Meaninglessness

[TheFallen]

I'd call it attempting to understand death, and to reconcile it with their natural feeling (that which happens in nature) that death is unnatural (an inherent wrong; something undesirable to be avoided). To attempt to explain why it both IS and why they don't want it to happen.

I just don't get this "inherent wrong" thing - where's the moral wrong within death as a whole? It's a natural (that which happens in nature) and inevitable thing... it's amoral, not immoral.

To use an analogy, if I accidentally let a hammer slip from my grasp just above my foot, it's going to hurt. But the gravity that causes the hammer to strike my foot and hurt like a bitch isn't an inherent wrong... it just *is*. There's absolutely no point my being scared of gravity, or claiming it's immoral. It's no more and no less than an insentient and unavoidable force - though I might ensure I took a better hold of a hammer in future.

[rusmeister]

rus,

The Partheny prayer absolutely *is* redolent with fear, and there's nothing atypical in that. I can't find a date as to when it was written, but I'd bet that it was mediaeval. The prevailaing zeitgeist at the time was to be obsessed with the physical horrors of death, and this is shown throughout all Western European art and literature - completely understandable, given the prevalence of plagues, wars and a generally short life expectancy... against that context, it's not "unreasonable". I don't dispute that your monk is showing two fears - the fear of the physical aspects of death and the subsequent fear of not attaining the grace of God eternally, but it's fear, nonetheless.

...but for the materialist who talks about the wonderful meaning of a beautiful life, those moments represent the complete destruction of all of that. Death is the final fear. For the monk it's not...

For the materialist, death, being a complete end, completely ends the universe as far as he is concerned. As far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what happens to the world or anyone in it one second after he dies. Sure, he frequently attributes meaning to what happens in this theater, to his family and friends (and so the noble atheist DOES sacrifice himself to save others, for example), but that meaning means NOTHING to him. It might as well have not happened at all. It's no use talking about how wonderful the world is if it literally means nothing to you the moment you are completely dead. I can't talk about meaning if it must eternally mean nothing to me. When that is grasped, 'glad acceptance" of it becomes nonsense - foolishness.

I am expressly addressing materialism and defending the logical continuation of our existence after death, so I won't argue now with answers that suggest continuation. Here I am only dealing with the idea called "oblivion" and the inherent illogic of it...

So again, I think what you all read is the monk's fear as unreasoning, and missed what he REALLY feared, and judged his fear on your terms rather than his - and didn't comment at all on on what I think relevant to the materialist - the point of the end of meaning (to the materialist); the moment of death.

And you equally miss the point, I'm afraid. It'd be only the most subjectivist of materialists who'd believe that the universe ends when they die... I'm sure that most would buy into the ongoing existence of a universe, despite the fact that they can no longer perceive it. And so here's the thing...

Transferred meaning. Yes, I am a transient being. Yes, death simply *is*, as I, Fist and Ali have stated earlier - it exists, like gravity. Yes, I'll be completely oblivious as to what occurs after I'm dead. However, much like passing the baton in an endless relay race, I can pass something hopefully meaningful onto those I love who will outlive me - my daughter for example. I can do the level best within my abilities to ensure she has the best building blocks - financial, emotional, philosophical - for her own independant life after I am dead. It'll be entirely up to her what she does with those, of course, but even to a materialist (which I'm nor sure I even am, by the way), death is not the end of meaning. Meaningfulness survives, even if I don't... it's just not meaningful to me any more.

BTW thanks for clarifying that death isn't a punishment but a consequence - your example of the teenage drug addict was revealing. However, I still don't get how, given a benevolent God, death can be a universal consequence, applicable to all of humanity. Why do newborns die, then? Is it really down to the "sins of the father"? And what about all those millions who died without being exposed to the word of God? And equally to the point, what about those who died between the time of Moses and the time of Christ... are they ineligible for redemption and eternal life?

I think you have mistaken the nature of the fear. You say "redolent", an emotive word to attempt to express a clinical attitude toward death.

Of course he expresses fear - I do not deny that in the least. I say that the fear is rational and a lack of fear is a product of either a lack of awareness (ignorance in the sense of not being aware), a radically wrong philosophy, or foolishness. The test is the common man throughout history. What is the normal reaction to death throughout human history? What percentage of people really don't hold this common and sensible fear? The answer to the first is obviously nearly everybody, and to the second, only a very tiny percentage of people.

