Afterlife

[rusmeister]

I'm just saying there's no reason to think he's right. Why not believe things are what they appear to be until we have reason to believe otherwise?

We already know that there are quite a few things in this world that are not what they appear to be. The sun appears to rise in the morning and set in the evening. But we know that it doesn't. An old lady appears to be a decrepit and malfunctioning human unit - we don't see the lifetime of experience and wisdom behind the momentary glance we get of her.

Exactly. The sun is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. People assumed a certain thing. But then, someone noticed something odd. Closer observation showed that the sun, and everything else, couldn't be going around the earth.

I suppose it's in our best interest to always be examining everything that we believe, but have never proven. Just making sure our assumptions are correct is sufficient reason for that. But we will doubtless learn tons of other things along the way.

The origin of the universe is a somewhat different case. It's possible that we will, eventually, discover the exact natural laws that brought the universe into being. But if that happened, it would not rule out the possibility that God created those natural laws in order to make the universe spring into existence. But lacking evidence for that scenario, and for God, I'll continue to assume those laws are uncaused thing, rather than assume God is. I can't say, "There is no God." How can I prove such a thing? I can only say, "I see no evidence for God." If you know of any evidence suggesting the universe is not the uncaused thing (as evidence was found that the sun did not move around the earth), then we can examine it, and look for a new model.

Maybe this is where we are already at an impasse - I would agree (on what we can know) except for one thing - what if we do find an authority that we are convinced knows more than we do and that we can and should learn from it? If you are talking about demanding scientific proof from that authority, I would point out that you might be unable to understand/take it in if you hadn't reached a certain (requisite) level of understanding. In that case, the question becomes whether such authority is right or wrong (and how you could know that). Your dependence on yourself as the only authority seems to deny the possibility of an authority that really knows more, and can see more, than you.

So I'm saying such evidence (special revelation) is outside the scientific framework you set before me. You may disagree on whether that authority is right or wrong, but it's something you can't respond to on a scientific level. You have to go with your gut, so to speak - with the accumulation of all your experience modified by what you perceive as possible or necessary. I will not seek to 'prove God' (although I do think that Lewis's case for moral, or natural, law, is good enough for me, and superior to any arguments you could possibly set before me, because it coincides with all of my life experience). In refuting the view of Christianity as merely a religion for whacko fundamentalists, and establishing that it is (among other things) 'reason-compatible', I've already accomplished what I can do.

[Kinslaughterer]

The last sentence contradicts the rest of your statement. As soon as you use the word "should" I ask "Why?" If I return to nothingness, then there is no 'should'. A philosophy that says we return to nothingness, is, for the individual, nihilistic. There is no motivation for me to care about 'humanity' if all that I am becomes naught. Evolutionary benefits mean nothing, because I become nothing. Why 'should' I anything?

I love it. When presented with a lack of meaning your crowd wishes destruction and apathy. You must have a reward to care. How utterly selfish. Why bother fighting poverty if you can't stop it everywhere? Why do anything if you can be certain of success. Why should you do anything if you aren't rewarded. I've learned all I need to about your utterly corrupt world view. If there is no heaven or hell what's stopping you from committing crimes?

However, it really is sad and atheistic. What you need is Manalive en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manalive and someone to point a gun at your head and deal life to you by putting you up against death.

I'm not sure what this even means. But your irrational zealotry toward Chesterton is troubling. As for facing death, I don't know why that will make me feel any differently. You're starting to remind me of Bennie from the Mummy. When faced with death he cowardly pulls out his religious charms to protect his sorry existance.

We are a hybrid of animal and spirit (not merely physical). What you have to explain is the ways in which we are unlike any other animal/creature in existence

How are we unlike other species? We have a larger brain and a higher level of brain complexity. This allows for abstract thought. Other species have possessed the same capabilities such as homo Neanderthalensis and
homo Erectus

[Fist and Faith]

My only thought on that is that when it hits personally to a person you care about more than anything, or when your own end comes in sight, it might suddenly move from a theory of what happens to everyone to a fact that is happening in your own immediate circle, and that it suddenly IS bad news.

What you need is Manalive en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manalive and someone to point a gun at your head and deal life to you by putting you up against death.

I don't want to come down too hard on you with these things. I've been badly misunderstood in emails and posts, so I am entirely aware that I could be wrong about what you're saying. But if I'm right, and you would not answer me earlier when I asked if I was, then you're being very arrogant about this idea. Just because you feel a certain way about things doesn't mean we all would if we were pushed. There's no reason to assume that. There have surely been people who did not find faith when faced with their own death or the death of a loved one.

Maybe this is where we are already at an impasse - I would agree (on what we can know) except for one thing - what if we do find an authority that we are convinced knows more than we do and that we can and should learn from it? If you are talking about demanding scientific proof from that authority, I would point out that you might be unable to understand/take it in if you hadn't reached a certain (requisite) level of understanding. In that case, the question becomes whether such authority is right or wrong (and how you could know that). Your dependence on yourself as the only authority seems to deny the possibility of an authority that really knows more, and can see more, than you.

