Kevin's Watch

Vain wrote:Why not live your life as if there WAS an after life. If there is one then great. If there isn't one then it won't really matter. What will matter is that you lived your life as if it had purpose and meaning and there was hope and a grand design to it all.

The problem with that for me is that I'm not remotely convinced that there's any creator at all. If there is one, I have no idea what it is like, nor what its afterlife is like, or how we are supposed to live to prepare for it. What if I choose to believe one particular creator exists, and live in the manner it requires, only to die, find I chose the wrong one, did everything wrong while I lived, and will have a crappy afterlife as a result?

I'm going to live my life the way I think a life should be lived. Yeah, I fall short of my own standards sometimes. When I die, maybe I'll find that there is a creator and an afterlife. If the way I lived my life was bad, and I'm punished as a result, then it's likely I disagree with how I should have lived, and I wouldn't have done it even if I'd known.

Vain wrote:Here's a thought - and one that's a whole lot less well thought out than much of what you guys have said.

Why not live your life as if there WAS an after life. If there is one then great. If there isn't one then it won't really matter. What will matter is that you lived your life as if it had purpose and meaning and there was hope and a grand design to it all.

Where's the fun in that?

But yes, there's a name for that, and it's Pascal's Wager. I don't quite understand why, but I can't get web searches to search right now. From anywhere. But I'm sure you can look it up.
It makes the most sense, but I find it a little silly to go to so much trouble for a "what if" that I'm not especially convinced of. And I'm perfectly fine with what purpose and meaning I have conceived of for myself.

But then again, other times, I wonder if I exist at all. Stupid Mark Twain writing the Mysterious Stranger. Messed me up for weeks.

Here you go, Cag: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

(There's a Wikpedia entry, too, of course.)

I do believe in an afterlife, just not the Christian heaven. So I'll let the atheists and/or agnostics answer Vain.

Vain wrote:Why not live your life as if there WAS an after life. If there is one then great. If there isn't one then it won't really matter. What will matter is that you lived your life as if it had purpose and meaning and there was hope and a grand design to it all.

I don't think this is Pascal's Wager, exactly, as Cag suggested. It's close, but doesn't have the wager logic of balancing the consequences of hell vs "life wasted" in incorrect belief (the two worst case scenarios in P.W.). Rather, Vain's suggestion contains a much more positive idea, and less dependent upon deciding your life's meaning by a bet. Thus, I think his suggestion is actually better than Pascal's.

However, I think we can do what Vain suggests without the hypothesis that there is an afterlife. We can live a life with purpose and meaning without supposing that something external supplies it. That's the best of both worlds approach.

In fact, if God exists, this would be his own approach: to provide his own meaning and purpose. And if there is an afterlife, with a God deciding who is good enough to have earned it, maybe he would respect those who create their own meaning in the same way he does, rather than a bunch of followers who must rely upon him to get it. After all, why did he bother creating us at all if he only wanted a bunch of dependent beings who's only worth comes from him? He could have that all by himself.

None of us want a mate who is completely dependent upon us for their worth. That would be pathetic. The same thing applies to our children: we want them to provide for themselves and be their own people. And this applies to our friends, too. Why on earth would anyone suppose that God is more needy than we are, that he wouldn't also want companions who are strong enough, independent enough, that their entire meaning doesn't rest upon him? If I were a God, I would think that would be very tedious way to spend the eons. I couldn't even put up with it here for 70 years, much less an eternity with billions of worthless souls needing me to be their purpose.

Surely I'm not stronger than God, in this respect???

If I were the Christian God, I think that about two weeks after judgment day, I'd realize that I threw the most interesting of my creations into the Lake of Fire.

Malik23 wrote:

Vain wrote:Why not live your life as if there WAS an after life. If there is one then great. If there isn't one then it won't really matter. What will matter is that you lived your life as if it had purpose and meaning and there was hope and a grand design to it all.

I don't think this is Pascal's Wager, exactly, as Cag suggested. It's close, but doesn't have the wager logic of balancing the consequences of hell vs "life wasted" in incorrect belief (the two worst case scenarios in P.W.). Rather, Vain's suggestion contains a much more positive idea, and less dependent upon deciding your life's meaning by a bet. Thus, I think his suggestion is actually better than Pascal's.

However, I think we can do what Vain suggests without the hypothesis that there is an afterlife. We can live a life with purpose and meaning without supposing that something external supplies it. That's the best of both worlds approach.

In fact, if God exists, this would be his own approach: to provide his own meaning and purpose. And if there is an afterlife, with a God deciding who is good enough to have earned it, maybe he would respect those who create their own meaning in the same way he does, rather than a bunch of followers who must rely upon him to get it. After all, why did he bother creating us at all if he only wanted a bunch of dependent beings who's only worth comes from him? He could have that all by himself.

None of us want a mate who is completely dependent upon us for their worth. That would be pathetic. The same thing applies to our children: we want them to provide for themselves and be their own people. And this applies to our friends, too. Why on earth would anyone suppose that God is more needy than we are, that he wouldn't also want companions who are strong enough, independent enough, that their entire meaning doesn't rest upon him? If I were a God, I would think that would be very tedious way to spend the eons. I couldn't even put up with it here for 70 years, much less an eternity with billions of worthless souls needing me to be their purpose.

Surely I'm not stronger than God, in this respect???

If I were the Christian God, I think that about two weeks after judgment day, I'd realize that I threw the most interesting of my creations into the Lake of Fire.