On the world ending, again, you misunderstood me; I'll try not to speak Chinese or Russian. I do NOT say that the materialist literally thinks that the world ends when he does; but that as far as he's concerned it ends. It's a common problem I see on electronic forums; one of the greatest challenges that I don't take on/live up to often enough myself, is to describe what the other person is saying so that they can say "Yes - that is what I am saying."

On meaninglessness, I think people smuggle themselves somehow watching the continuation when they speak of meaning continuing in someone else. What I'm saying is that it equally ends for everyone, and from a materialist standpoint is almost certain to come to a complete and final end with no one to 'pass a baton to'. The smuggling is how they bypass the fact that it no longer means anything, and that if it no longer means anything, then, speaking from simple English grammar, the present simple (indefinite) verb tense, it IS meaningless. So it will be equally meaningless to your daughter (for she will surely reach that final end, too) and to everyone. There will be no one and no meaning, and as far as you are concerned, that happens at the point of your death. If you are able to project yourself ahead, like that monk, and see that (although the monk, not starting from materialism, also saw other things, and I would say that there is MUCH more that could be said about his words about the spiritual realities that he perceived, but I'm ignoring them now and trying to stick to the material effects.

Your last questions are good ones, and involved ones. I think CS Lewis's "The Problem of Pain" catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0032.html to have been the most helpful in my own grasp of the Christian - and Orthodox - view regarding why there is suffering. I can briefly answer on the question about people who are never exposed to the Gospel. A simple, short answer for "dummies" would be that God judges them based on the law written in their heart. But here, the more you know, the more responsibility you bear. A lot of noble aborigines probably have a straight ticket to heaven, for all I know, whereas an educated Orthodox Christian like me had really better watch it - I know so much more, yet still I sin - still I give in to my passions, to "the dark side" if you will, I curse under stress and pressure, I raise my voice at my wife and yell at my kids, I sometimes have one drink too much at a party, I cut other people off in traffic, thinking about how important my own business is. I have far less excuse than the aborigine because I understand much more clearly the nature of those actions.

On your last question, I can cheerfully answer that the answer can be found in the icon of the Resurrection - this one is my personal favorite, and a source of great joy, when you understand what you are looking at.


You're looking at the people of the Old Testament. Christ has broken the doors of Hades and has trampled down death by His own death (you can see the broken chains, nails, etc representing this; you can also see it on depictions of a cross with a skull underneath - the skull represents the trampling of death by Christ's death. He's pulling Adam and Eve from the grave, and you can see the patriarchs and righteous men of the OT on both sides - the ones with halos are the holy forefathers of Christ, and the ones on the right represent everyone else who has not made themselves unable to accept salvation from the very grave. (Edit add:) This icon would represent Christ's descent into death after the Cross and before the Resurrection, which we basically celebrate on Saturday night and into the Paschal (Easter for English speakers who don't know Pascha, but we say Pascha, not Easter, in Orthodoxy) celebrations. It is the ultimate cancellation of death and endings, it IS the celebration of the happy ending yet to come (I particularly like the ending of Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" as a symbolic illustration)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH2LJVbV72Y

Hope that helps!

[rusmeister]

I'd call it attempting to understand death, and to reconcile it with their natural feeling (that which happens in nature) that death is unnatural (an inherent wrong; something undesirable to be avoided). To attempt to explain why it both IS and why they don't want it to happen.

I just don't get this "inherent wrong" thing - where's the moral wrong within death as a whole? It's a natural (that which happens in nature) and inevitable thing... it's amoral, not immoral.

To use an analogy, if I accidentally let a hammer slip from my grasp just above my foot, it's going to hurt. But the gravity that causes the hammer to strike my foot and hurt like a bitch isn't an inherent wrong... it just *is*. There's absolutely no point my being scared of gravity, or claiming it's immoral. It's no more and no less than an insentient and unavoidable force - though I might ensure I took a better hold of a hammer in future.