So I'm saying such evidence (special revelation) is outside the scientific framework you set before me. You may disagree on whether that authority is right or wrong, but it's something you can't respond to on a scientific level. You have to go with your gut, so to speak - with the accumulation of all your experience modified by what you perceive as possible or necessary. I will not seek to 'prove God' (although I do think that Lewis's case for moral, or natural, law, is good enough for me, and superior to any arguments you could possibly set before me, because it coincides with all of my life experience). In refuting the view of Christianity as merely a religion for whacko fundamentalists, and establishing that it is (among other things) 'reason-compatible', I've already accomplished what I can do.

I said some posts ago that I agree that the evidence you hold to is the most important kind for most people. It's why I believe in free will, despite not having a specific explanation for it. But I've never had any special revelation. I have no reason to believe the Bible is anything more than stories written by many different people as they tried to understand themselves and their reality.

I don't participate in these discussions in order to change your mind. I have no desire to. And, because of the nature of the evidence you hold to, I don't think it's possible. I participate because, hey, maybe you're right. Maybe there is a creator. If there is, I'd like to know about it. And if I don't get the type of evidence you do, maybe one of you believers will eventually say the right thing, and I'll see the logical necessity of a creator.

As for Lewis' stance on morality, well, you and I already discussed that, eh?
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[rusmeister]

My only thought on that is that when it hits personally to a person you care about more than anything, or when your own end comes in sight, it might suddenly move from a theory of what happens to everyone to a fact that is happening in your own immediate circle, and that it suddenly IS bad news.

What you need is Manalive en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manalive and someone to point a gun at your head and deal life to you by putting you up against death.

I don't want to come down too hard on you with these things. I've been badly misunderstood in emails and posts, so I am entirely aware that I could be wrong about what you're saying. But if I'm right, and you would not answer me earlier when I asked if I was, then you're being very arrogant about this idea. Just because you feel a certain way about things doesn't mean we all would if we were pushed. There's no reason to assume that. There have surely been people who did not find faith when faced with their own death or the death of a loved one.

Maybe this is where we are already at an impasse - I would agree (on what we can know) except for one thing - what if we do find an authority that we are convinced knows more than we do and that we can and should learn from it? If you are talking about demanding scientific proof from that authority, I would point out that you might be unable to understand/take it in if you hadn't reached a certain (requisite) level of understanding. In that case, the question becomes whether such authority is right or wrong (and how you could know that). Your dependence on yourself as the only authority seems to deny the possibility of an authority that really knows more, and can see more, than you.

So I'm saying such evidence (special revelation) is outside the scientific framework you set before me. You may disagree on whether that authority is right or wrong, but it's something you can't respond to on a scientific level. You have to go with your gut, so to speak - with the accumulation of all your experience modified by what you perceive as possible or necessary. I will not seek to 'prove God' (although I do think that Lewis's case for moral, or natural, law, is good enough for me, and superior to any arguments you could possibly set before me, because it coincides with all of my life experience). In refuting the view of Christianity as merely a religion for whacko fundamentalists, and establishing that it is (among other things) 'reason-compatible', I've already accomplished what I can do.

I said some posts ago that I agree that the evidence you hold to is the most important kind for most people. It's why I believe in free will, despite not having a specific explanation for it. But I've never had any special revelation. I have no reason to believe the Bible is anything more than stories written by many different people as they tried to understand themselves and their reality.

I don't participate in these discussions in order to change your mind. I have no desire to. And, because of the nature of the evidence you hold to, I don't think it's possible. I participate because, hey, maybe you're right. Maybe there is a creator. If there is, I'd like to know about it. And if I don't get the type of evidence you do, maybe one of you believers will eventually say the right thing, and I'll see the logical necessity of a creator.

As for Lewis' stance on morality, well, you and I already discussed that, eh?
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I apologize for failing to answer an earlier question. In my defense I can only say that being a minority here I am trying to respond to the challenges of quite a number of people, and I might occasionally miss responding to a question or post. Never mind that sometimes I burn out on the effort.

I am aware that there are people who don't find faith (in the face of death). But I dare say that a great many do. It is a wonderful stimulus to abandon theories not held dearer than life. It calls your bluffs, so to speak. That's the meaning of my reference to Manalive. I acknowledge that someone could have been through fire and blood and reject faith, perhaps even as a result. (I remember a professor in Judaic Studies describing how the Holocaust brought Jews to absolutely accept or reject Judaism.) I am also aware that I have not yet been tested.

(Is there something else not yet answered? I couldn't find the question I missed on a quick search.)

And yes, I am not using Lewis's argument to persuade now. I was only referencing it.

