God, Omnipotence and Free Will

[Fist and Faith]

My gods. I'm a nihilist.

It is all senseless and meaningless. It doesn't bother me, it's liberating, not depressing.

I think Isaac Asimov said something to that effect, that atheism freed him from worry and let him live his own life.

A great way to avoid thinking about death. That's not so terribly intelligent. It's essence is saying "I don't want to think about it", which is surely anti-intellectual. I wouldn't say that Asimov wasn't intelligent, but such a statement represents a failure of intellect.

No, it is not in essence saying "I don't want to think about it." Being free from worry is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing as not thinking. It is possible to think without worrying. Are you intentionally trying to put words in Asimov's mouth in order to discredit him? Who said he didn't think about death? You just made that up. You completely changed what Orlion said.

I think that the predominating assumption that reason must somehow deny faith is completely wrong. What I see is an abysmal ignorance in our time of nearly all knowledge of theology and an enormous chunk of philosophy - nearly all that matters - prior to the Endarkenment (sometimes called "Enlightenment" in an Orwellian twist of history). Without that, of course, millions of people following basic paths of reasoning are essentially being expected to reinvent the wheel, largely without any materials. Thus, while I see intelligent people turning both toward and away from faith in the face of their reason, I am not at all impressed by the predominating assumption behind a rejection of faith due to reason.

I'm simply looking for a reason to have faith. To believe there is anything in which one might have faith. There's no need for faith, but, if there is something of this sort out there, I'd definitely like to know about it.

Reason cannot overcome a lack of evidence, but faith must.

That's a remarkably good way of putting it!

[iQuestor]

My Two Cents:

I feel much Fist's last post -- The requirement for Faith in organized religion seems pretty convenient to me. If there is a God and he/she is omnipotent why require faith of us?

If I had an undeniable sign that a given religion or philosophy was true, say proof Jesus Christ was divine and had actually risen from the dead to save our souls, I'd certainly come onboard in a heartbeat. But conveniently, FAITH is the test of the true follower, so he wont do that.

We are also required to pray, to get a closer connection with God. But He is supposed to be Omnipotent, so in which case he knows everything about us down to the Planck Level, and I'd say thats a pretty tight connection. Prayer seems to be a one way conversation and personally, It would be hard to know a God who doesn't answer. Of course I could take any sign I like in my life, a coincidence or find hidden meaning in things I see and hear and make my own answers and attribute them to Him, but that doesnt work for me.

Anyone ever read Quantum Gods by Victor Stenger?

He argues against the existance of God based on Quantum Mechanics, saying that if God created the Universe, then He didnt give himself any way in which to interact due to the physical laws of the Universe. Miracles such that defy the Laws of Physics just arent possible, such as raising people from the Dead, Water into Wine, parting the red sea, watch every sparrow fall, etc. Divine Interaction that did violate the Laws of Physics would cause consequences that would not only be detectable, but could likely be catastrophic to our world and Universe. Unless God remakes the Universe each time he decides to interact with us. Which sounds tiresome.

Of Course, Christians beleive that this is all part of God's elaborate requirement for faith -- he WANTS the scientists to come to this conclusion as a further test of the faithful, ie in the face of all evidence against Him, the faithful still beleive.

Giv eme a sign, a small one, that is indisputable. I iwll gladly come into the fold.

[aliantha]

It's an aside, but being a Mensan (as such) has no virtue at all - it's only a way to pride and snobbery, however well-masked. Far more highly intelligent people have gotten through life without such a title than with.

Good thing I didn't renew my membership, then, huh?

No, seriously, my mother's husband was a member, I tested and scored high enough myself, and I talked to him about it.
Since the common factor - the club element is "Look how smart we all are" rather than actual common interests (yes, I know they arrange stuff, but my point is that it winds up being almost peripheral), it seems evident to me that a tendency (note - I say "a tendency") toward some form of pride - in the negative sense - is inevitable.

Congrats on being part of the high-IQ club, rus, regardless of whether you ever paid dues.

My experience with Mensa was much like Vraith's -- and, come to think of it, much like what I've experienced here at the Watch: having fun with people who are at my level of intelligence. The fact that we had little in common other than our IQ test scores was just kind of added spice.

Quite frankly, I joined Mensa because I was tired of dating guys who weren't my intellectual equal. And it worked like a charm! Suddenly I had more dates than I'd ever had before in my life. Ended up marrying another Mensan. So there you go.

Then I got tired of the political machinations of the local group, and we had kids, and moved, and didn't have time for it any more. So I dropped my membership probably 20 years ago or so.

I won't argue that some folks take the test for bragging rights. I suspect those folks tend to not show up for the social events, or they come once or twice and never go back -- maybe because they learn the distressing fact that other Mensans are just regular people whose brains work faster than most folks'.

And it *is* seen by some as a negative to even mention Mensa involvement. I served as editor, and then publisher, of our group's newsletter for several years, but I don't put it on my resume because it could make me look like a snob.

Okay, digression over. Sorry, everybody.

[rusmeister]

I think Isaac Asimov said something to that effect, that atheism freed him from worry and let him live his own life.

A great way to avoid thinking about death. That's not so terribly intelligent. It's essence is saying "I don't want to think about it", which is surely anti-intellectual. I wouldn't say that Asimov wasn't intelligent, but such a statement represents a failure of intellect.

No, it is not in essence saying "I don't want to think about it." Being free from worry is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing as not thinking. It is possible to think without worrying. Are you intentionally trying to put words in Asimov's mouth in order to discredit him? Who said he didn't think about death? You just made that up. You completely changed what Orlion said.

I think that the predominating assumption that reason must somehow deny faith is completely wrong. What I see is an abysmal ignorance in our time of nearly all knowledge of theology and an enormous chunk of philosophy - nearly all that matters - prior to the Endarkenment (sometimes called "Enlightenment" in an Orwellian twist of history). Without that, of course, millions of people following basic paths of reasoning are essentially being expected to reinvent the wheel, largely without any materials. Thus, while I see intelligent people turning both toward and away from faith in the face of their reason, I am not at all impressed by the predominating assumption behind a rejection of faith due to reason.

I'm simply looking for a reason to have faith. To believe there is anything in which one might have faith. There's no need for faith, but, if there is something of this sort out there, I'd definitely like to know about it.

Hi Fist,
No, I'm not trying to misquote Asimov. I took Orlion's words about what he understood to be the important - the essential - from Asimov and went with it. I didn't track down Asimov's quote, and might have commented differently to the original quote.

As to a reason to have faith, if I may once again reference the Indiana Jones analogy (The Last Crusade one, if you remember what I am referring to - the "leap from the lion's mouth", the reason could well be actual circumstances in your life which make either fence-sitting or negation intolerable. That's only future speculation, but when reason itself won't lead you (or I'd say if faulty reason failed to lead you even to such a simple thing as Pascal's wager) then that would have to be the sort of thing to catalyze faith - to see that we cannot live by reason alone. As Chesterton basically said in Orthodoxy,

It is not a question between mysticism and rationality. It is a question between mysticism and madness. For mysticism, and mysticism alone, has kept men sane from the beginning of the world. All the straight roads of logic lead to some Bedlam, to Anarchism or to passive obedience, to treating the universe as a clockwork of matter or else as a delusion of mind.

and

This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chief mark and element of insanity; we may say in summary that it is reason used without root, reason in the void. The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think at the wrong end. And for the rest of these pages we have to try and discover what is the right end. But we may ask in conclusion, if this be what drives men mad, what is it that keeps them sane? By the end of this book I hope to give a definite, some will think a far too definite, answer. But for the moment it is possible in the same solely practical manner to give a general answer touching what in actual human history keeps men sane. Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.

ch 2, "The Maniac" (from "Orthodoxy") www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch2.html

This also reminds me of SRD's "the eye of the paradox"...

[Cybrweez]

Anyone ever read Quantum Gods by Victor Stenger?

He argues against the existance of God based on Quantum Mechanics, saying that if God created the Universe, then He didnt give himself any way in which to interact due to the physical laws of the Universe. Miracles such that defy the Laws of Physics just arent possible, such as raising people from the Dead, Water into Wine, parting the red sea, watch every sparrow fall, etc. Divine Interaction that did violate the Laws of Physics would cause consequences that would not only be detectable, but could likely be catastrophic to our world and Universe. Unless God remakes the Universe each time he decides to interact with us. Which sounds tiresome.

Of Course, Christians beleive that this is all part of God's elaborate requirement for faith -- he WANTS the scientists to come to this conclusion as a further test of the faithful, ie in the face of all evidence against Him, the faithful still beleive.

Giv eme a sign, a small one, that is indisputable. I iwll gladly come into the fold.