Well, I can only say that it is a conclusion to say that it is a wrong, not an argument - but the evidence is that most people really DO feel death as a wrong, as something to be not merely regretted, but actively mourned, as something, that, generally speaking, ought not be, even though it IS. We can grasp the idea that an insentient force can be an inherent wrong in a fantasy (the Illearth Stone) - why is it impossible that this is not actually the case? People certainly act like it is. Why they all wear black at funerals, or cry, even hysterically, if it's just a 'natural' and 'normal' event, like a birthday, is then a mystery.

[aliantha]

So then unbelieving materialists do NOT cope with death? Or what is the negative intent clearly implied when you use the verb 'cope' as an accusation? I'd call it attempting to understand death, and to reconcile it with their natural feeling (that which happens in nature) that death is unnatural (an inherent wrong; something undesirable to be avoided). To attempt to explain why it both IS and why they don't want it to happen.

Well, hmm. I didn't intend to use "cope" in a negative sense. I know that people today often do, but I meant it in a value-neutral way. Let me try again: religious explanations about death give the believer some tools to make sense of what's happening, in order to keep going after a loved one has died.

Materialists *do* cope with death, of course. However, their beliefs provide them with different tools. Instead of looking forward to an afterlife, they take comfort in their legacy on this plane -- their children (as TF has said), the body of their life's work, their effects on people whose they have touched, etc. I realize that's not enough for you personally, rus, but for a lot of folks, it is.

My analogy assumes the person HAS to cross the road, for whatever reason. If that is given, then you can grasp the intent of my analogy. (Unless you don't want to - but I would think you, being neo-pagan, have no objections to my objections to the idea of oblivion. I assume you take continuation of existence on one level or other as highly probable or for granted.)

I do indeed believe it's highly likely that there's an afterlife. But for me, death is just a doorway to the next plane of existence.

Some Neopagans believe in the cycle of reincarnation, in which the spirit is sent back to this plane multiple times until all lessons have been learned. Some believe in the Summerlands, a beautiful land where we are allowed to rest after our labors in this life. Personally, I think our purpose here on this plane is to learn and grow, and when we've learned all we can here, we move on to the next plane, where we learn and grow some more. So I'm on the fence about reincarnation; the idea that some folks have to be sent back because they were too thick-skulled to learn what they were supposed to learn here the first time does make a some sense to me. But I am not sure about the land-of-milk-and-honey aspect of the Summerlands, either. Altho that might just be who I am -- I'd rather tour museums while on vacation than sit on the beach and do nothing .

I made reference to the circle of life in my earlier post -- birth/death/rebirth -- but for me, the model may be more like a spiral: birth/death/rebirth on the next plane/death on that plane/rebirth one level up from there, and so on.

Does that help?

[rusmeister]

Thanks!
I think we can mostly agree on coping.

The one thing where we may never see eye-to-eye is in the difference in views where I see and insist on an absolute reality that is true for everyone, and that not only "works" but actually is completely true. This is known by faith, a Christian virtue, if not a pagan one - where one CHOOSES, on the basis of what one has experienced and learned, what to believe - perhaps in spite of other input telling us that it is not so (aka "doubt").

I wonder how thoroughly people get what Neo said in the Matrix (I think pt 2), when asked "Why do you believe?" he answered "Because I choose to." This is what I thought of as "pressing the belief button", something I told myself for years that I could not do, much like Fist (a lot of what he says resonates with my own past). Until one day, I found that it really WAS that simple; that that was all I need to do, to say "I believe...". To take that step, the leap of faith.

The thing that this worldview denies is that things merely "work" for people; a relativism that says that there essentially IS no truth, and it doesn't matter what you believe. I think my own position much closer to the ancient (pagan) philosophers because truth was a thing that mattered to them, and speaking of a philosophy or worldview as acceptable merely because it "works" for someone as doing nothing to determine truth, which is what they were interested in. Speaking of what a person "needs" is totally irrelevant to that question of truth. If what they WANT is the truth, then speaking of what they desire is irrelevant to that. If the truth really were materialism and a final end, then yes, I would want that truth, because that's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in 'what pleases my psyche" or "works for me" or in anything that is subjective to me alone.