[rusmeister]

The last sentence contradicts the rest of your statement. As soon as you use the word "should" I ask "Why?" If I return to nothingness, then there is no 'should'. A philosophy that says we return to nothingness, is, for the individual, nihilistic. There is no motivation for me to care about 'humanity' if all that I am becomes naught. Evolutionary benefits mean nothing, because I become nothing. Why 'should' I anything?

I love it. When presented with a lack of meaning your crowd wishes destruction and apathy. You must have a reward to care. How utterly selfish. Why bother fighting poverty if you can't stop it everywhere? Why do anything if you can be certain of success. Why should you do anything if you aren't rewarded. I've learned all I need to about your utterly corrupt world view. If there is no heaven or hell what's stopping you from committing crimes?

KS, I have referenced the moral law more than once and know that there is such a thing as a moral atheist. My comment was not meant to be construed to mean that believers have a monopoly on morality. What I mean by the above is that the "shoulds", without faith, ultimately lead nowhere - they can be 'whyed' to death, because the individual, the real reason for the shoulds, is dead. When you defend humanity minus the individual, as a purely abstract thing - and that is what death is, the death of the individual - you are defending something that doesn't exist. It's like saying "Life goes on" to someone who has lost a loved one. And they will want to scream at you that 'life' (an abstract concept) does NOT go on - that so-and-so is dead and life for him or her does not continue. What is really meant by such comments is "You and I are not dead yet", and 'yet' is, of course, a temporary state.

Of course non-believers can spend their lives doing good without needing the stimulus of an afterlife - but I'd say that any 'should' they offer or are operating on leads to naught.

I do think that you are right to want to see good on this earth. And to do so unselfishly. In accusing us of selfishness (needing a reward of an after life to do good) you do us an injustice. The two paramount commandments are "Love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor". I see that you understand what "love your neighbor means. But have you thought about what it means to Christians to love God? After all, how can we love One that we have not seen?
The simple answer is to love good. This is the beginning of loving God. To love good (and as a consequence, to do good). To learn to love this more than ourselves and what we want. This means killing selfishness, including cold calculations of what I get out of anything. All of the "pie-in-the-sky" (and what you likely think of as 'punishment') of the Christian afterlife is only the logical consequences of striving to love God and your neighbor or failing to do so. Heaven and hell are not causes. They are consequences. The presentation of Christian thought that you see in Hollywood ("The Kingdom of Heaven" comes to mind as a strong example of a false atheist view of Christianity, where the heroes are moral unbelievers, and the ostensible believers are the bad guys, who really believe in getting what they can out of a situation) of the afterlife as external punishment and reward as such are simply not Orthodox.

However, it really is sad and atheistic. What you need is Manalive en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manalive and someone to point a gun at your head and deal life to you by putting you up against death.

I'm not sure what this even means. But your irrational zealotry toward Chesterton is troubling. As for facing death, I don't know why that will make me feel any differently. You're starting to remind me of Bennie from the Mummy. When faced with death he cowardly pulls out his religious charms to protect his sorry existance.

I answered this in my response to F+F, above.
On Chesterton, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you feel that way because you have not read him, but merely seen my references to him. I reference him because he strikes the root of modern thought which seems to be in abundance here. You can't knock him if you don't know what he has to say.

We are a hybrid of animal and spirit (not merely physical). What you have to explain is the ways in which we are unlike any other animal/creature in existence

How are we unlike other species? We have a larger brain and a higher level of brain complexity. This allows for abstract thought. Other species have possessed the same capabilities such as homo Neanderthalensis and
homo Erectus

A good question. (It's the one that follows. )
Because I'd rather not post entire chapters here, I'd ask you to click the link below to read chapter one of TEM, which is a direct response to your question. (For full understanding of where he's coming from, you should also read the introduction.) And then you could say that you had read Chesterton and check that box.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html

[Fist and Faith]

No, I think you just answered it. Basically, the question was whether or not you thought there was any chance of me being sufficiently aware of myself to be right about what I'm saying about myself. You have just said that it does, indeed, happen the way I claim it would for me.

"It calls your bluffs, so to speak" only applies to some people. Those who are bluffing. Some of us, however, are not. It's simply the way we feel and believe. I never had any sort of bad experience with religion. Nothing "drove me from it." I simply never felt anything for it. I went to Sunday School for years, and church for a couple, before I was old enough to say I was done. I wasn't being forced to go, I just went because it was what my mom wanted. And it wasn't a fight when I said I didn't want to go any longer.

Actually, I remember when I knew I didn't feel anything. I was maybe around ten years old. I heard someone on television saying something along the lines of, "People only believe because they're afraid of going to Hell if they don't believe." Well, I didn't particularly believe that then, and don't now. (Saying all believe for that reason is the same kind of thing as saying all who say the kinds of things I say are bluffing.) But the important thing is that it was my first exposure to the idea of atheism. At that age, it had literally not occurred to me that some people do not believe all the things I had been taught. The thought that "maybe there isn't a God" was entirely new to me. But I knew immediately that I didn't feel God. I was just reciting the words. It was quite an eye-opening experience for me. I'm not bluffing, or misunderstanding what I think and feel.