Sounds like a great thought experiment. Now, being a scientist, I'm sure he proved that a miracle would do those things? Or are you saying its his faith in his assertion that it would happen?

[Fist and Faith]

No, I'm not trying to misquote Asimov. I took Orlion's words about what he understood to be the important - the essential - from Asimov and went with it. I didn't track down Asimov's quote, and might have commented differently to the original quote.

It doesn't matter what the original quote is. You said "freed from worry" means "freed from thought." That's a very poor equation, and I question your motive for doing it. You've often told us that you're a linguist, so I don't expect such a bad change to be accidental.

As to a reason to have faith, if I may once again reference the Indiana Jones analogy (The Last Crusade one, if you remember what I am referring to - the "leap from the lion's mouth", the reason could well be actual circumstances in your life which make either fence-sitting or negation intolerable. That's only future speculation, but when reason itself won't lead you (or I'd say if faulty reason failed to lead you even to such a simple thing as Pascal's wager) then that would have to be the sort of thing to catalyze faith - to see that we cannot live by reason alone.

As I've said before, if such a situation ever presents itself to me, we'll see how I choose. But I've yet to experience anything approaching such a situation so far.

It is not a question between mysticism and rationality. It is a question between mysticism and madness. For mysticism, and mysticism alone, has kept men sane from the beginning of the world. All the straight roads of logic lead to some Bedlam, to Anarchism or to passive obedience, to treating the universe as a clockwork of matter or else as a delusion of mind.

No. He's just making up bad things to say about logic and reason to try to make them seem bad and wrong. There's nothing to support this. You cannot show that logic will always lead to those bad ends, and you cannot show that faith will always lead to better ends. All views have been known to work well for some people, and badly for others.

This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chief mark and element of insanity; we may say in summary that it is reason used without root, reason in the void. The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think at the wrong end.

I will, of course, argue that "The universe was created by God" is an impossible first thought. Not only is it not possible for those trying to use reason and logic to understand the universe, but for any human being. It was not anybody's first thought.

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland.

Well, it stands to reason that, since GKC said so much stuff, I'd agree with something he said. Yes. Humans strive. We search. Explore. It is a fundamental drive of ours. Fortunately, the universe is not likely to run out of things to learn and discover any time soon.

He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them.

I doubt you doubt your God. And I'm free to believe in your God, I just haven't run across any reason to yet.

He has always cared more for truth than for consistency.

This is not a virtue. If something is consistent, then it is probably a truth. OTOH, if something is inconsistent, then it is probably not a truth, and it might be a good idea to reconsider believing it.

If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them.

I'll go along with this. If you could point out two such truths, we'll see if I can manage it.

He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man.

That's not a contradiction. Youth and age each have aspects that can be admired.

I left out the other "contradictory truths" because I do not believe one of each pair is a truth. They are a possible endpoint of all of our discussions, but they are not a place to begin. GKC is talking to Christians, about things that Christians believe, and saying that those who do not share that faith are insane, or going to be.

The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.

There's a difference between not being aware of every fact of the universe and not "understanding" in the mystic sense that GKC means. Some using reason, logic, and science to try to understand the universe have views like yours, and some have views like mine. Those with views like mine are no more likely to be wandering around holding their heads in their hands, lost and confused, purposeless and scared.

The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid.

More of his unsupported attacks. There's no substance to such a statement.

[Fist and Faith]

Anyone ever read Quantum Gods by Victor Stenger?

He argues against the existance of God based on Quantum Mechanics, saying that if God created the Universe, then He didnt give himself any way in which to interact due to the physical laws of the Universe. Miracles such that defy the Laws of Physics just arent possible, such as raising people from the Dead, Water into Wine, parting the red sea, watch every sparrow fall, etc. Divine Interaction that did violate the Laws of Physics would cause consequences that would not only be detectable, but could likely be catastrophic to our world and Universe. Unless God remakes the Universe each time he decides to interact with us. Which sounds tiresome.

Of Course, Christians beleive that this is all part of God's elaborate requirement for faith -- he WANTS the scientists to come to this conclusion as a further test of the faithful, ie in the face of all evidence against Him, the faithful still beleive.

Giv eme a sign, a small one, that is indisputable. I iwll gladly come into the fold.

Sounds like a great thought experiment. Now, being a scientist, I'm sure he proved that a miracle would do those things? Or are you saying its his faith in his assertion that it would happen?

Gotta go with Cybr on this one. It seems that the author is saying that a miracle - that is, doing something that is impossible in the face of a known law of nature/the universe/physics - must change that law permanently, everywhere. Although it could (if gravity worked in reverse tomorrow...), that's certainly not the common definition of miracle. Changing water into wine once would be a miracle, just as surely as it would be if doing so once changed the Laws of Liquids, so that they all spontaneously change into another now and then.

[rusmeister]

No, I'm not trying to misquote Asimov. I took Orlion's words about what he understood to be the important - the essential - from Asimov and went with it. I didn't track down Asimov's quote, and might have commented differently to the original quote.

It doesn't matter what the original quote is. You said "freed from worry" means "freed from thought." That's a very poor equation, and I question your motive for doing it. You've often told us that you're a linguist, so I don't expect such a bad change to be accidental.

As to a reason to have faith, if I may once again reference the Indiana Jones analogy (The Last Crusade one, if you remember what I am referring to - the "leap from the lion's mouth", the reason could well be actual circumstances in your life which make either fence-sitting or negation intolerable. That's only future speculation, but when reason itself won't lead you (or I'd say if faulty reason failed to lead you even to such a simple thing as Pascal's wager) then that would have to be the sort of thing to catalyze faith - to see that we cannot live by reason alone.

As I've said before, if such a situation ever presents itself to me, we'll see how I choose. But I've yet to experience anything approaching such a situation so far.

It is not a question between mysticism and rationality. It is a question between mysticism and madness. For mysticism, and mysticism alone, has kept men sane from the beginning of the world. All the straight roads of logic lead to some Bedlam, to Anarchism or to passive obedience, to treating the universe as a clockwork of matter or else as a delusion of mind.

No. He's just making up bad things to say about logic and reason to try to make them seem bad and wrong. There's nothing to support this. You cannot show that logic will always lead to those bad ends, and you cannot show that faith will always lead to better ends. All views have been known to work well for some people, and badly for others.

This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chief mark and element of insanity; we may say in summary that it is reason used without root, reason in the void. The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think at the wrong end.

I will, of course, argue that "The universe was created by God" is an impossible first thought. Not only is it not possible for those trying to use reason and logic to understand the universe, but for any human being. It was not anybody's first thought.

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland.

Well, it stands to reason that, since GKC said so much stuff, I'd agree with something he said. Yes. Humans strive. We search. Explore. It is a fundamental drive of ours. Fortunately, the universe is not likely to run out of things to learn and discover any time soon.

He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them.

I doubt you doubt your God. And I'm free to believe in your God, I just haven't run across any reason to yet.

He has always cared more for truth than for consistency.

This is not a virtue. If something is consistent, then it is probably a truth. OTOH, if something is inconsistent, then it is probably not a truth, and it might be a good idea to reconsider believing it.

If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them.

I'll go along with this. If you could point out two such truths, we'll see if I can manage it.

He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man.

That's not a contradiction. Youth and age each have aspects that can be admired.

I left out the other "contradictory truths" because I do not believe one of each pair is a truth. They are a possible endpoint of all of our discussions, but they are not a place to begin. GKC is talking to Christians, about things that Christians believe, and saying that those who do not share that faith are insane, or going to be.

The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.

There's a difference between not being aware of every fact of the universe and not "understanding" in the mystic sense that GKC means. Some using reason, logic, and science to try to understand the universe have views like yours, and some have views like mine. Those with views like mine are no more likely to be wandering around holding their heads in their hands, lost and confused, purposeless and scared.

The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid.

More of his unsupported attacks. There's no substance to such a statement.

Hi Fist,
I've come down with something, and online opportunities are sporadic. FWIW, I consider discussions with you among the most important - so important that I can't give short or seemingly flippant responses.

Obviously we disagree on GKC and even on what constitutes good reason. Rather than go fifty rounds over it - although maybe I will take on your charges over the summer - which is when I really have some time, I'd just recommend a completely different writer to you - Alexandr Men. (Spelled in a few different ways) I'm pretty sure I've mentioned him before, but I do know that there's more than one way (or person) to skin a cat - or get ideas across.

www.alexandermen.com/Main_Page
www.alexandermen.com/BBC_Program_on_Fr_Alexander_Men

Heck, it'd be educational, if nothing else - especially if you really are looking for reasons to believe.