Obviously that view causes conflict when it says that other beliefs are not true, however much they might "work" (please/satisfy) people. What can be appreciated in all of the views that do NOT correspond with that actual reality is what IS true in them, what DOES correspond.

[Avatar]

Jsut because people think it's a "wrong," (assuming they do), does not mean it actually is one.

--A

[aliantha]

Thanks!
I think we can mostly agree on coping.

The one thing where we may never see eye-to-eye is in the difference in views where I see and insist on an absolute reality that is true for everyone, and that not only "works" but actually is completely true. This is known by faith, a Christian virtue, if not a pagan one - where one CHOOSES, on the basis of what one has experienced and learned, what to believe - perhaps in spite of other input telling us that it is not so (aka "doubt").

Ah. Shorthand on my part again. When I talk about "what works for you," I am attempting to encompass your belief system. You have consistently maintained that Orthodoxy is The Truth. Part and parcel of that is your total rejection of the idea that your contributions on this plane will be forgotten as soon as you and your loved ones die.

It's not that I doubt that some part of me will exist after death; I'm certain about that. It's that I'm comfortable with others having other beliefs. Yours, for instance. My belief system isn't threatened by others having other ideas, to the point that I feel I must convince everyone in the world to adopt mine. That's the real difference between our views.

[rusmeister]

Thanks!
I think we can mostly agree on coping.

The one thing where we may never see eye-to-eye is in the difference in views where I see and insist on an absolute reality that is true for everyone, and that not only "works" but actually is completely true. This is known by faith, a Christian virtue, if not a pagan one - where one CHOOSES, on the basis of what one has experienced and learned, what to believe - perhaps in spite of other input telling us that it is not so (aka "doubt").

Ah. Shorthand on my part again. When I talk about "what works for you," I am attempting to encompass your belief system. You have consistently maintained that Orthodoxy is The Truth. Part and parcel of that is your total rejection of the idea that your contributions on this plane will be forgotten as soon as you and your loved ones die.

It's not that I doubt that some part of me will exist after death; I'm certain about that. It's that I'm comfortable with others having other beliefs. Yours, for instance. My belief system isn't threatened by others having other ideas, to the point that I feel I must convince everyone in the world to adopt mine. That's the real difference between our views.

Thanks!
I hope that thanks don't seem flippant. I've been thinking about the value and necessity of affirming what we DO have in common; been listening to Fr Tom Hopko and admiring how wonderfully he does it - that's why I recommend his podcasts so much to y'all. Some of the thoughts, like how some non-Christians are 'better Christians' than I am (meaning they fulfill the law of Christ, at least as far as loving your neighbor far more perfectly than I do) and positively viewing the things we share. I'm much better, it seems, at defining where we differ.

On this thread, for example, we both see a continuation of existence. That IS great, and certainly it is far more optimistic (in the good sense) than the view that says, that's it, game over, back to the nothingness from whence you came. In short, it means things that bring us a step closer together.

When you say, "contributions", I can't help thinking how we can only use that term if we accept transcendent meaning. If each of us simply appears and dies in turn, then there IS no 'accumulation', no transcendent thing to contribute to. That's one place where we probably don't have to argue we can accept that there is a meaning bigger than us that we did not make.

I don't feel that my belief system is threatened at all - that's an enormous misreading of apologetics. The Truth is something that no one can ever threaten. They can deny it, persecute it, squelch it - but it is the deniers and persecutors who will die, and the Truth will remain, as it has for nearly two thousand years after the death of the first apostles, being here long before we were born and remaining long after we die - forever, in fact. I think I can only communicate these things allegorically - when i try directly, communication invariably breaks down somewhere. Again, Jor-El. It wasn't that he felt his 'opinion' threatened' - he was absolutely convinced that it was absolutely true, and cared enough about his fellow beings to make considerable efforts to share it with them for their salvation. If you can understand that, then you can understand that within my perspective, there is no sense of threat to what I see to be true.

[aliantha]

Rus, I have to tell you, when it comes to contributions people make to society, I think you're drawing your line in the sand too abruptly. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and the phonograph, neither of which inventions died with him. Ditto for Guglielmo Marconi and the wireless, Henry Ford and the assembly line, Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, that cave guy who came up with the wheel, and a whole bunch of other things that have lived on after the death of the person who invented them.