And don't worry about missing things. I've laughed when I've thought about you signing on after a day or two, and seeing all the things you need to respond to. Good luck! But you're doing a great job of it!

[rusmeister]

No, I think you just answered it. Basically, the question was whether or not you thought there was any chance of me being sufficiently aware of myself to be right about what I'm saying about myself. You have just said that it does, indeed, happen the way I claim it would for me.

"It calls your bluffs, so to speak" only applies to some people. Those who are bluffing. Some of us, however, are not. It's simply the way we feel and believe. I never had any sort of bad experience with religion. Nothing "drove me from it." I simply never felt anything for it. I went to Sunday School for years, and church for a couple, before I was old enough to say I was done. I wasn't being forced to go, I just went because it was what my mom wanted. And it wasn't a fight when I said I didn't want to go any longer.

Actually, I remember when I knew I didn't feel anything. I was maybe around ten years old. I heard someone on television saying something along the lines of, "People only believe because they're afraid of going to Hell if they don't believe." Well, I didn't particularly believe that then, and don't now. (Saying all believe for that reason is the same kind of thing as saying all who say the kinds of things I say are bluffing.) But the important thing is that it was my first exposure to the idea of atheism. At that age, it had literally not occurred to me that some people do not believe all the things I had been taught. The thought that "maybe there isn't a God" was entirely new to me. But I knew immediately that I didn't feel God. I was just reciting the words. It was quite an eye-opening experience for me. I'm not bluffing, or misunderstanding what I think and feel.

And don't worry about missing things. I've laughed when I've thought about you signing on after a day or two, and seeing all the things you need to respond to. Good luck! But you're doing a great job of it!

Understood, agreed and thanks! Clarification - I wasn't trying to imply that all non-believers are bluffing. I thought I had covered that base:

But I dare say that a great many do. It is a wonderful stimulus to abandon theories not held dearer than life.

(allowing that beliefs - which are true to the person who believes them as long as they hold them) can be held dearer than life)

The thing about not feeling God: Frankly, I generally don't "feel" Him. I don't have (what I call) "a factory of feelings" generating feel-good feelings, and it's something I have trained myself to watch out for (not that it's hard). That would be the very sign of man-made religion - generating feelings to tell yourself that "God is there".

"If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the fit of faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth."

CS Lewis

It is my reason and experience that continuously reminds me to believe no matter what I feel.

[Zarathustra]

The last sentence contradicts the rest of your statement. As soon as you use the word "should" I ask "Why?" If I return to nothingness, then there is no 'should'. A philosophy that says we return to nothingness, is, for the individual, nihilistic. There is no motivation for me to care about 'humanity' if all that I am becomes naught. Evolutionary benefits mean nothing, because I become nothing. Why 'should' I anything?

I love it. When presented with a lack of meaning your crowd wishes destruction and apathy. You must have a reward to care. How utterly selfish. Why bother fighting poverty if you can't stop it everywhere? Why do anything if you can be certain of success. Why should you do anything if you aren't rewarded. I've learned all I need to about your utterly corrupt world view. If there is no heaven or hell what's stopping you from committing crimes?

KS, I have referenced the moral law more than once and know that there is such a thing as a moral atheist. My comment was not meant to be construed to mean that believers have a monopoly on morality. What I mean by the above is that the "shoulds", without faith, ultimately lead nowhere - they can be 'whyed' to death, because the individual, the real reason for the shoulds, is dead. When you defend humanity minus the individual, as a purely abstract thing - and that is what death is, the death of the individual - you are defending something that doesn't exist. It's like saying "Life goes on" to someone who has lost a loved one. And they will want to scream at you that 'life' (an abstract concept) does NOT go on - that so-and-so is dead and life for him or her does not continue. What is really meant by such comments is "You and I are not dead yet", and 'yet' is, of course, a temporary state.

Of course non-believers can spend their lives doing good without needing the stimulus of an afterlife - but I'd say that any 'should' they offer or are operating on leads to naught.

I do think that you are right to want to see good on this earth. And to do so unselfishly. In accusing us of selfishness (needing a reward of an after life to do good) you do us an injustice. The two paramount commandments are "Love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor". I see that you understand what "love your neighbor means. But have you thought about what it means to Christians to love God? After all, how can we love One that we have not seen?
The simple answer is to love good. This is the beginning of loving God. To love good (and as a consequence, to do good). To learn to love this more than ourselves and what we want. This means killing selfishness, including cold calculations of what I get out of anything. All of the "pie-in-the-sky" (and what you likely think of as 'punishment') of the Christian afterlife is only the logical consequences of striving to love God and your neighbor or failing to do so. Heaven and hell are not causes. They are consequences. The presentation of Christian thought that you see in Hollywood ("The Kingdom of Heaven" comes to mind as a strong example of a false atheist view of Christianity, where the heroes are moral unbelievers, and the ostensible believers are the bad guys, who really believe in getting what they can out of a situation) of the afterlife as external punishment and reward as such are simply not Orthodox.