It's hard to pick a best essay (speech, actually), but I'll go with this one:
www.alexandermen.com/Christianity

[Fist and Faith]

Well, based on Christianity, I like this guy a WHOOOOOLE lot more than GKC. That's a very good, clear, beautiful expression of his beliefs.

"I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts.”

Sounds like what Lewis was talking about in MC?


Anyway, just to make one thing clear:

Man has the right to distrust the universe, to feel he is in a strange and hostile world. Modern writers like Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre and others have spoken of the terrible absurdity of existence. We live in a cold, dead or dying world which we cannot trust because it is threatening, inhuman, meaningless and absurd.

Maybe so. I never read those guys, so I'll take his word for it. But I don't feel that way.
-The universe is not absurd. I don't even know what that means.
-Dead or dying? Not sure what that means either. We could say it's non-living. Which is very different from dead or dying. But it's not even non-living. At least not all of it. Most of this planet is alive. I certainly am. Heh. And, if we want to be poetic about it, the cycles and rhythms of most everything in the universe could be seen as life, or at least systems within a living universe.
-It's not untrustworthy. I trust it completely. I know what to expect from it.
-Threatening? No. Many parts of the universe are dangerous to us in various ways at times. But I think of threaten as intent.
-Inhuman? Heck, that's probably its saving grace. That's why I do trust the universe. I know what to expect from it, because it doesn't lie. Once we know something about it, we know we can trust that thing to do what it does.

[rusmeister]

Well, based on Christianity, I like this guy a WHOOOOOLE lot more than GKC. That's a very good, clear, beautiful expression of his beliefs.

"I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts.”

Sounds like what Lewis was talking about in MC?


Anyway, just to make one thing clear:

Man has the right to distrust the universe, to feel he is in a strange and hostile world. Modern writers like Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre and others have spoken of the terrible absurdity of existence. We live in a cold, dead or dying world which we cannot trust because it is threatening, inhuman, meaningless and absurd.

Maybe so. I never read those guys, so I'll take his word for it. But I don't feel that way.
-The universe is not absurd. I don't even know what that means.
-Dead or dying? Not sure what that means either. We could say it's non-living. Which is very different from dead or dying. But it's not even non-living. At least not all of it. Most of this planet is alive. I certainly am. Heh. And, if we want to be poetic about it, the cycles and rhythms of most everything in the universe could be seen as life, or at least systems within a living universe.
-It's not untrustworthy. I trust it completely. I know what to expect from it.
-Threatening? No. Many parts of the universe are dangerous to us in various ways at times. But I think of threaten as intent.
-Inhuman? Heck, that's probably its saving grace. That's why I do trust the universe. I know what to expect from it, because it doesn't lie. Once we know something about it, we know we can trust that thing to do what it does.

Men has a lot of good stuff. "The Son of Man" is said to be one of his best works, but the excerpts on that site probably don't give that impression.

And yes, 'the law written in their hearts' - see the book of Romans, ch 1 - is also referred to by Lewis.

I'd say it's your optimistic view of the universe that I find incomprehensible. That is, I could find it comprehensible if I were ignorant of death and its ultimate meaning for me. Not to sound egotistical, but it's the whole point that everything the individual is, has learned, has become, then becomes nothing - which makes no sense - literally. It makes (what?) - nothing of sense (sense into nothing). My sense. My senses. And so to each one of us. Even if we can pass a tiny fraction on in writings, multimedia or whatever, the same thing happens to all.

Most of this planet is alive. I certainly am.

We'll check back in 30-40 years, when, under even better circumstances, most people you have known will have died, and the feeling of leaves falling off the tree of your own life becomes stronger*. But the thing that will really challenge this is some disaster of the first magnitude striking home, and crushing the sense of meaning and optimism you now seem to enjoy. Or whatever causes the houses of cards we all build to collapse. (Have you read "A Grief Observed" by Lewis? A very short - less than 100 pages, maybe 78? - diary account, in the last few years of his own life, about the death of his wife, and the challenge to his faith. It might at least make comprehensible the concepts of 'meaningless and absurd' that Men was talking about.

Your view provides me with absolutely no hope or optimism, or even to make sense of this existence. My view, which is one that I've accepted, rather than made up, does do those essential things, and not only for me, but for everybody - if only it is accepted.

*

So far I have felt the normal feelings of a man of my age--like an old tree that it losing all its leaves one by one: this feels like an axe-blow near the roots.

JRR Tolkien, on the death of C.S. Lewis

[Fist and Faith]

I'd say it's your optimistic view of the universe that I find incomprehensible. That is, I could find it comprehensible if I were ignorant of death and its ultimate meaning for me. Not to sound egotistical, but it's the whole point that everything the individual is, has learned, has become, then becomes nothing - which makes no sense - literally.

Egotistical is exactly what it is. The need for immortality. The need to go on forever. I don't have that need. It's okay to end. Such an idea need not cause fear or despair. It can cause peace at the thought of release.

Most of this planet is alive. I certainly am.

We'll check back in 30-40 years, when, under even better circumstances, most people you have known will have died, and the feeling of leaves falling off the tree of your own life becomes stronger*. But the thing that will really challenge this is some disaster of the first magnitude striking home, and crushing the sense of meaning and optimism you now seem to enjoy. Or whatever causes the houses of cards we all build to collapse. (Have you read "A Grief Observed" by Lewis? A very short - less than 100 pages, maybe 78? - diary account, in the last few years of his own life, about the death of his wife, and the challenge to his faith. It might at least make comprehensible the concepts of 'meaningless and absurd' that Men was talking about.

And if, 45 years from now, I am not a broken, angry old man... If I have not been defeated by my inadequate philosophy... What then? Will you say, "Well, another 5 years should be sufficient."? And it that doesn't break me? At what conceivable point would you admit that there's a possibility that not everybody must, at the end of the road, feel the same way you do? Do you honestly believe every person who died without your beliefs went out wailing in fear? Do you really think nobody ever died happy with any beliefs but yours?

Your view provides me with absolutely no hope or optimism, or even to make sense of this existence.

Do you need my view to provide you with hope or optimism? Your view provides you with sufficient amounts of both, I'm sure. Allow mine to provide for me, eh?

My view, which is one that I've accepted, rather than made up, does do those essential things, and not only for me, but for everybody - if only it is accepted.

Since I don't need your view in order to get hope or optimism, and there's no reason to accept it...

But I haven't "made up" my view. It's the way things are, and I accept it.

[rusmeister]

I'd say it's your optimistic view of the universe that I find incomprehensible. That is, I could find it comprehensible if I were ignorant of death and its ultimate meaning for me. Not to sound egotistical, but it's the whole point that everything the individual is, has learned, has become, then becomes nothing - which makes no sense - literally.

Egotistical is exactly what it is. The need for immortality. The need to go on forever. I don't have that need. It's okay to end. Such an idea need not cause fear or despair. It can cause peace at the thought of release.

This is the first hint to me of falsehood - interpreting it as 'being released'. If it is true and total oblivion, 'the void', nothingness, then it is a complete end (if we leave out the scenarios where awareness remains, in which case it is quite literally hell). Release means being freed to go on existing. If it is a complete end, then it is insanity to embrace it. It is the exact opposite of what we struggle for all our lives. It is the undoing of everything we have done. And it is the same for our children - however many generations you might attempt to put off that fact, until the final asteroid strike or cooling of the universe or whatever.

It is egotistical only in the same way that the desire to live and the value of life is egotistical - and no more so. It SHOULD cause despair in a sane person who sees that. To not despair is simply to say that our lives don't matter at all. I know you'll go denying that, but denial is not consistent with reason. If I am to say that my life matters (present simple verb tense), then there are only two possible meanings - either that it only has meaning in the present (which lasts but a moment), or that it has permanent meaning. (I teach grammar, and I have had to spend lots of time thinking about what verb tenses mean in order to explain them to foreigners.) I could go deeper into the grammar but I won't unless I have to. If that meaning is temporary, then it is ultimately meaningless. (This includes ideas of inventing our own meanings.) If it is permanent, then there is Someone (in the sentient sense) to whom it means something. The former must lead to despair for anyone who sees that and denies the religious answers. Otherwise, this thing called religion wouldn't have been bothering humanity - universally - since the beginning of history.

To "not have a need for immortality" is the same as saying that your life doesn't matter. (I think it does, of course.) If one is unable to think outside of the present moment ('the "now" of wolf thought', with a bow to the Pinis), then one is essentially an animal, and not human. The ability to forsee our own suffering and death (among other things, of course) sets us apart from the animals. If you try to say that you think your life does matter and it does not matter that you will die - that it is nothing less than a major catastrophe (excluding religious answers) I will say that you are simply contradicting yourself.

