furl’s faith. (I suspect I know the answer, but it is hardly wise or fair to put words in your mouth.)

I think we don’t, and mostly can’t know what catastrophic events will do to us. In my view, the only way that one can know with any good degree of probability is to train the habit of your faith (even if it is atheist). This, combined with my faith, gives me (although not you) a basis for optimism about your future choices.

"How's that working for you?" seems a good response. An alcoholic may lose his family and friends. He may become extremely ill. He may die. In no sense, however, does his doing what he thinks "works" at a given moment work in the long term. We all know that immediate gratification must sometimes be passed by for long term needs and/or desires. I don't decide to not go to work this week in order to hike through the woods, because I wouldn't have a job when I got back.

"What works" for me, in the sense that we're now discussing, does work in both long- and short-term ways. At least I don't have any particular reason to believe it won't work in the long term. And the possibility that it won't see me safely through some horror in the future does not cause belief in God to bloom in me.

The thing that this is missing (my point) is that something that may “work for you” is actually harmful and the normal people around you would judge you for that – if you chose to go off the deep end, abandon your job, leave your wife and kids in the lurch, then “what works for you” would objectively be a wrong standard for making decisions in one’s life. Thus the example of the alcoholic, drug addict or compulsive eater. You can’t defend their choices by saying “it works for them” and have me consider you to be a rational, mentally healthy thinker. I’m saying that SOME desires and needs should NEVER be gratified (short term or long term) because they are wrong, however much they may “work” for the desirer.

I've read this a couple times, and I just don't know what you're saying.

That if the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout history has agreed upon something – that there IS meaning to life, that there IS some kind of Supreme Being – then the likelihood that they have stumbled onto truth is much higher – certainly higher than for the insane loner who thinks himself to have more wisdom and truth than all around him. Thus the major religions are serious propositions that an awful lot of people have come to and contributed to, making them much greater repositories of knowledge and wisdom than those of individuals who invent their own faiths. Now you’ve spoken of Furls’ faith – is it Christian? (I’ve only gotten to the second page of Stephen’s memorial and haven’t seen a revelation of faith.)

I’d be interested on your comments on GKC’s intro to TEM regarding the special bias we in the West have against Christianity. And in general your comments on that would be of much greater interest than your comments on my second-grade writings. I have no doubt that there are probably some things you disagree with and a few facts that even I would admit have had light shed that wasn’t there in Chesterton’s time. But the overarching main points are dead on, and I would ask what your problem is with them (it just sounds like you are already hypercritical, and I’m curious as to why).

[Fist and Faith]

No argument. I don’t know what you have hitherto rejected except what you tell me. All I say is that I see a spider on your back that you don’t see yet. Saying, “Prove it to me!” is useless. You either believe or don’t believe. Tomorrow you might wake up and believe. Or not. Right now you don’t.

Why would you wake up tomorrow and not believe? The thought is nonsensical to you. And that's how I feel about what you just said. Remember, you think I don't see a spider that's there, but I think you see one that isn't.

I word things the way I do (tautology required here). I will try to recode into “your language” to the best extent that I am able. Fair enough?

It's possibly the best way to start working toward the goal of understanding my view. Yes, you can think it's wrong, ignorant, idiotic, or whatever. But if you understood what I'm saying, you wouldn't have to try. You would understand the pointlessness of something like

I would ask why you have not accepted Furl’s faith.

just as surely as I understand the pointlessness of asking you something like, "Why haven't you prayed to Thor for clear skies?" Why would I accept Furls' faith? I don't feel what she feels. I haven't experienced what she's experienced. Her life is not mine.

If you are reading TEM looking for PROOF that God exists, you’re not going to find it. What can be found in its pages is food for thought on things that require explanation in our lives that modern philosophy simply does not explain. In the second part, he discusses how it is that Christianity offers that explanation. You should really stick through the exploration of the history (that we think we already know) in the first half of the book. But if you are just reading in order to reject the thinking, that would be like me reading “The God Delusion” or Russell’s essay (“Why I am not a Christian”) only for the purposes of ignoring what it is trying to say. It’s hardly attempting to understand the “enemy’s” point of view.

Some things in faith ARE supported by logic. In fact, all of the parts that are not purely mystical in Christianity ARE ultimately supported by logic. Insisting that religion is necessarily an antithesis to logic is illogical – it shows a lack of in-depth knowledge about what the major religions teach – which, having been through millennia of testing by a large swath of humanity are worth seriously considering.