First of all, I think Kins was making an excellent point (a bit harsh, but who am *I* to ever criticize anyone over that? ). I've met actual Christians who have told me that they hated someone so much, the only thing keeping them from murder was their belief in God. Maybe Kins has met people like this, too. They are scary.

However, Rus attempted to counter the charge of "you must have a reward to care," by presenting his "love thy neighbor" argument. Sure, there is a bit of selflessness in Christianity (Nietzsche had some unflattering things to say about that *false* selflessness, but let's not get sidetracked). But this doesn't really work because he is still saying that this "selfless" love of a neighbor would "come to naught" if there were no afterlife. So it's an empty argument. Rus can't say that morality is meaningless without an afterlife, and then argue that his morality can be separated from the rewards of that afterlife.

And Rus was too busy defending his faith, that he didn't deal with the other side of Kin's position: believing in "nothingness" doesn't eliminate the possibility of "should."

Believing that we all die and that's the end isn't "nothingness." In fact, to believe that things matter beyond our own personal death (our children, our society, our culture, our universe) is to believe in something infinitely more real--even if we aren't here to experience them--than to believe in a purported soul or spirit or afterlife that presents absolutely no evidence for its existence. THAT is a "nothing." To base a moral system on these figments is to place it on much less firm ground than our trans-personal hopes for the future after our deaths. Humanity in the absence of a particular individual is not an abstract!

A "should" WITH faith leads nowhere, literally, because it is anchored and justified on something people have made up, something which is invented as a substitute to forget and dismiss the observable truth of this existence. No moral system can be authentic if it is not true to the earth, true to this world. Morality that starts in denial of our mortal, finite truths can only lead us astray from what actually matters here, because it places the highest value of our lives beyond the grave. THAT is nihilistic.

Of course non-believers can spend their lives doing good without needing the stimulus of an afterlife - but I'd say that any 'should' they offer or are operating on leads to naught.

How can it lead to naught if they are doing exactly the same thing believers do? If both groups, for instance, decide to help the poor, and they are accomplishing the same level of suffering-decrease, then how can one group be accomplishing naught? The only way you can say this is to define temporary relief and the end of suffering as "naught." And that's exactly why I call your belief nihilistic . . . in order to resist the "bad" nothingness you see in this universe, you turn even the good stuff into "naught." You devalue all of existence with this attitude. You are the nihilist, here.

[rusmeister]

Hi Malik!
Let me repeat that my overarching thesis, and the one thing I do believe I can really get across here, is that, by and large, Christians are totally ready to admit that unbelievers are rational, intelligent, capable of using thought. My main objection is to atheist refusal to acknowledge that Christians might likewise have arrived at their positions using (among other things) reason and logic. What I perceive (esp here at KW) is a strong attitude that believers are (only) irrational, illogical, and foolish. It doesn’t really surprise me – SRD’s presentation of believers who actively worship God is hardly a flattering one – the idea that anybody who takes their faith seriously enough to build their life around it (ie, takes it as a true proposition, rather than merely something to do on Sunday) must be whacko

If you are ready to cede, in general, that one can be rational, intelligent, and also a Christian, maybe that’s all that we can come together on. (Although I’d believe it more if I didn’t see Christianity as the butt of the “dumb blonde” jokes around here.)

Just looking at my post and your response, I feel that you are insisting on seeing the Christian view through your own lens. You might say the reverse about me, but the difference is that I really was an agnostic for most of my adult life. You evidently haven’t been a Christian for most of yours. You continue to express ideas about Christianity that I deny are valid expressions of it, and that makes it impossible to really respond to you.

Believing that we all die and that's the end isn't "nothingness." In fact, to believe that things matter beyond our own personal death (our children, our society, our culture, our universe) is to believe in something infinitely more real--even if we aren't here to experience them--than to believe in a purported soul or spirit or afterlife that presents absolutely no evidence for its existence. THAT is a "nothing." To base a moral system on these figments is to place it on much less firm ground than our trans-personal hopes for the future after our deaths. Humanity in the absence of a particular individual is not an abstract!

This seems almost reasonable. However, the rational mind must admit that the future is unreal. It does not exist – and it could be negated – the individual life by suicide or murder, humanity by an ELE. I do agree with your sentiment, and it is on this basis that abortion is wrong – that we allow the destruction of future possibility in the name of present convenience. Even contraception can be construed to be wrong on that basis. However, future possibilities are still not reality. And again, you ignore the mass of evidence from the mass of mankind throughout history that some kind of existence beyond our lives and senses does exist – just because you did not see a vision or a ghost does not mean that it does not exist. It merely means that you did not see what to another is the hard evidence of their own eyes. You merely choose to dogmatically discount the possibility that some, or even a few of these stories may be true. For you, no miracles ever happened and the explanation must necessarily be natural and not supernatural.