We'll still be reading SRD's books long after he's quit walking the planet. Heck, you're still reading GKC, and he's been dead for some time now.

Granted that these are famous people who've created tangible things. But if we strictly interpret the concept of "contributions" as you insist we should, then these inventions should have accrued no benefit to humanity. And yet clearly they have. And no one could seriously argue that the continued existence of phones and wheels is proof of the existence of an afterlife.

So clearly it's possible to leave tangible things behind after death -- things that have meaning not only to your descendants, but to people you've never met. And you don't have to be famous to make an impact, however small, on the future. Even so humble a thing as a chair doesn't fall to dust as soon as the chair maker dies -- otherwise there would be no way for us to own antiques.

So the question isn't whether *any*thing survives us after death. Clearly they do. The question is whether *intangible* things survive us after death -- love, laughter, compassion, and so on. And I maintain that they do, too. The way you treat your kids will influence the way they treat their kids, just as the way your grandparents influenced your parents' behavior toward you. Those effects ripple outward, too; as just one example (unfortunately a negative one), kids who are abused go on to bully other, unrelated children, who go on to bully others, and so on.

Now, is your name attached to the love and laughter that you give your family? Will your descendants remember in a few generations whose eyes they've inherited? Will books and chairs and wheels and phones fall to dust eventually? Well, yeah. But does it really matter whether your name is attached to the things you're passing on to future generations? Isn't it kind of cool to know that something you had a hand in will survive?

[rusmeister]

Rus, I have to tell you, when it comes to contributions people make to society, I think you're drawing your line in the sand too abruptly. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and the phonograph, neither of which inventions died with him. Ditto for Guglielmo Marconi and the wireless, Henry Ford and the assembly line, Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, that cave guy who came up with the wheel, and a whole bunch of other things that have lived on after the death of the person who invented them.

We'll still be reading SRD's books long after he's quit walking the planet. Heck, you're still reading GKC, and he's been dead for some time now.

Granted that these are famous people who've created tangible things. But if we strictly interpret the concept of "contributions" as you insist we should, then these inventions should have accrued no benefit to humanity. And yet clearly they have. And no one could seriously argue that the continued existence of phones and wheels is proof of the existence of an afterlife.

So clearly it's possible to leave tangible things behind after death -- things that have meaning not only to your descendants, but to people you've never met. And you don't have to be famous to make an impact, however small, on the future. Even so humble a thing as a chair doesn't fall to dust as soon as the chair maker dies -- otherwise there would be no way for us to own antiques.

So the question isn't whether *any*thing survives us after death. Clearly they do. The question is whether *intangible* things survive us after death -- love, laughter, compassion, and so on. And I maintain that they do, too. The way you treat your kids will influence the way they treat their kids, just as the way your grandparents influenced your parents' behavior toward you. Those effects ripple outward, too; as just one example (unfortunately a negative one), kids who are abused go on to bully other, unrelated children, who go on to bully others, and so on.

Now, is your name attached to the love and laughter that you give your family? Will your descendants remember in a few generations whose eyes they've inherited? Will books and chairs and wheels and phones fall to dust eventually? Well, yeah. But does it really matter whether your name is attached to the things you're passing on to future generations? Isn't it kind of cool to know that something you had a hand in will survive?

My trouble is when you say "still". GKC is NOT "still" alive. When my imagination - my ability to see the future as something real, and not merely imaginary - can stretch far enough, then even I am no longer alive.

Part of the trouble of discussing this with you is that I am going to do it in a different direction than I must with the materialist. I can't argue with you if your own position is at times materialist and at times not; if it morphs between contradictory positions. The primary question raised on this thread is that of whether meaning truly exists if it is not transcendent. I say that logically it does not. others claim that it does. I think that materialists claim meaning because meaning MUST exist - reason and logic cannot exist if meaning does not, but their own philosophy essentially denies the only kind of meaning that really means anything - that which transcends a human life.

But you are talking about temporal inventions on this plane of existence. Why should they matter to me, unless they will somehow continue to mean something to me? Why should even the experiences of my descendants mean anything at all to me if nothing can mean anything to me at a non-transcendent point of time in the future? (I think they DO mean something; I am merely posing the self-contradiction of materialism - the complete end of existence with the end of physical life).