Yeah, that's just what I said in my previous post. It's certainly warrants consideraton. That's one reason I've read things like Conversations With God, The Language of God, Mere Christiantiy (I couldn't finish this one, because it presumed things I disagree with, then built off of that presumption.), The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Fools Crow: Wisdom and Power (Fools Crow was a Sioux holy man, and Black Elk's nephew.). If a supreme being is out there, I'd like to know about it. Since I can't catch a glimpse of it myself, maybe someone will say something that I can't see another satisfactory explanation for. (And a satisfactory explanation puts me back to the starting point of: Which do I believe exists without cause; the universe I know exists, or a being capable of creating it whose existence I have no evidence for?)

And even if there isn't a supreme being, knowing what religion means to people, the vast major of whom believe, can't be a bad thing.

Historically speaking, as Chesterton says, it is the village that is sane. It is the loner (the individual divided from humanity) who is crazy.

Nonsense. Disagreeing with the majority is not an indication of insanity. Not even when the disagreement is in regards to a matter that you happen to feel very strongly about.

I think we don’t, and mostly can’t know what catastrophic events will do to us. In my view, the only way that one can know with any good degree of probability is to train the habit of your faith (even if it is atheist). This, combined with my faith, gives me (although not you) a basis for optimism about your future choices.

I don't follow you. I don't train the habit of my faith in a way that might reasonably be expected to lead to what you consider an optomistic outcome. Where does your optimism come from?

The thing that this is missing (my point) is that something that may “work for you” is actually harmful and the normal people around you would judge you for that – if you chose to go off the deep end, abandon your job, leave your wife and kids in the lurch, then “what works for you” would objectively be a wrong standard for making decisions in one’s life. Thus the example of the alcoholic, drug addict or compulsive eater. You can’t defend their choices by saying “it works for them” and have me consider you to be a rational, mentally healthy thinker. I’m saying that SOME desires and needs should NEVER be gratified (short term or long term) because they are wrong, however much they may “work” for the desirer.

Yeah. That's pretty much what I just said. The difference is; you are saying that what works for is actually harmful, but there's no reason for me to believe that. The worst case scenario is that it may prove insufficient in the face of various things that could happen. But my outlook on things would not be the harmful thing, it would only be a failed support. And, as I said, that possibility does not cause belief in any supreme being to spring up in my heart.

I’d be interested on your comments on GKC’s intro to TEM regarding the special bias we in the West have against Christianity. And in general your comments on that would be of much greater interest than your comments on my second-grade writings. I have no doubt that there are probably some things you disagree with and a few facts that even I would admit have had light shed that wasn’t there in Chesterton’s time. But the overarching main points are dead on, and I would ask what your problem is with them (it just sounds like you are already hypercritical, and I’m curious as to why).

The first problem is that I hate his writing style! It's the same reason I can't read the sports section of my local paper. Sometimes I just want to know who won the game. I scan the article for numbers, the score, and can't find it. So I start reading, hoping they at least say who won, even if they don't give the score. Paragraph after paragraph of speculation and armchair-coaching. What's the freakin' score?!?!

Chesterton says, "I'll tell you what they found in the cave. It was an amazing thing to find. It meant that the caveman was ____. It meant he was ____. It did not indicate he was ____. It forces us to consider the idea that ____. It ________. It ________." What did they freakin' find?!?! It's just a personal preference. I hate that kind of thing. Tell me what happened, then talk about it. I can't read my newspaper, and it's difficult for me to keep focused on Chesterton.

The second problem is that I was hoping he would build a case for his beliefs. Instead, in the first two chapters, he only tells what the scientific community of his time was doing wrong. Granted, assuming they did say what he claims they said, they were wrong. I can't imagine how anyone seriously trying to follow the scientific process jumped to such conclusions. (And I thought hitting the cavewoman in the head with a club and dragging her back to the cave, all with her approval, was just in the cartoons of the 50's. ) But such things have happened often enough, so I'm willing to assume it really was the scientific community saying these things, and not just some weirdos that nobody took seriously. But I don't need thirty pages telling me how less than a half-dozen ideas floating through the scientific community were wrong. A couple paragraphs about each would do the job. Going on and on as he does sounds much like the political advertisements we just went through here during the election campaigns. Point out a fallacy in the other guy. Fine. But then move on, before it turns into a trash campaign. Tell me what's good about your ideas.

Also, he's got some good scientific principles wrong. He says a man turning into a pig in one, fell swoop is fast; but says it would be a slow process if it happened bit by bit over many days. He says the fact that it happens slowly does not make it less worthy of wonder, or make it need an explanation any less. But those two things do not demonstrate the difference between a gradual process and a fast one in evolution. Such changes happening over millions of years, so gradually they cannot be seen individually - and from generation to generation, not in a single individual - are a far, far different situation.


Anyway, I'm still reading. He hasn't said anything yet to invalidate his position, even if he hasn't invalidated the scientific one. I'll see what happens.