Most of this planet is alive. I certainly am.

We'll check back in 30-40 years, when, under even better circumstances, most people you have known will have died, and the feeling of leaves falling off the tree of your own life becomes stronger*. But the thing that will really challenge this is some disaster of the first magnitude striking home, and crushing the sense of meaning and optimism you now seem to enjoy. Or whatever causes the houses of cards we all build to collapse. (Have you read "A Grief Observed" by Lewis? A very short - less than 100 pages, maybe 78? - diary account, in the last few years of his own life, about the death of his wife, and the challenge to his faith. It might at least make comprehensible the concepts of 'meaningless and absurd' that Men was talking about.

And if, 45 years from now, I am not a broken, angry old man... If I have not been defeated by my inadequate philosophy... What then? Will you say, "Well, another 5 years should be sufficient."? And it that doesn't break me? At what conceivable point would you admit that there's a possibility that not everybody must, at the end of the road, feel the same way you do? Do you honestly believe every person who died without your beliefs went out wailing in fear? Do you really think nobody ever died happy with any beliefs but yours?

Now hold on, I didn't say "broken" or "angry", nor that everyone goes out 'wailing in fear'.
First of all, I grant that you might hold on to your current philosophy all your life. I do think it will become increasingly difficult to do so, but that is a different matter. I think it very likely that something will force it to change in some other direction - one that does not leave you with the self-contradiction you currently have. I do think your philosophy, as you have expressed it, to be untenable in the long run. (unholdable in straighter English)

Your view provides me with absolutely no hope or optimism, or even to make sense of this existence.

Do you need my view to provide you with hope or optimism? Your view provides you with sufficient amounts of both, I'm sure. Allow mine to provide for me, eh?

My view, which is one that I've accepted, rather than made up, does do those essential things, and not only for me, but for everybody - if only it is accepted.

Since I don't need your view in order to get hope or optimism, and there's no reason to accept it...

But I haven't "made up" my view. It's the way things are, and I accept it.

OK. Only it's not the way things are.

[Fist and Faith]

I'd say it's your optimistic view of the universe that I find incomprehensible. That is, I could find it comprehensible if I were ignorant of death and its ultimate meaning for me. Not to sound egotistical, but it's the whole point that everything the individual is, has learned, has become, then becomes nothing - which makes no sense - literally.

Egotistical is exactly what it is. The need for immortality. The need to go on forever. I don't have that need. It's okay to end. Such an idea need not cause fear or despair. It can cause peace at the thought of release.

This is the first hint to me of falsehood - interpreting it as 'being released'. If it is true and total oblivion, 'the void', nothingness, then it is a complete end (if we leave out the scenarios where awareness remains, in which case it is quite literally hell). Release means being freed to go on existing. If it is a complete end, then it is insanity to embrace it. It is the exact opposite of what we struggle for all our lives. It is the undoing of everything we have done. And it is the same for our children - however many generations you might attempt to put off that fact, until the final asteroid strike or cooling of the universe or whatever.

Your flaw is in thinking that my pleasure in my life; the meaning my life has to me; my desire for it to continue - all mean I must 1) want it to continue forever, and 2) cannot accept the fact that it won't. Neither is true.

It is egotistical only in the same way that the desire to live and the value of life is egotistical - and no more so. It SHOULD cause despair in a sane person who sees that. To not despair is simply to say that our lives don't matter at all. I know you'll go denying that, but denial is not consistent with reason.

Not accepting the inevitable is inconsistent with reason. To live in terror of the oblivion that is coming would be insane. Here's a good way of illustrating the point:

A man was being chased by a ravenous tiger. He came to the edge of a cliff and began to climb down a hanging vine. Then he looked and saw a second, equally ravenous tiger waiting at the bottom. At that moment, a mouse began to gnaw at the vine. Something caught the man’s eye - a luscious, red strawberry growing just within his reach. He plucked it and ate it and exclaimed, “How delicious this is!”

His life was about to end. In moments. He chose to take the pleasure that was available to him in those final moments, rather than scream at the injustice. He was not insane.

If I am to say that my life matters (present simple verb tense), then there are only two possible meanings - either that it only has meaning in the present (which lasts but a moment), or that it has permanent meaning. (I teach grammar, and I have had to spend lots of time thinking about what verb tenses mean in order to explain them to foreigners.) I could go deeper into the grammar but I won't unless I have to. If that meaning is temporary, then it is ultimately meaningless. (This includes ideas of inventing our own meanings.)

Yes. I've never said otherwise. Ultimately meaningless. The difference between you and me is that that's not a problem for me.

If it is permanent, then there is Someone (in the sentient sense) to whom it means something. The former must lead to despair for anyone who sees that and denies the religious answers. Otherwise, this thing called religion wouldn't have been bothering humanity - universally - since the beginning of history.

No, the former need not lead to despair. It only does for those who are of a certain emotional/mental makeup. There are people who live lives of despair because of all the germs in the world around them. They wash there hands dozens of times each day, but never get over it.

To "not have a need for immortality" is the same as saying that your life doesn't matter.

No. You're wrong. Just because your psyche cannot reconcile the two, doesn't mean mine cannot. It's not even a paradox or a contradiction. My life matters to me. The fact that it is not eternal has no bearing on that.

(I think it does, of course.) If one is unable to think outside of the present moment ('the "now" of wolf thought', with a bow to the Pinis), then one is essentially an animal, and not human. The ability to forsee our own suffering and death (among other things, of course) sets us apart from the animals. If you try to say that you think your life does matter and it does not matter that you will die - that it is nothing less than a major catastrophe (excluding religious answers) I will say that you are simply contradicting yourself.

And I will say that you are wrong. You are unable to understand my worldview. That's fine. People often are unable to understand other worldviews. (Some people are unable to understand any other worldview, some are unable to understand specific ones.) But being unable to understand it makes you highly UNqualified to tell me it is self-contradictory.

First of all, I grant that you might hold on to your current philosophy all your life. I do think it will become increasingly difficult to do so, but that is a different matter.

Some moments will be, and have been, more difficult than others. (If your current philosophy eliminates that situation, then I'm amazed.) However, that's not the same as being able to "hold on to" it. The fact that it offers me no solace during some future horror does not prove the existence of God.

I think it very likely that something will force it to change in some other direction - one that does not leave you with the self-contradiction you currently have. I do think your philosophy, as you have expressed it, to be untenable in the long run. (unholdable in straighter English)

You can, of course, think anything you want. But my philosophy only contradicts yours; not itself.

My view, which is one that I've accepted, rather than made up, does do those essential things, and not only for me, but for everybody - if only it is accepted.

Since I don't need your view in order to get hope or optimism, and there's no reason to accept it... But I haven't "made up" my view. It's the way things are, and I accept it.

OK. Only it's not the way things are.

Yes, it is. At least nothing has ever suggested it's not.

And, coincidentally, my view also gives the essential things, if only it is accepted. But one must first be free of the need for immortality.

[Avatar]

I'd say it's your optimistic view of the universe that I find incomprehensible. That is, I could find it comprehensible if I were ignorant of death and its ultimate meaning for me. Not to sound egotistical, but it's the whole point that everything the individual is, has learned, has become, then becomes nothing - which makes no sense - literally.

Egotistical is exactly what it is. The need for immortality. The need to go on forever. I don't have that need. It's okay to end. Such an idea need not cause fear or despair. It can cause peace at the thought of release.

Yep. Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd love to live forever. Just because I'd love to see what happens next. But eventually, everything I am will become nothing. It's an incentive to enjoy it right now. I am an egotist. When I die, it's the same as if the universe ends. To me anyway.

--A

[rusmeister]

My Two Cents:

I feel much Fist's last post -- The requirement for Faith in organized religion seems pretty convenient to me. If there is a God and he/she is omnipotent why require faith of us?

If I had an undeniable sign that a given religion or philosophy was true, say proof Jesus Christ was divine and had actually risen from the dead to save our souls, I'd certainly come onboard in a heartbeat. But conveniently, FAITH is the test of the true follower, so he wont do that.

We are also required to pray, to get a closer connection with God. But He is supposed to be Omnipotent, so in which case he knows everything about us down to the Planck Level, and I'd say thats a pretty tight connection. Prayer seems to be a one way conversation and personally, It would be hard to know a God who doesn't answer. Of course I could take any sign I like in my life, a coincidence or find hidden meaning in things I see and hear and make my own answers and attribute them to Him, but that doesnt work for me.

Anyone ever read Quantum Gods by Victor Stenger?