There IS no such thing as "humanity". Regarding my argument, there are humans. But the abstract concept of humanity does not transfer life; does not somehow make the individual transcendent without God. We are speaking the whole time of the mortality or immortality of the individual, only to jump to an abstract concept when the logic fails to hold up regarding the individual. That is how most materialists get by, in my opinion.

In the end, nothing survives. Everything, and everyone, dies. So there is nothing 'cool' to pass on that will not also die. THAT is the failure of materialism. That it does indeed pretend to itself that things will be "passed on". But it really comes down to "What is the purpose of a hammer?" "The purpose of a hammer is.... to make more hammers." (Until no more can be made, for whatever reason).

And so materialism fails. It may "work for" (in the sense of "please") an individual, but it does not "work" in the sense of logic and reason. This is where I think that you and I probably still come together - AFAIK, you DON'T try to defend materialism (although you seem to come pretty close with that last post, there).

[Fist and Faith]

If I ever hope to establish that transcendent meaninglessness really IS complete meaninglessness, and is inherently illogical...

You might establish this to people who do NOT have direct, first-hand experience that transcendent meaninglessness is NOT complete meaninglessness, and is NOT inherently illogical. But I imagine I could, if I had reason or inclination to, convince a non-Christian that Christianity is not a good thing. The Tree of Knowledge is the first case of entrapment, and had more dire consequences than all others that came after combined. God burns people in Hell for eternity. God killed Job's family just to prove Job loved him. Etc. But am I likely to convince any Christians? Will I have been speaking about any Christian's view of Christianity? And would I have established my case in any meaningful way? No. I would only have demonstrated to Christians that my knowledge of Christianity is lacking.

Now, physical death IS, that is a given. The materialist assumption is that since the physical is all there is, and KNOWS that there must be meaning somewhere, somehow, he naturally says that meaning is in this life, and is whatever you make of it (or else life would mean nothing at all).

Not that there "must be". There is for me. It seems not for everyone, though.

So my objection is to the adverb 'just'. Death ISN'T 'just'. Fear is NOT always illogical. There are things that it is right to fear and foolish at best to not fear. If you do not fear being hit by a car when you cross the road, then you are foolish, not 'brave', 'wise' or 'liberated'. If the fear is logical and justified, you can't cast the person who experiences and reports it as unreasonable.

All perfectly reasonable. But nor can you cast the person who does not grasp an unverified, unverifiable way out of that fear as unreasonable. Nor can you cast the person who has found a different way out of that fear as unreasonable.

[aliantha]

Part of the trouble of discussing this with you is that I am going to do it in a different direction than I must with the materialist. I can't argue with you if your own position is at times materialist and at times not; if it morphs between contradictory positions. The primary question raised on this thread is that of whether meaning truly exists if it is not transcendent.

I think that's the question you're trying to make everybody else answer. The question, as I understood it, was, "Can life have meaning if there is no afterlife?" Clearly it can. Lots of people find meaning in their temporal lives here, without worrying about whether they'll get a payoff in the next life.

I'm not going to speak to the so-called materialist philosophy and whether you've read them wrong; we've got enough "materialists" on this board who can speak for themselves.

But I will say that you and I are talking past one another. You maintain that nothing here means anything unless a part of us lives on to remember it. On the other hand, I see meaning intrinsic to *each separate plane of existence*, regardless of whether there's an afterlife. There is value in what I do here, in the lessons I learn (and don't learn...) and the personal growth I undergo. Plus there's a very real possibility that I'm here to provide lessons, if you will, for one or more other people. In other words, I might be here now partly to help someone else's growth. There's value in *that* on this plane, as well.

So yeah, I see a transcendant value in what I'm doing here. But I feel like those actions, those lessons, also have value in and of themselves; that is, even if I'm wrong and there's nothing after this life, I will have made a difference to somebody.

Please keep in mind, too, my belief that everything is connected. I'm not acting a certain way here in order to receive a payoff in the next life; I'm doing what I think is right *because* it's the right thing to do. My actions have repercussions here, on this plane -- and not just to me, but to everyone and everything I come in contact with.