[Lord Mhoram]

Historically speaking, as Chesterton says, it is the village that is sane. It is the loner (the individual divided from humanity) who is crazy.

Like that Jesus fellow? Or the Jewish prophets? Or the early Christians?

[rusmeister]

No argument. I don’t know what you have hitherto rejected except what you tell me. All I say is that I see a spider on your back that you don’t see yet. Saying, “Prove it to me!” is useless. You either believe or don’t believe. Tomorrow you might wake up and believe. Or not. Right now you don’t.

Why would you wake up tomorrow and not believe? The thought is nonsensical to you. And that's how I feel about what you just said. Remember, you think I don't see a spider that's there, but I think you see one that isn't.

I word things the way I do (tautology required here). I will try to recode into “your language” to the best extent that I am able. Fair enough?

It's possibly the best way to start working toward the goal of understanding my view. Yes, you can think it's wrong, ignorant, idiotic, or whatever. But if you understood what I'm saying, you wouldn't have to try. You would understand the pointlessness of something like

I would ask why you have not accepted Furl’s faith.

just as surely as I understand the pointlessness of asking you something like, "Why haven't you prayed to Thor for clear skies?" Why would I accept Furls' faith? I don't feel what she feels. I haven't experienced what she's experienced. Her life is not mine.

If you are reading TEM looking for PROOF that God exists, you’re not going to find it. What can be found in its pages is food for thought on things that require explanation in our lives that modern philosophy simply does not explain. In the second part, he discusses how it is that Christianity offers that explanation. You should really stick through the exploration of the history (that we think we already know) in the first half of the book. But if you are just reading in order to reject the thinking, that would be like me reading “The God Delusion” or Russell’s essay (“Why I am not a Christian”) only for the purposes of ignoring what it is trying to say. It’s hardly attempting to understand the “enemy’s” point of view.

Some things in faith ARE supported by logic. In fact, all of the parts that are not purely mystical in Christianity ARE ultimately supported by logic. Insisting that religion is necessarily an antithesis to logic is illogical – it shows a lack of in-depth knowledge about what the major religions teach – which, having been through millennia of testing by a large swath of humanity are worth seriously considering.

Yeah, that's just what I said in my previous post. It's certainly warrants consideraton. That's one reason I've read things like Conversations With God, The Language of God, Mere Christiantiy (I couldn't finish this one, because it presumed things I disagree with, then built off of that presumption.), The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Fools Crow: Wisdom and Power (Fools Crow was a Sioux holy man, and Black Elk's nephew.). If a supreme being is out there, I'd like to know about it. Since I can't catch a glimpse of it myself, maybe someone will say something that I can't see another satisfactory explanation for. (And a satisfactory explanation puts me back to the starting point of: Which do I believe exists without cause; the universe I know exists, or a being capable of creating it whose existence I have no evidence for?)

And even if there isn't a supreme being, knowing what religion means to people, the vast major of whom believe, can't be a bad thing.

Historically speaking, as Chesterton says, it is the village that is sane. It is the loner (the individual divided from humanity) who is crazy.

Nonsense. Disagreeing with the majority is not an indication of insanity. Not even when the disagreement is in regards to a matter that you happen to feel very strongly about.

I think we don’t, and mostly can’t know what catastrophic events will do to us. In my view, the only way that one can know with any good degree of probability is to train the habit of your faith (even if it is atheist). This, combined with my faith, gives me (although not you) a basis for optimism about your future choices.

I don't follow you. I don't train the habit of my faith in a way that might reasonably be expected to lead to what you consider an optomistic outcome. Where does your optimism come from?

The thing that this is missing (my point) is that something that may “work for you” is actually harmful and the normal people around you would judge you for that – if you chose to go off the deep end, abandon your job, leave your wife and kids in the lurch, then “what works for you” would objectively be a wrong standard for making decisions in one’s life. Thus the example of the alcoholic, drug addict or compulsive eater. You can’t defend their choices by saying “it works for them” and have me consider you to be a rational, mentally healthy thinker. I’m saying that SOME desires and needs should NEVER be gratified (short term or long term) because they are wrong, however much they may “work” for the desirer.

Yeah. That's pretty much what I just said. The difference is; you are saying that what works for is actually harmful, but there's no reason for me to believe that. The worst case scenario is that it may prove insufficient in the face of various things that could happen. But my outlook on things would not be the harmful thing, it would only be a failed support. And, as I said, that possibility does not cause belief in any supreme being to spring up in my heart.