He argues against the existance of God based on Quantum Mechanics, saying that if God created the Universe, then He didnt give himself any way in which to interact due to the physical laws of the Universe. Miracles such that defy the Laws of Physics just arent possible, such as raising people from the Dead, Water into Wine, parting the red sea, watch every sparrow fall, etc. Divine Interaction that did violate the Laws of Physics would cause consequences that would not only be detectable, but could likely be catastrophic to our world and Universe. Unless God remakes the Universe each time he decides to interact with us. Which sounds tiresome.

Of Course, Christians beleive that this is all part of God's elaborate requirement for faith -- he WANTS the scientists to come to this conclusion as a further test of the faithful, ie in the face of all evidence against Him, the faithful still beleive.

Giv eme a sign, a small one, that is indisputable. I iwll gladly come into the fold.

Hi, IQ,
You seem to put things in terms of "requirements". Not sure why that should be so. What if these are not "requirements in the sense of arbitrary demands, but in the sense of "the only way to grasp concepts outside of the natural universe"?

On your first point - faith, I'd ask, which friends do you find to be real friends? The ones who hang around when things are going well, or the ones who stick with you when things are going badly - maybe your circumstances, maybe your personal behavior? Isn't that a form of faith? The former we call "fair-weather friends", but it is the latter, the true friends, who have faith in you because they really care about you, and because they believe there's more to you than can be seen at the surface or at the moment.

It is said, "If you want a friend, be a friend." If you wait for others to first show themselves to you, then you are not displaying that quality that wins friends. It is the putting yourself out on a limb that wins the friends, the girl, or whatever.

On prayer, and especially on "God's knowing all about us", I think the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac to be very helpful (Genesis, ch 22). Of course, God, being completely outside of time the way the author of a play is outside all points of the play, "knows" what Abraham is going to do. It is Abraham who does not know, and needs to discover just what faith can demand of a person and where that will take him. So it is with us. It is we who do not know what we can or will do when really put to the test - which I imagine a great many of us fail.

As to wanting God to actually speak to us, what I call "the Godzilla principle" is satisfactory for me, aka, "Be careful what you wish for...you may get it". If Godzilla actually appeared right in front of us, I imagine we would do like the guy in the 1998 film that peed his pants. People are warned that they may not see God face to face. I take it as His revealing what we can bear.

I wouldn't put my faith in science. Science is just what we think we know at the moment, and from the 4-element view to newtonian physics to einsteinian to quantum, we continually discover that what we thought we knew - and that only about the physical world - is constantly being revised, and what is unquestionable truth to one generation becomes primitive oversimplification to the next. In any event, science can't tell us about the spiritual, the supernatural, (or extra-natural if you prefer, for its realm is the natural. Science is precisely what we don't need faith in.

[rusmeister]

Egotistical is exactly what it is. The need for immortality. The need to go on forever. I don't have that need. It's okay to end. Such an idea need not cause fear or despair. It can cause peace at the thought of release.

This is the first hint to me of falsehood - interpreting it as 'being released'. If it is true and total oblivion, 'the void', nothingness, then it is a complete end (if we leave out the scenarios where awareness remains, in which case it is quite literally hell). Release means being freed to go on existing. If it is a complete end, then it is insanity to embrace it. It is the exact opposite of what we struggle for all our lives. It is the undoing of everything we have done. And it is the same for our children - however many generations you might attempt to put off that fact, until the final asteroid strike or cooling of the universe or whatever.

Your flaw is in thinking that my pleasure in my life; the meaning my life has to me; my desire for it to continue - all mean I must 1) want it to continue forever, and 2) cannot accept the fact that it won't. Neither is true.

C'mon, Fist, be fair to me. I do NOT think that you hold such assumptions. I know that you do not. I am saying that there is a major short-circuit in reason that does not see it. You do not see it. Therefore... well, I'll continue below.

It is egotistical only in the same way that the desire to live and the value of life is egotistical - and no more so. It SHOULD cause despair in a sane person who sees that. To not despair is simply to say that our lives don't matter at all. I know you'll go denying that, but denial is not consistent with reason.

Not accepting the inevitable is inconsistent with reason. To live in terror of the oblivion that is coming would be insane. Here's a good way of illustrating the point:

A man was being chased by a ravenous tiger. He came to the edge of a cliff and began to climb down a hanging vine. Then he looked and saw a second, equally ravenous tiger waiting at the bottom. At that moment, a mouse began to gnaw at the vine. Something caught the man’s eye - a luscious, red strawberry growing just within his reach. He plucked it and ate it and exclaimed, “How delicious this is!”

His life was about to end. In moments. He chose to take the pleasure that was available to him in those final moments, rather than scream at the injustice. He was not insane.

Here's the core of it. Yes, he was insane. If you prefer, (even though you don't) he went insane in the last moments of his life. He simply turned on his "ignore the immediate future and pretend like it's not going to happen" subroutine. It is not a matter of "psyche" (a word which means, essentially, nothing, and only clouds clear thinking, nor a matter of "personal make-up" - except in the sense that some people choose to think about it and others do not, either deliberately or through simple thoughtlessness. Either way, it adds up to thoughtlessness. He might have been better occupied hastily recording a will (since we are determined to ignore the implications of what happens to our own "psyche" upon our death). It is simply an extension of hedonistic philosophy, with "tomorrow we die" becoming "in a few seconds we die". By the same strange logic, I would imagine the heroes - or other passengers - of the film "Titanic" deciding to engage in sexual intercourse as often as they could before being swallowed by the waves. This and most of your other comments describe a determination to enjoy the present (not a bad thing in and of itself) and to ignore the future - which is a bad thing. It is a form of hedonism, which is a philosophy of despair - that simply works very hard to hide the despair, and which is revealed in its most famous formula.

If I am to say that my life matters (present simple verb tense), then there are only two possible meanings - either that it only has meaning in the present (which lasts but a moment), or that it has permanent meaning. (I teach grammar, and I have had to spend lots of time thinking about what verb tenses mean in order to explain them to foreigners.) I could go deeper into the grammar but I won't unless I have to. If that meaning is temporary, then it is ultimately meaningless. (This includes ideas of inventing our own meanings.)

Yes. I've never said otherwise. Ultimately meaningless. The difference between you and me is that that's not a problem for me.

This, again, is simply the above-mentioned subroutine at work.

To "not have a need for immortality" is the same as saying that your life doesn't matter.

No. You're wrong. Just because your psyche cannot reconcile the two, doesn't mean mine cannot. It's not even a paradox or a contradiction. My life matters to me. The fact that it is not eternal has no bearing on that.

I do not question that your life matters to you in the present. I do not in the least doubt it. I only say that your philosophy shows no consciousness of a time before or after your life; that you have made yourself a self-contained universe, with a definite beginning and an inevitable end. The end of all universes - and likely not later than 50-60 years from this date. And nothing really matters beyond that point. Whether humanity survives or not doesn't matter; nothing really matters - and why should it? You're dead!

(I think it does, of course.) If one is unable to think outside of the present moment ('the "now" of wolf thought', with a bow to the Pinis), then one is essentially an animal, and not human. The ability to forsee our own suffering and death (among other things, of course) sets us apart from the animals. If you try to say that you think your life does matter and it does not matter that you will die - that it is nothing less than a major catastrophe (excluding religious answers) I will say that you are simply contradicting yourself.

And I will say that you are wrong. You are unable to understand my worldview. That's fine. People often are unable to understand other worldviews. (Some people are unable to understand any other worldview, some are unable to understand specific ones.) But being unable to understand it makes you highly UNqualified to tell me it is self-contradictory.

Without bickering over whether I understand it or not - I think I do - you've given me some final pieces here which I think have clarified it sufficiently, I imagine that whatever I lay out you would see as insufficient. I would therefore ask if you could (or already have) formulated what you believe. My responses are from what I have seen, and as long as what you believe remains undefined, it is true that to that extent, I don't (and couldn't) understand it. The less defined a thing is, the more it can be anything. My views, otoh, being corporate and external to myself, can be fairly simply quoted or referenced. I need only refer you to the Nicene creed (Symbol of Faith) and to an Orthodox catechism, the best one I know of being here:

www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2

First of all, I grant that you might hold on to your current philosophy all your life. I do think it will become increasingly difficult to do so, but that is a different matter.

Some moments will be, and have been, more difficult than others. (If your current philosophy eliminates that situation, then I'm amazed.) However, that's not the same as being able to "hold on to" it. The fact that it offers me no solace during some future horror does not prove the existence of God.

This is a good point and I do not claim proof of the existence of God. Doubt will always exist - or moments of doubt will arise, whatever choice you make. So as far as that goes, I claim no difference between your view and mine. But I do claim that a philosophy focused on enjoying the now will become more difficult to maintain when there is nothing left to enjoy, or when what you do love is completely destroyed, and certainly when the end heaves in sight and there is no possibility of enjoyment. Sure, you may feel grateful, but gratitude is a (sensible) reaction to a person, or Person.