Humanity in the absence of a particular individual is not an abstract!

This is a remarkable statement. How, may I ask, is it not abstract? How is it concrete, other than to attempt to speak of a million individuals as a group? When one dies, ‘life goes on’ (for everybody else). But the whole point is that for that one person, life decidedly does NOT go on. He does not continue to live as ‘part of humanity’ unless you accept some kind of mystical dogma.

Of course non-believers can spend their lives doing good without needing the stimulus of an afterlife - but I'd say that any 'should' they offer or are operating on leads to naught.

How can it lead to naught if they are doing exactly the same thing believers do? If both groups, for instance, decide to help the poor, and they are accomplishing the same level of suffering-decrease, then how can one group be accomplishing naught? The only way you can say this is to define temporary relief and the end of suffering as "naught." And that's exactly why I call your belief nihilistic . . . in order to resist the "bad" nothingness you see in this universe, you turn even the good stuff into "naught." You devalue all of existence with this attitude. You are the nihilist, here.

I had hoped that it was obvious that by “nought” I meant that there is no ultimately supportable basis for the ‘shoulds’. Here you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying.

Where I do agree with you is that there IS a basis – moral law, or the law of human nature. The Christian sees this as the voice of God heard even by the unbelieving person who denies Him. On that basis, moral unbelievers certainly do exist and do do good (as I pointed out in my statement to KS ). But their philosophical basis for the verb ‘should’ is unsound.

Personally, I say, bring on Nietzsche! I have better champions who’ve thought a little further than Nietzsche. If nothing else, his bitterness and cynicism – the conclusions of his thought - are surely not preferable to the cheer and joy of GKC, Lewis and Christmas (Even Dickens was far more right). I wouldn’t call it “sidetracking”. I’d call it exposure of wrong thought. The most effective lies are the ones that are almost true.

But this doesn't really work because he is still saying that this "selfless" love of a neighbor would "come to naught" if there were no afterlife. So it's an empty argument. Rus can't say that morality is meaningless without an afterlife, and then argue that his morality can be separated from the rewards of that afterlife.

I think the problem here is in the “bait-and-switch” of the meaning of selfishness. There are two understandings which need to be separated. The one that I call “selfishness” is the one that places the good of self above others, or even above all. This is sin to a Christian. The other is a natural desire for one’s own well-being that does not necessitate selfishness – I’d call this “common sense” and it is no sin to desire good food, warm clothing, a decent place to live, and the good things in life. Now the ‘rewards’, as we are calling them, of the afterlife, in the Christian view are such that only a person who has embraced that faith would want them. They can only be understood in the context of the latter, common-sensical understanding and cannot be a fruit of selfishness – referring again to the analogy of being in heaven and hell with spoons for arms. In other words, we have to change and become the kind of people who would want that kind of ‘reward’ (but only in this way can we truly be happy – and it means learning to love God most of all and to love your neighbor as yourself). This means preferring them even to ‘rewards’. Thus, it is far-removed from the selfish context you evidently see the idea of reward in.

Again, I think you’d appreciate some of the main ideas in “The Ball and the Cross”

[Avatar]

Of course one can be rational and intelligent and a Christian. Hell, I've met more rational and intelligent Christians here at the Watch than pretty much anywhere else. (Which I might add has done much to improve my opinion of Christians. And if you doubt that, I invite you to find some of my early posts in this forum. )

But, (to jump in here), you yourself have been very clear that the basis of faith (and not just christian faith either I hasten to add), is revelation, not rationality. Thus no matter how rational and intelligent a christian is, their faith requires that they suspend that rationality on a number of points, and treat the revelation as given.

For atheists, that suspension of rationality is not sufficient.

It's easy enough for you to claim that all other expressions of Christianity are invalid, but for the purposes of these discussions I don't think you can afford to do so.

The religion may be a schismed mess to you, but we perceive it quite differently.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Really, I've known several Christians who are extremely intelligent and rational. As with Av, most are here. But, as far as I can tell, that intelligence and rationality is not why you folks are Christians. It looks to me like you all have an innate feeling of God. Something that you cannot deny. Can't ignore it, can't reject it. Some have even tried to reject it, for many different reasons. But it always speaks to you, and brings you back.

[rusmeister]

Of course one can be rational and intelligent and a Christian. Hell, I've met more rational and intelligent Christians here at the Watch than pretty much anywhere else. (Which I might add has done much to improve my opinion of Christians. And if you doubt that, I invite you to find some of my early posts in this forum. )

But, (to jump in here), you yourself have been very clear that the basis of faith (and not just christian faith either I hasten to add), is revelation, not rationality. Thus no matter how rational and intelligent a christian is, their faith requires that they suspend that rationality on a number of points, and treat the revelation as given.