Rus, in a way, you seem to be saying that the only reason to do right is to stay right with God. Please tell me that's not what you mean. Otherwise "doing the right thing" here is nothing but a system of cosmic brownie points.

[Linna Heartbooger]

*haven't read a lot of the earlier posts in this thread, but can I just jump in?* =)

But I imagine I could, if I had reason or inclination to, convince a non-Christian that Christianity is not a good thing. The Tree of Knowledge is the first case of entrapment, and had more dire consequences than all others that came after combined. God burns people in Hell for eternity. God killed Job's family just to prove Job loved him. Etc. But am I likely to convince any Christians? Will I have been speaking about any Christian's view of Christianity? And would I have established my case in any meaningful way? No. I would only have demonstrated to Christians that my knowledge of Christianity is lacking.

I just wanted to mention that... when you point out, say, that "something seems really wrong here," or you ask a good question... actually, it WILL often provide something useful for a Christian to grapple with. I've often been bothered by something in the Bible, and "worked through" an apparent logical contradiction - or wrestled with something that bothers my heart "who God seems to be" in the Bible. (I was actually thinking of making a thread on those kinds of things...) Sometimes I don't even come to a complete resolution.

And I think that once a Christian struggles with those things... the process OFTEN sheds light on some truth they hadn't figured out yet, (because they hadn't bothered to ask the question that you did) or it even casts down pieces of their view of God that was false or oversimplified or idolatrous. And Christians' ensuing investigations often cause them to "own" their faith more.

Some ideas & questions people have brought up on these very forums have been involved in a number of paradigm-shifts to my worldview.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Rus, in a way, you seem to be saying that the only reason to do right is to stay right with God. Please tell me that's not what you mean. Otherwise "doing the right thing" here is nothing but a system of cosmic brownie points.

Oh man... I want in on this conversation!

...I think maybe I should read some of the back-posts for _this_ one first, though. And maybe I should, like, give Rus a chance to respond before responding with my possibly-different reason why I think that something _like_ that can actually be alright.

[aliantha]

Feel free to chime in.

[TheFallen]

Rus, in a way, you seem to be saying that the only reason to do right is to stay right with God. Please tell me that's not what you mean. Otherwise "doing the right thing" here is nothing but a system of cosmic brownie points.

It's hard to see what else rus can be saying, if everything in this temporal existence is necessarily meaningless, as he seems to be avowing.

Part of the trouble of discussing this with you is that I am going to do it in a different direction than I must with the materialist.

I'm also completely unclear - given that rus fervently and continually re-states that meaninglessness is illogical - why it would take a different approach to "prove" a categoric piece of logic (according to rus) to a neopagan, compared to one to "prove" the self-same thing to a materialist? Logic is logic and that's the point - the belief sets of the audience should be immaterial (no pun intended).

But you are talking about temporal inventions on this plane of existence. Why should they matter to me, unless they will somehow continue to mean something to me? Why should even the experiences of my descendants mean anything at all to me if nothing can mean anything to me at a non-transcendent point of time in the future?

Hellfire! Rus, I realise you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum here, but that quote represents the most staggeringly selfish and solipsist of philosophies. You're basically saying that, if there's no afterlife and if all meaning is therefore temporal, rather than transcendent, then any individual believing that might as well be utterly self-serving and hedonistic, because hey, death's around the corner and that's game over. That is a complete non-sequitur - that is not the only logical outcome of atheism and/or materialism.

The primary question raised on this thread is that of whether meaning truly exists if it is not transcendent.

Yes, neatly encapsulated. HOWEVER, I cannot see where the illogic is in my (or Fist or Ali or anyone else) finding meaning that of course is individually temporal, but which does transcend our temporality by potentially being of meaning to others that outlive us. Yes the universe may (or inevitably will, according to certain astrophysicists) end one day in entropy-driven stasis at a temperature of absolute zero. But so what? Why does that lessen the significance or meaningfulness I experience in doing my best by my daughter, any more than the fact that I will not get to see the totality of her existence with whatever effect I may have had on it? Why does any meaningfulness have to be absolute?