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has no one to thank

Since I don't need your view in order to get hope or optimism, and there's no reason to accept it... But I haven't "made up" my view. It's the way things are, and I accept it.

OK. Only it's not the way things are.

Yes, it is. At least nothing has ever suggested it's not.

And, coincidentally, my view also gives the essential things, if only it is accepted. But one must first be free of the need for immortality.

Most of humanity throughout history has already suggested that it is not.

What you call "the need for immortality" I call the recognition of the horror and wrongness, the absurdity of death. Death IS a wrong, and we KNOW that at the deepest level of our being; it is an enemy that every doctor fights against, every alchemist has sought to defeat, that everyone in human history has always desired, and most have sought to cheat as much as possible. Thus, it is irrational to be free of it; it is only putting on blinders and pretending that it's not really out there. Since seeing an absolute and objective truth - the fact of death, and specifically , MY death is not something one can be "freed from", one can either think about it, and seek an answer and explanation, or not, and the latter, by saying that it is irrelevant or unimportant, is simply a desire to remain ignorant. Yes, one can live their whole life by it. But one is not a better thinker for doing so.

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.

Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

[Fist and Faith]

rus, I recently described our conversations this way. (Yes, an analogy. ) I'm asking what two plus two equals, and you're saying "an apple tree." Now, I know you're never going to say "four", but I'm determined to make you understand we're talking about math.


Death has come to the vast majority of things that have ever lived; it will, eventually, come to all things that are currently alive; and it will come to everything that will live in the future. All living things die. I don't know nearly enough about the definitions to know, so perhaps not accepting this fact is not, by itself, proof of insanity. But then, maybe it is. Death is an absolute of life. It will happen to all of us. And it is a natural part of life. To consider it horror and wrongness and absurd... Well, it's surely not an attitude that can possibly lead to contentment, much less happiness. **

Taxes are not a natural part of life. They are a man-made thing, and fighting them, or at least fighting to keep them under control, is a good idea. But death?? What about night? The sun is an absolute necessity; an undeniably good thing; a natural thing. Therefore, night is horror and wrongness and absurd? Something to be fought?

No, I do not look forward to death. I figure it's gonna last a whooooooole lot longer than life, so I'll stick around as long as I can. (And there's limits to even that. "Extraordinary measures" can be too extraordinary.) And when I seriously think about death, about the oblivion that awaits us (And "you just have to choose to believe this other idea" is not anything resembling a reason to believe that other idea.), it can be unnerving. The end of Eric is a bizarre concept. (As well as a great loss to the world, eh? ) But I do not feel terror. It is, to me, a ridiculous notion. Eric disappears for large portions of the night, every night.


Same with meaninglessness. I don't feel the need to rail against that, either. Life is what it is. (And "you just have to choose to believe this other idea" is not anything resembling a reason to believe that other idea.)


What do I believe? Not sure how you mean this. There's no texts. I believe what I experience. I believe things that I don't experience if it can, nevertheless, be demonstrated to exist. (Perfect pitch in music is a good example. A bizarre thing! Absolutely amazes me! I don't have it, and don't understand how anyone can, but they can demonstrate it every time.) I am willing to believe various things that I do not experience, and have not been demonstrated to to exist, if they are of a certain nature. (I've never seen the Hubble Telescope. Although I've experienced the Doppler Effect often enough with sound, I've never seen it visually, like with red-shift of stars. I don't know how anyone knows that pi is infinite. But I believe all these things can be demonstrated, if I wanted to look into them.)

I do not question that your life matters to you in the present. I do not in the least doubt it. I only say that your philosophy shows no consciousness of a time before or after your life; that you have made yourself a self-contained universe, with a definite beginning and an inevitable end. The end of all universes - and likely not later than 50-60 years from this date. And nothing really matters beyond that point. Whether humanity survives or not doesn't matter; nothing really matters - and why should it? You're dead!

Are you making a point here?


As I've said before, this:

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has no one to thank

is insulting and stupid. I could counter with something like this:

The worst moment for the theist is when he loses his faith, and has no understanding of how to live in the actual world

Which is also insulting and stupid. Just because "thankful" applies to various parts of life for you doesn't meant it does for me. There are atheists in foxholes, and the theists who insist otherwise are arrogant and ignorant.

**Continuing with this quote:

What you call "the need for immortality" I call the recognition of the horror and wrongness, the absurdity of death. Death IS a wrong, and we KNOW that at the deepest level of our being; it is an enemy that every doctor fights against, every alchemist has sought to defeat, that everyone in human history has always desired, and most have sought to cheat as much as possible. Thus, it is irrational to be free of it; it is only putting on blinders and pretending that it's not really out there. Since seeing an absolute and objective truth - the fact of death, and specifically , MY death is not something one can be "freed from", one can either think about it, and seek an answer and explanation, or not, and the latter, by saying that it is irrelevant or unimportant, is simply a desire to remain ignorant. Yes, one can live their whole life by it. But one is not a better thinker for doing so.

This is you at your most disgustingly arrogant. As I've said to you several times, to think that someone not coming to the same conclusion you do about something is proof that they have not thought about it is not only insulting, but it is closing the door on any possible understanding you may have of other views. You will never attempt to understand what you argue against if you do not believe it exists.

And my death is not "irrelevant or unimportant" to me. It is simply a fact. It will happen. Nothing will prevent it forever. It is important to me. But it won't be after I'm dead. The answer and explanation for the physical fact is clear enough. There is no other kind of answer or explanation. (And "you just have to choose to believe this other idea" is not anything resembling a reason to believe that other idea.)

[rusmeister]

Hi Fist,
I think i should respond to the charge of arrogance first of all. It is inevitable that one who holds that there is absolute truth and they have (been granted to) discovered it will say that conclusions that differ from that truth are in error. Furthermore, if the thoughts expressed - as expressed, I suppose I should add - lead to a logical conclusion that somewhere along the line, thought is not taking place - or being short-circuited, then it is not necessarily arrogance to say so, and I deny the charge of arrogance here. I see no moral superiority in myself merely because I (claim to) have learned truth. Indeed, I am more responsible, and actually less worthy, for knowing all that I do and failing to live up to the Christian ideal. I am NOT looking down on you from an attitude of personal superiority. I'm not. I do think my thoughts better thought-out. That does not add up to me being - or thinking myself - a better person. Plus, I'm responding to the thoughts that you have given me. If there are more thoughts in your head, I can hardly be faulted for not being able to read them.

Death is an absolute of life. It will happen to all of us. And it is a natural part of life. To consider it horror and wrongness and absurd... Well, it's surely not an attitude that can possibly lead to contentment, much less happiness. **

Of course not. But you're jumping to a desired end result (contentment/happiness) from something that IS, without first expounding on the philosophy that makes this end result possible.

Taxes are not a natural part of life. They are a man-made thing, and fighting them, or at least fighting to keep them under control, is a good idea. But death?? What about night? The sun is an absolute necessity; an undeniably good thing; a natural thing. Therefore, night is horror and wrongness and absurd? Something to be fought?

Here we need to define "natural". There is "what happens if external forces do not prevent it", and "good and right", “legitimate” (condign? Gotta check my Donaldsonese-English dictionary ), the latter being a popular, but subjective understanding. I’ll leave out the myriad of other understandings, as I hope they are not relevant. It is important to not mix the concepts under the same word. I hold that death is natural in the first sense, but not in the second. Another problem - I don’t think your analogy to night works in the defense of your view because the essential point is that we do expect day to return (to us, btw). Your view holds no such hope. Mine does, so the day analogy does work (ultimately) for my view.

No, I do not look forward to death. I figure it's gonna last a whooooooole lot longer than life, so I'll stick around as long as I can. (And there's limits to even that. "Extraordinary measures" can be too extraordinary.) And when I seriously think about death, about the oblivion that awaits us (And "you just have to choose to believe this other idea" is not anything resembling a reason to believe that other idea.), it can be unnerving. The end of Eric is a bizarre concept. (As well as a great loss to the world, eh? ) But I do not feel terror. It is, to me, a ridiculous notion. Eric disappears for large portions of the night, every night.

I didn’t think you did look forward to it – I didn’t so confuse your view. I think this: “The end of Eric is a bizarre concept” is something where we might touch base. This is what I am talking about and a point we appear to agree upon. But again, on disappearing for the night, you DO have a reasonable expectation of waking up. If you did not have this – if you expected a final end on falling asleep (like Spielburg’s AI boy?) you might view sleep in a more fearsome manner.