I’d be interested on your comments on GKC’s intro to TEM regarding the special bias we in the West have against Christianity. And in general your comments on that would be of much greater interest than your comments on my second-grade writings. I have no doubt that there are probably some things you disagree with and a few facts that even I would admit have had light shed that wasn’t there in Chesterton’s time. But the overarching main points are dead on, and I would ask what your problem is with them (it just sounds like you are already hypercritical, and I’m curious as to why).

The first problem is that I hate his writing style! It's the same reason I can't read the sports section of my local paper. Sometimes I just want to know who won the game. I scan the article for numbers, the score, and can't find it. So I start reading, hoping they at least say who won, even if they don't give the score. Paragraph after paragraph of speculation and armchair-coaching. What's the freakin' score?!?!

Chesterton says, "I'll tell you what they found in the cave. It was an amazing thing to find. It meant that the caveman was ____. It meant he was ____. It did not indicate he was ____. It forces us to consider the idea that ____. It ________. It ________." What did they freakin' find?!?! It's just a personal preference. I hate that kind of thing. Tell me what happened, then talk about it. I can't read my newspaper, and it's difficult for me to keep focused on Chesterton.

The second problem is that I was hoping he would build a case for his beliefs. Instead, in the first two chapters, he only tells what the scientific community of his time was doing wrong. Granted, assuming they did say what he claims they said, they were wrong. I can't imagine how anyone seriously trying to follow the scientific process jumped to such conclusions. (And I thought hitting the cavewoman in the head with a club and dragging her back to the cave, all with her approval, was just in the cartoons of the 50's. ) But such things have happened often enough, so I'm willing to assume it really was the scientific community saying these things, and not just some weirdos that nobody took seriously. But I don't need thirty pages telling me how less than a half-dozen ideas floating through the scientific community were wrong. A couple paragraphs about each would do the job. Going on and on as he does sounds much like the political advertisements we just went through here during the election campaigns. Point out a fallacy in the other guy. Fine. But then move on, before it turns into a trash campaign. Tell me what's good about your ideas.

Also, he's got some good scientific principles wrong. He says a man turning into a pig in one, fell swoop is fast; but says it would be a slow process if it happened bit by bit over many days. He says the fact that it happens slowly does not make it less worthy of wonder, or make it need an explanation any less. But those two things do not demonstrate the difference between a gradual process and a fast one in evolution. Such changes happening over millions of years, so gradually they cannot be seen individually - and from generation to generation, not in a single individual - are a far, far different situation.


Anyway, I'm still reading. He hasn't said anything yet to invalidate his position, even if he hasn't invalidated the scientific one. I'll see what happens.

There are a number of things where I'm wondering why we are not quite touching base at this point. I do not assume that you share my beliefs; sometimes I express things that I believe. You don't seem to distinguish. If I speak about my optimism, it ought to be obvious that that is my partisan opinion and not a point that I am trying to prove. (It might be that this influenced your inability to finish "Mere Christianity", even as an attempt to understand what others think.)

I accept the possibility that I could wake up and be inclined to not believe. That is where the habit of faith would insist on belief in spite of inclination.

On the insane loner, I included the qualifier "historically speaking". Of course you can find exceptions, and Christ is the supreme exception. I was speaking of the rule, not of exceptions. Also, there is a difference between majority/minority and everyone else vs the loner. I again point to my qualifier here.

The wordiness required of us is exactly why wordiness is required in apologetics - why Chesterton MUST write so much - because of the six hundred and seventy five objections that the average reader will raise to any simplistic expression of "what the score is". Our own exchanges ought to underline that.

My optimism comes from a belief in God's mercy and that you really will have a fair shake in finding and choosing Him on one level or another. It is not based on rational processes.

I think you've tripped on the question of harmful desires. All I'm working to establish is that some desires; what "works" for some (NOT ALL) is actually harmful. Your argument up to that point actually assumed that what "worked" must be OK in itself and I have disproved that. Since some are objectively wrong, we cannot rely on a standard of what (seems to )"work" at a given moment.

Also, he's got some good scientific principles wrong. He says a man turning into a pig in one, fell swoop is fast; but says it would be a slow process if it happened bit by bit over many days. He says the fact that it happens slowly does not make it less worthy of wonder, or make it need an explanation any less. But those two things do not demonstrate the difference between a gradual process and a fast one in evolution. Such changes happening over millions of years, so gradually they cannot be seen individually - and from generation to generation, not in a single individual - are a far, far different situation.

But his point is right. The fact that it IS worthy of wonder remains, and the popular concept of evolution (as distinguished from scientific theory) DOES work to remove this factor of wonder, and from that perspective, a million years or a day really does NOT make any difference.

Anyway, wait till you get to the parts about recorded history. Some here have denied that Chesterton was a genius. I'd like to see THEM write over 4,000 essays and nearly 100 books and have nearly all of them become classics and be incredibly relevant 100 years later.