For atheists, that suspension of rationality is not sufficient.

It's easy enough for you to claim that all other expressions of Christianity are invalid, but for the purposes of these discussions I don't think you can afford to do so.

The religion may be a schismed mess to you, but we perceive it quite differently.

--A

Understood.
I would merely repeat that everybody operates under one form or other of mystical dogma. In the case of the atheist/agnostic, they most often are unaware of that fact - they assume that dogma is a purely religious concept.

I must deny what is wrong in Christianity - otherwise I could not hold the view that I do. It is my thesis that there is a genuine Church established by Christ and the Apostles that has continuously survived in physical form for 2,000 years. There is a definite history of the Christian Church and in studying it we can see how the forms of Christianity you see developed. It is the only rational basis, btw, on which you can base an objective claim to be that Church. And it explains all of the craziness that you have seen, and the things that really are wrong in doctrines that you rightly reject. If you insist that I admit what you have seen to be valid expressions of that Church (which I can't do) then your arguments against Christianity as a whole are justified, which again, I deny.

Your perceptions have historical bases, which you probably are not very familiar with. In such cases the conclusions drawn from such perceptions would have a high probability of being wrong.

[rusmeister]

Really, I've known several Christians who are extremely intelligent and rational. As with Av, most are here. But, as far as I can tell, that intelligence and rationality is not why you folks are Christians. It looks to me like you all have an innate feeling of God. Something that you cannot deny. Can't ignore it, can't reject it. Some have even tried to reject it, for many different reasons. But it always speaks to you, and brings you back.

Thanks F+F. I'd agree with you. Some people ARE "luckier" in that sense.

It just brings to mind the whole story of "Doubting Thomas". He (understandably) insisted on rational proof of Christ's Resurrection from the dead, which Christ offered - and then said to Thomas "You have seen and believed. Blessed are they who have not seen, yet have believed." So the element of will over perception is always there, regardless of what you experience. IE, you can always choose. (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade again)

[Fist and Faith]

You keep saying that. But you're wrong. That's not how it works. Those of you who do have that feeling have no reason to think it does work that way. It wasn't reason and logic that had you going to a priest when you were confused and lost. Nor did you decide to choose something that went against what your heart was telling you. You felt it, and you decided to stop fighting what you felt. It's insulting to tell me I can simply choose.

I don't believe you mean it as an insult, or were aware that it is, so I'm not saying this to give you crap. I'm just trying to make you understand that you should not presume to tell those like me what we are and are not able to do, and that we are choosing to do the wrong thing.

[Avatar]

Your perceptions have historical bases, which you probably are not very familiar with. In such cases the conclusions drawn from such perceptions would have a high probability of being wrong.

Really? Just like I'm not familiar with the book of Job huh? I think that's a rather presumptuous assumption, but I don't hold it against you. I like to think I'm quite familiar with the historical context of the church, as familiar as possible without devoting rigorous study to it anyway.

Anyway, I must disagree about the dogma of atheists...first of all, it's not a mystical one, and secondly, it's not automatically assumed to be authorititave, which, I feel, rather invalidates the term "dogma."

--A

[rusmeister]

You keep saying that. But you're wrong. That's not how it works. Those of you who do have that feeling have no reason to think it does work that way. It wasn't reason and logic that had you going to a priest when you were confused and lost. Nor did you decide to choose something that went against what your heart was telling you. You felt it, and you decided to stop fighting what you felt. It's insulting to tell me I can simply choose.

I don't believe you mean it as an insult, or were aware that it is, so I'm not saying this to give you crap. I'm just trying to make you understand that you should not presume to tell those like me what we are and are not able to do, and that we are choosing to do the wrong thing.

F+F, if I believe my proposition is true then of course I am going to say that your proposition which denies my proposition is wrong. They can't both be right. As a matter of fact, reason and logic DID play a role in my conversion. It was reading Lewis and personal circumstances in my life that had got me thinking about my mortality, the need for meaning and the pointlessness, the illogic of just living for self, for pleasure, and for personal gain, which must all be lost.

Of course I do not intend to be insulting! For many years I told myself that could not simply choose to believe, that I could not "press my belief button". I learned that it simply wasn't true. It sometimes really IS stepping against your gut feelings. I rebelled on the issue of confession to a priest - it went against my gut. It was only after talking to Fr Victor that I realized that it was my gut feeling that was self-generated and irrational.

Of course you are free to disagree with me, but it doesn't seem terribly rational to expect that I should not insist that I am right, or that I should necessarily concede doubt about my own position.

I do appreciate your courtesy, and it is a pleasure doing amateur philosophy with you!

[rusmeister]

Your perceptions have historical bases, which you probably are not very familiar with. In such cases the conclusions drawn from such perceptions would have a high probability of being wrong.