What do I believe? Not sure how you mean this. There's no texts. I believe what I experience. I believe things that I don't experience if it can, nevertheless, be demonstrated to exist. (Perfect pitch in music is a good example. A bizarre thing! Absolutely amazes me! I don't have it, and don't understand how anyone can, but they can demonstrate it every time.) I am willing to believe various things that I do not experience, and have not been demonstrated to to exist, if they are of a certain nature. (I've never seen the Hubble Telescope. Although I've experienced the Doppler Effect often enough with sound, I've never seen it visually, like with red-shift of stars. I don't know how anyone knows that pi is infinite. But I believe all these things can be demonstrated, if I wanted to look into them.)

Have you ever had an experience that cannot be demonstrated?
What I really get from everything you’ve said, is that, regarding death, you view it with “the Now of wolf thought” (ref: Elfquest). You see it as unavoidable, but it is not “here” and “now” and so does not bear the concern that other people put into it. Just live your life in “the now” and don’t worry about the future (let alone eternity!). By contrast, the Christian, while also enjoined not to worry about the future, is very much commanded to worry about eternity. (Lewis’s Screwtape Letters expressed it very well, when the demon suggested getting the patient to worry about the past or especially the future, but to ignore the present and eternity.) So we agree on the importance of the present moment, but it appears the break comes in thinking about any kind of continued existence (specifically - eternal). You seem to take a final end for granted, and then pretty much stop thinking about it.
You may think this leads to greater contentment in the now – although I would dispute even that, especially if one considers himself a free thinker, and then essentially, mostly, doesn’t think about the implications of a final end. It is only a thought-out philosophy that can express what death actually means to us.

I do not question that your life matters to you in the present. I do not in the least doubt it. I only say that your philosophy shows no consciousness of a time before or after your life; that you have made yourself a self-contained universe, with a definite beginning and an inevitable end. The end of all universes - and likely not later than 50-60 years from this date. And nothing really matters beyond that point. Whether humanity survives or not doesn't matter; nothing really matters - and why should it? You're dead!

Are you making a point here?

Assuming this is a serious question, my point is that your thought expresses no consideration of the implications of a meaningless beginning and a final end, especially the latter. It’s fine, and very normal, to not know – what is not fine is to speak as if you did know. Again, by contrast, there are many things I do not know about death – but I do believe in promises made that give me assurances, and therefore, claim knowledge on those things which have been revealed. The most important point being that I am not the authority by which I know these things.

As I've said before, this:

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has no one to thank

is insulting and stupid. I could counter with something like this:

The worst moment for the theist is when he loses his faith, and has no understanding of how to live in the actual world

Which is also insulting and stupid. Just because "thankful" applies to various parts of life for you doesn't meant it does for me. There are atheists in foxholes, and the theists who insist otherwise are arrogant and ignorant.

Again, you see arrogance where none exists, although it does present a real conundrum for the atheist and challenges the view (and is an attack on the view, as far as that goes), and therefore may seem to have the effect of insult. I think it’s just the general problem of a pluralist encountering absolutists. If the pluralist takes pluralism for granted, a thing now ‘natural’ in the western world, then he will now be shocked by absolutist claims and (correctly)see ones that say that the pluralist is wrong as attacks – on ideas - and incorrectly interpret as personal insult.

The conundrum is that we all – regardless of personal beliefs - feel thankful at times – perhaps thankful that we survived a car crash, won the lottery, or just got to see a beautiful sunrise. Yet, who are we to be thankful to? The atheist says “nobody”, making his feeling of thankfulness illogical. It shows a fundamental contradiction between the atheist’s professed belief and his actual reaction to the world.

There is a reason, as I would hope you knew, for the “no atheists in foxholes” quote. It expresses a general truth, rather than an absolute negation. The general truth is that when death is so close, and even likely, it is extraordinarily difficult to insist on holding on to a philosophy that says that one’s death is the end. Now no doubt some people – very principled people no doubt, do manage to hold on to an atheist philosophy in the face of imminent personal death. It represents a similar kind of faith to the Christian facing death, martyrdom, or whatever – however, in that light, it becomes an entirely negative faith, affirming one’s complete and final end with no hope of a new day – which I say is a form of insanity, especially when that end is staring you in the face.

**Continuing with this quote:

What you call "the need for immortality" I call the recognition of the horror and wrongness, the absurdity of death. Death IS a wrong, and we KNOW that at the deepest level of our being; it is an enemy that every doctor fights against, every alchemist has sought to defeat, that everyone in human history has always desired, and most have sought to cheat as much as possible. Thus, it is irrational to be free of it; it is only putting on blinders and pretending that it's not really out there. Since seeing an absolute and objective truth - the fact of death, and specifically , MY death is not something one can be "freed from", one can either think about it, and seek an answer and explanation, or not, and the latter, by saying that it is irrelevant or unimportant, is simply a desire to remain ignorant. Yes, one can live their whole life by it. But one is not a better thinker for doing so.

This is you at your most disgustingly arrogant. As I've said to you several times, to think that someone not coming to the same conclusion you do about something is proof that they have not thought about it is not only insulting, but it is closing the door on any possible understanding you may have of other views. You will never attempt to understand what you argue against if you do not believe it exists.

And my death is not "irrelevant or unimportant" to me. It is simply a fact. It will happen. Nothing will prevent it forever. It is important to me. But it won't be after I'm dead. The answer and explanation for the physical fact is clear enough. There is no other kind of answer or explanation. (And "you just have to choose to believe this other idea" is not anything resembling a reason to believe that other idea.)

Again, on arrogance, I can only say that if you show me that you DO think about the meaning of a final end of Eric, then I’ll revise what I say accordingly. This is why I asked if you can formulate what you believe. What I still see is a great gap where the topic of death is concerned.

As to what you’ve said here, all I see is self-contradiction. “It’s important ‘now’. It ‘won’t be’ after I’m dead.” It really is meaningless. Even ‘now’. As soon as one realizes that “now” means something different every moment, then it is something that doesn’t mean anything objective at all.
The only time that has any ultimate meaning is that which is eternal – that which is always true, if you prefer. That’s why they talk about eternal truths.

[Fist and Faith]

I think i should respond to the charge of arrogance first of all. It is inevitable that one who holds that there is absolute truth and they have (been granted to) discovered it will say that conclusions that differ from that truth are in error. Furthermore, if the thoughts expressed - as expressed, I suppose I should add - lead to a logical conclusion that somewhere along the line, thought is not taking place - or being short-circuited, then it is not necessarily arrogance to say so, and I deny the charge of arrogance here. I see no moral superiority in myself merely because I (claim to) have learned truth. Indeed, I am more responsible, and actually less worthy, for knowing all that I do and failing to live up to the Christian ideal. I am NOT looking down on you from an attitude of personal superiority. I'm not. I do think my thoughts better thought-out. That does not add up to me being - or thinking myself - a better person. Plus, I'm responding to the thoughts that you have given me. If there are more thoughts in your head, I can hardly be faulted for not being able to read them.

The problem is that this is not what you're doing. You have decided that no system of thought that does not lead to your beliefs cannot be right. Then, you look for any place in a different system of thought where a breakdown could take place. Then, you claim that a breakdown has taken place in that spot, despite the fact that you do not have any evidence of said breakdown, other than the fact that the system does not lead to your beliefs. That is not a legitimate reason to declare the system has broken down. You are not listening to what I say; to what I tell you I feel; to what I tell you about how and how much I've thought, read, and discussed these topics for a couple decades - then deciding if there is a breakdown. If you did, you would have no grounds to conclude there has been a breakdown. You are simply deciding there must be a breakdown, because it does not lead to your beliefs.

Death is an absolute of life. It will happen to all of us. And it is a natural part of life. To consider it horror and wrongness and absurd... Well, it's surely not an attitude that can possibly lead to contentment, much less happiness. **

Of course not. But you're jumping to a desired end result (contentment/happiness) from something that IS, without first expounding on the philosophy that makes this end result possible.

I should make a distinction here. We've never discussed it this way, but your last couple posts have shown me that it is important.

There are two aspects of this topic:

1) I have certain beliefs. Based on experience, etc, as I said in my previous post. The universe and life are what they are. With no reason to believe there is a creator or an afterlife, I do not believe there is a creator or an afterlife. This necessarily means I do not believe there is any meaning in an objective sense. I do not believe there is any meaning beyond what each of us decides and/or accepts there is.


2) I don't have a problem with these beliefs. I do not fear death, or see it as "wrong" or "bad" in any way. While I don't actually look forward to it, and do not seek to hasten its arrival, I do look toward it and see peace. I know I will not feel peace once it happens, since I will not exist in any way. But now, I look to the blank wall of oblivion, and it is peaceful. I do not bemoan the fact that I will not be remembered for very long beyond my death. (A generation or two, maybe? Not even a nanosecond in universal time.)