I don't aspire to my existence having an absolute meaningfulness - I'm not in the running to be a god, to the best of my knowledge. However, the transferrable meaningfulness of my life does transcend my own individual temporality, even if my own marks on the canvas of time will inevitably be diluted as generations pass, and even if the canvas itself one day falls apart or freezes motionless.

I fear that, for all your claims of logic, rus, your position will remain illogical, or, to put it better, a priori generated. You start from a position of being unswayably aware of the only absolute truth and everything else flows from that position - nothing wrong with that, but logic doesn't come into it... yours is inevitably a foregone conclusion

[aliantha]

Rus, in a way, you seem to be saying that the only reason to do right is to stay right with God. Please tell me that's not what you mean. Otherwise "doing the right thing" here is nothing but a system of cosmic brownie points.

It's hard to see what else rus can be saying, if everything in this temporal existence is necessarily meaningless, as he seems to be avowing.

Part of the trouble of discussing this with you is that I am going to do it in a different direction than I must with the materialist.

I'm also completely unclear - given that rus fervently and continually re-states that meaninglessness is illogical - why it would take a different approach to "prove" a categoric piece of logic (according to rus) to a neopagan, compared to one to "prove" the self-same thing to a materialist? Logic is logic and that's the point - the belief sets of the audience should be immaterial (no pun intended).

I think the problem is that the way rus looks at it, anybody who believes in an afterlife must therefore be living their lives here in anticipation of that afterlife, as Christians do. So he shouldn't have to argue meaninglessness with me. (He should only have to argue The Truth of Christianity (specifically, Orthodoxy). )

But I've already said that I'm not expecting the land-of-milk-and-honey payoff. To me, the afterlife isn't a reward -- it's simply another level of existence, with its own challenges and potentials for growth. And if you believe that, as I do, then *every* level of existence must have its own intrinsic meaning. Which looks, on the surface, to be similar to a materialist perspective.

Essentially I'm on both sides of his fence. And he's not good with ambiguity.

[Avatar]

But you are talking about temporal inventions on this plane of existence. Why should they matter to me, unless they will somehow continue to mean something to me? Why should even the experiences of my descendants mean anything at all to me if nothing can mean anything to me at a non-transcendent point of time in the future?

Hellfire! Rus, I realise you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum here, but that quote represents the most staggeringly selfish and solipsist of philosophies. You're basically saying that, if there's no afterlife and if all meaning is therefore temporal, rather than transcendent, then any individual believing that might as well be utterly self-serving and hedonistic, because hey, death's around the corner and that's game over.

We might as well be, and yet, we're not.

--A

[Cambo]

But you are talking about temporal inventions on this plane of existence. Why should they matter to me, unless they will somehow continue to mean something to me? Why should even the experiences of my descendants mean anything at all to me if nothing can mean anything to me at a non-transcendent point of time in the future?

Hellfire! Rus, I realise you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum here, but that quote represents the most staggeringly selfish and solipsist of philosophies. You're basically saying that, if there's no afterlife and if all meaning is therefore temporal, rather than transcendent, then any individual believing that might as well be utterly self-serving and hedonistic, because hey, death's around the corner and that's game over.

We might as well be, and yet, we're not.

--A

But it's only because you haven't thought hard enough on your impending death. If you actually realised you were going to die, well, you'd be out there snorting cocaine of hooker's boobs.

[TheFallen]

Hellfire! Rus, I realise you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum here, but that quote represents the most staggeringly selfish and solipsist of philosophies. You're basically saying that, if there's no afterlife and if all meaning is therefore temporal, rather than transcendent, then any individual believing that might as well be utterly self-serving and hedonistic, because hey, death's around the corner and that's game over.

We might as well be, and yet, we're not.

--A

But it's only because you haven't thought hard enough on your impending death. If you actually realised you were going to die, well, you'd be out there snorting cocaine of hooker's boobs.

Now wouldn't that just be the perfect archetypical definition of irony, Cambo... if all of Rus's heartfelt attempts to convince the assembled that there was more to the universe than this temporal and - according to him - meaningless existence simply served to drive us all into the arms of twenty buck Tawnee or her like, snorting nosefuls of Colombian marching powder off her generous, if overexposed, assets.

Or is this particular materialistic philosophical antidote to meaninglessness solely reserved for ageing rock band bassists?