Really? Just like I'm not familiar with the book of Job huh? I think that's a rather presumptuous assumption, but I don't hold it against you. I like to think I'm quite familiar with the historical context of the church, as familiar as possible without devoting rigorous study to it anyway.

Anyway, I must disagree about the dogma of atheists...first of all, it's not a mystical one, and secondly, it's not automatically assumed to be authorititave, which, I feel, rather invalidates the term "dogma."

--A

I wasn't talking about Biblical text. This is something quite distinct from the history of the Christian Church. This covers not only things like the early Church, the Ecumenical Councils, the great Schism and its causes, the later development of the Roman and Eastern Churches, etc etc. Since knowledge of the Eastern Church is generally close to zero in the West, it might be a mistaken assumption, but its the safest bet.

My reference to mystical dogma refers to things like the acceptance of first causes (before one can even begin to talk about evolutionary science (for example), and I do believe it mystical to see our need for meaning/purpose as unfounded (ie, if there is no purpose (which implies a Creator) then the universe is meaningless -or that all of our thoughts are actually random impulse, therefore there is no truth to be arrived at, and other such pieces of mysticism.

It is certainly authoritative about rejecting the idea that it is definitely wrong!

[Fist and Faith]

Really, no hard feelings whatsoever. But maybe an analogy will make my point? Especially this one, since at least some with your beliefs think I am suffering a kind of blindness. Someone born blind cannot choose to see. No matter that we can convince them sight does exist. It's not a matter of choosing to see.

Or perfect pitch. Some people can hear the screech of metal in a car accident, or the hum of a flourescent light, and tell you what note it is. Check on a piano, and, sure enough, they're right. I don't have perfect pitch. I have a BA and lots of graduate work in Music History, but you're either born with perfect pitch, or you're not.

That's how I stand with religious belief. It's not a choice. The blind can't choose to see, those without perfect pitch can't choose to have it, and I can't choose to believe in something I can't see evidence for and can't experience directly. (And just because I can't perceive God, doesn't mean he's not there. Sight and perfect pitch are there, after all)

Heck, I've said this before: What's your favorite color? Is anybody's blue? Decide that red is now your favorite. Do you prefer Bach or Motley Crue? Well, decide to prefer the other now. If such things seem impossible to change by choice, such insignificant things, how could I be expected to simply change my mind about something like whether or not I believe God exists??

[rusmeister]

Really, no hard feelings whatsoever. But maybe an analogy will make my point? Especially this one, since at least some with your beliefs think I am suffering a kind of blindness. Someone born blind cannot choose to see. No matter that we can convince them sight does exist. It's not a matter of choosing to see.

Or perfect pitch. Some people can hear the screech of metal in a car accident, or the hum of a flourescent light, and tell you what note it is. Check on a piano, and, sure enough, they're right. I don't have perfect pitch. I have a BA and lots of graduate work in Music History, but you're either born with perfect pitch, or you're not.

That's how I stand with religious belief. It's not a choice. The blind can't choose to see, those without perfect pitch can't choose to have it, and I can't choose to believe in something I can't see evidence for and can't experience directly. (And just because I can't perceive God, doesn't mean he's not there. Sight and perfect pitch are there, after all)

Heck, I've said this before: What's your favorite color? Is anybody's blue? Decide that red is now your favorite. Do you prefer Bach or Motley Crue? Well, decide to prefer the other now. If such things seem impossible to change by choice, such insignificant things, how could I be expected to simply change my mind about something like whether or not I believe God exists??

Because faith is not a physical attribute like sight or hearing (ie, the extent to which we can take analogies). It is a choice, and it is a choice that is more likely than not opposed to preferences. My illustration, again, is the Indiana Jones one. It was a lousy film (TLC), but that scene alone was worth it*. When he had to make a jump on pure faith, need driving him, it was in spite of his senses and experience. He was blind, in a manner of speaking, but made a choice. When he did, he found that he could see. It becomes, as Lewis put it, the light by which we see everything else.

*The rest of the theology in that film was sheer drivel.

[Fist and Faith]

First of all, TLC was a great movie! Maybe not theologically, but, I mean, come on!! What fun!!

However, Indy most certainly did not have faith without reason; without evidence. With nothing else to try before his father died, he figured he'd see if he could get through three trials, and see if there was, indeed, this miracle at the other end.

The first trial had him in a panic. At the last instant, and because of his finely honed reflexes, he figured it out and made it through. At which point, he realized there were very worldly things behind these trials. Despite an error on his part, he made it through the second trial.

Then the crazy third trial. How can this be??? By doing exactly what the clues said to do in the first two, he found mundane things were behind it all. Stepping off the edge was not without a good degree of expectation that he would not fall to his death. Yes, it went against what his senses were telling him. But it did not go against his past experiences with this set of tests. He had logic on his side, and had reason to believe that, despite the instinctive fear, he would survive. (Just as we, with all our movie-going experience, had reason to believe he would survive.)