But I'm not "jumping to" 2) from 1). I imagine some people who agree with me on 1) are veeeeeeeeery unhappy about it, and might pay good money to have 2). If I could find a way to sell it... But, to my knowledge, I did not acquire my attitudes in 2) in any particular way. It's just the way I feel about things. No philosophy made the end result possible, any more than a philosophy made me prefer chocolate to vanilla, or Bach to Mozart. I seem to have been born this way.

I think this: “The end of Eric is a bizarre concept” is something where we might touch base. This is what I am talking about and a point we appear to agree upon. But again, on disappearing for the night, you DO have a reasonable expectation of waking up. If you did not have this – if you expected a final end on falling asleep (like Spielburg’s AI boy?) you might view sleep in a more fearsome manner.

Whether or not I would wish for another day, or another week or month or year or decade, doesn't matter. If, when my time comes (if I'm aware of it), I do not have the serenity I hope I have, if I do go out screaming and kicking, that will not change anything. If my children die before me, it will change nothing. It doesn't matter what might happen, it won't change anything. To my knowledge, oblivion awaits us all, and all is, ultimately, meaningless. Looking ahead to the wall of oblivion is sometimes more, "What?? How is it even possible that this mind/personality/thinking process will end?" Sure, it can be a bit unsettling when I think of it in a certain way. But it is not an unpleasant sensation, as I've learned when I've fallen asleep every night for almost 47 years. (And the fact that I had every expectation of waking up again doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the lack of mind/personality/thinking process is not unpleasant. Nothingness cannot be unpleasant.)

Have you ever had an experience that cannot be demonstrated?

Yes. Love. We can hook up electrodes, and see what happens to our brains and bodies when we experience what we call "love." But that's not the same thing as demonstrating love.

What I really get from everything you’ve said, is that, regarding death, you view it with “the Now of wolf thought” (ref: Elfquest). You see it as unavoidable, but it is not “here” and “now” and so does not bear the concern that other people put into it. Just live your life in “the now” and don’t worry about the future (let alone eternity!). By contrast, the Christian, while also enjoined not to worry about the future, is very much commanded to worry about eternity. (Lewis’s Screwtape Letters expressed it very well, when the demon suggested getting the patient to worry about the past or especially the future, but to ignore the present and eternity.) So we agree on the importance of the present moment, but it appears the break comes in thinking about any kind of continued existence (specifically - eternal). You seem to take a final end for granted, and then pretty much stop thinking about it.
You may think this leads to greater contentment in the now – although I would dispute even that, especially if one considers himself a free thinker, and then essentially, mostly, doesn’t think about the implications of a final end. It is only a thought-out philosophy that can express what death actually means to us.

Your arrogance is showing through again. You are so sure I haven't and don't think about the implications of a final end. Why do you think that? It is not because I haven't thought about it. It's not because I haven't spoken about it. It's only because it does not lead to your beliefs. I have thought about the implications of oblivion and meaninglessness. You can keep saying I haven't, but I have. You can keep saying that, if I had, I'd be living in terror and/or insane, but you're wrong. You have no basis for believing that.

There is a sense, I suppose, in which you're right. I do take the final end for granted, and no longer feel the need to think about it as much as I'm sure you do. Yet another analogy. You can tell me there is an elephant charging up on me from behind. That I'm about to be crushed to death in a horribly painful manner. I'll put GREAT thought into that idea. But when I turn around and see that there is no elephant charging, I'm gonna stop thinking about it. You can tell me over and over that I need to continue thinking about it, but there's really no need. (And, for crying out loud, I know this, and every analogy, can be picked apart in one way or another. But try to understand the aspect that does apply to this situation, willya??)

I do not question that your life matters to you in the present. I do not in the least doubt it. I only say that your philosophy shows no consciousness of a time before or after your life; that you have made yourself a self-contained universe, with a definite beginning and an inevitable end. The end of all universes - and likely not later than 50-60 years from this date. And nothing really matters beyond that point. Whether humanity survives or not doesn't matter; nothing really matters - and why should it? You're dead!

Are you making a point here?

Assuming this is a serious question, my point is that your thought expresses no consideration of the implications of a meaningless beginning and a final end, especially the latter. It’s fine, and very normal, to not know – what is not fine is to speak as if you did know. Again, by contrast, there are many things I do not know about death – but I do believe in promises made that give me assurances, and therefore, claim knowledge on those things which have been revealed. The most important point being that I am not the authority by which I know these things.

And I am the authority of what I feel and have thought about this subject. My words here do express consideration of the implications. The fact that those implications do not lead to your beliefs is not evidence that I have not considered them. The fact that I can look at those things without terror is not evidence that I have not considered them.

The conundrum is that we all – regardless of personal beliefs - feel thankful at times – perhaps thankful that we survived a car crash, won the lottery, or just got to see a beautiful sunrise. Yet, who are we to be thankful to? The atheist says “nobody”, making his feeling of thankfulness illogical. It shows a fundamental contradiction between the atheist’s professed belief and his actual reaction to the world.

No, it does not show such a contradiction, because we do not all feel thankful at times. It's just that we grow up using those words. It's a part of our language. "Thank goodness that falling piano missed me!" It's how things are worded. And language often leads to a way of thinking. But it doesn't have to. And when it does, it can be changed. I'm sure I still say, "Thank goodness!" for various reasons. That doesn't mean I am actually feeling thankful. And I am not thankful about seeing a beautiful sunrise; I am just happy to be seeing it. I know you believe you know me better than I know myself, and that I'm kidding myself. But that would be arrogance again.

There is a reason, as I would hope you knew, for the “no atheists in foxholes” quote. It expresses a general truth, rather than an absolute negation. The general truth is that when death is so close, and even likely, it is extraordinarily difficult to insist on holding on to a philosophy that says that one’s death is the end. Now no doubt some people – very principled people no doubt, do manage to hold on to an atheist philosophy in the face of imminent personal death. It represents a similar kind of faith to the Christian facing death, martyrdom, or whatever – however, in that light, it becomes an entirely negative faith, affirming one’s complete and final end with no hope of a new day – which I say is a form of insanity, especially when that end is staring you in the face.

It is not a matter of "insist[ing] on holding on to a philosophy that says that one’s death is the end." It is a very simple matter. Not being happy with the way things actually are is not anything resembling a reason to believe something that is not. It's not principles. You can call it insanity if you want. But it is not. It's just the way things are.

Yes, I'm sure there have been people who called themselves atheists who pleaded to God or Jesus or one G/god or G/goddess or another when oblivion was moments away. But to suggest that not doing so is evidence of insanity is so far outside the realm of logic and reason that you can't get to it even with GPS. (Updated saying for our modern times! )

Again, on arrogance, I can only say that if you show me that you DO think about the meaning of a final end of Eric, then I’ll revise what I say accordingly. This is why I asked if you can formulate what you believe. What I still see is a great gap where the topic of death is concerned.

No, you do not see a gap. You only don't see it filled with what you want to see it filled with. Different philosophies fill it in different ways. You don't like it being filled with things of a different nature than what your philosophy fills it with, so you say it is not filled.

As to what you’ve said here, all I see is self-contradiction. “It’s important ‘now’. It ‘won’t be’ after I’m dead.” It really is meaningless. Even ‘now’. As soon as one realizes that “now” means something different every moment, then it is something that doesn’t mean anything objective at all.
The only time that has any ultimate meaning is that which is eternal – that which is always true, if you prefer. That’s why they talk about eternal truths.

This is not an absolute. It's only the way you view meaning. As though loving chocolate pudding is meaningless unless you're always eating it. "How can you say you love chocolate pudding, but not be eating it right now?" It is not meaningless even "now." It is only meaningless even "now" to your philosophy. Not to all philosophies. Not to mine. (And the fact that these thoughts do not lead me to your beliefs is not evidence that I have not truly thought about it, or that it is wrong.)

[aliantha]

Rus, how can you believe your thoughts are "better thought out" than the rest of us if you have to ask a priest where you stand on controversial issues? How, exactly, does that involve thoughtful examination?

"I have adopted X religion, therefore everything they believe, I believe" is not thinking. It's handing your power of discernment over to somebody else. Saying that you have done it because this particular religion preaches The Truth, period, end of paragraph, isn't an explanation for your decision -- it's a rationalization.

But chiding others for not doing what you have done -- for not ceding their power of discernment to somebody else -- is presumptuous. And absurd. *None* of us can know The Truth, not even the Orthodox Church, and even thousands of years of claiming so doesn't make it any more possible.