Malik, you are correctly raging against a kind of 'fundamentalist Christianity' that I myself have rejected. I found something far more sophisticated and sensible.
In Orthodoxy, the ideas that God is needy CAN NOT exist. But with the fundie Baptist upbringing that I had, it was a logical conclusion.

It's kind of like raging against a cheap imitation Swiss Rolex watch made in some southeast Asian country. If anything, it's a hint that the real Swiss article may exist. You just haven't found it yet.

Rusmeister, not every post I make is directed at you. If you disagree with my conception of Christianity, we can talk about that. However, there are millions of Christians who would disagree with you, and (like you) think their version of Christianity is better. And some of those people are the fundamentalists whom I often criticize. You are not the final arbiter in deciding what Christianity is. For you to say I'm attacking a cheap imitation of the Real Christianity is an insult to those who feel that the fundamentalist interpretation IS the real deal.

With that said, we can talk about how your Orthodoxy deals with my idea of a needy God. How do you explain why God created millions of creatures that weren't strong enough to create their own meaning, but instead required God to supply it? Why would God need to do this? If it wasn't a need, are you saying it was merely a whim?

If it was more akin to a whim than a need, why would God choose to create dependent creatures rather than independent creatures? Why would he choose to create something separate from him at all, if it is meaningless without him?

Vain wrote:Why not live your life as if there WAS an after life. If there is one then great. If there isn't one then it won't really matter. What will matter is that you lived your life as if it had purpose and meaning and there was hope and a grand design to it all.

To Pascal's Wager, (which as Malik mentioned was a heaven/hell deal), my answer is simple: Principle.

In the Principia Discordia was wrote:The lowest rung of hell is reserved for the people who believe in it because of the fear that they'll go there if they don't.

As for Vain's (much better) version, I don't think the point is that of "afterlife." It's still suggesting a "live in a way that'll get you into it in case it's there" sort of idea, but with the positive results regardless (assuming meaning is the positive result).

But you can live that way without hope or expectation of an afterlife too. And there will be meaning. Because living like that, (in whatever way it means to you) gives you the meaning. Your meaning. You made it. And its enough.

--A

rusmeister wrote:It's kind of like raging against a cheap imitation Swiss Rolex watch made in some southeast Asian country. If anything, it's a hint that the real Swiss article may exist. You just haven't found it yet.

But to continue your analogy, you are unable to show the real Swiss Rolex watch. All you can do is talk about how you found it, but provide no definitive proof of its existence. Your analogy is therefore incorrect.

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote:It's kind of like raging against a cheap imitation Swiss Rolex watch made in some southeast Asian country. If anything, it's a hint that the real Swiss article may exist. You just haven't found it yet.

But to continue your analogy, you are unable to show the real Swiss Rolex watch. All you can do is talk about how you found it, but provide no definitive proof of its existence. Your analogy is therefore incorrect.

I can point to it. You can go, try for yourself, decide if it does seem like a real Swiss watch (if you know the criteria that make Swiss watches what you want), decide if you can afford it... - but that's your choice. I'm telling you where you can get one.

Malik23 wrote: Rusmeister, not every post I make is directed at you. If you disagree with my conception of Christianity, we can talk about that. However, there are millions of Christians who would disagree with you, and (like you) think their version of Christianity is better. And some of those people are the fundamentalists whom I often criticize. You are not the final arbiter in deciding what Christianity is. For you to say I'm attacking a cheap imitation of the Real Christianity is an insult to those who feel that the fundamentalist interpretation IS the real deal.

Perhaps, for example, it is an insult to creationists to say that they are offering a cheap and false alternative to evolutionary scientists. But an awful lot of people here will say that it is not an insult, but merely stating the truth. An insult is a desire to belittle, to make someone less than they actually are, with the purpose of hurting, rather than establishing truth.

Malik23 wrote:With that said, we can talk about how your Orthodoxy deals with my idea of a needy God. How do you explain why God created millions of creatures that weren't strong enough to create their own meaning, but instead required God to supply it? Why would God need to do this? If it wasn't a need, are you saying it was merely a whim?

If it was more akin to a whim than a need, why would God choose to create dependent creatures rather than independent creatures? Why would he choose to create something separate from him at all, if it is meaningless without him?

You offer a dichotomy of whim or need. What if the answer is "neither"? What if I establish that love does not have to be needy - that it can freely give, out of compassion, or merely for the sake of the beloved? The pleasure of seeing someone else happy?

One answer (bear in mind that a lot more than this has been said about it):

What is deification? Deification is the end and purpose of man’s
existence. Man has no other reason for existing. Today there is much discussion
regarding various philosophies and what they want man to become:
economic man, modern man, post-modern man, pre-modern man…But what
is the point of being modern or post-modern when death is waiting to swallow
us up? The xxxxx is for death to be transcended—and this is what deification
means. This is the reason why God created man in His image and likeness.
This is the reason why, after the Fall, God cared for man and waited for his
return.

(That - deification - should not be understood in a Mormon-type sense of equal-to-God - but it does make perfect sense of all the stories, miracles told in the Gospels.)
One other note - we rise above selfishness when we learn to love others, separate from us. Even the Christian Triune God is a society, in a real sense, while remaining One. That might help explain the concept of separate.

rusmeister wrote:

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote:It's kind of like raging against a cheap imitation Swiss Rolex watch made in some southeast Asian country. If anything, it's a hint that the real Swiss article may exist. You just haven't found it yet.

But to continue your analogy, you are unable to show the real Swiss Rolex watch. All you can do is talk about how you found it, but provide no definitive proof of its existence. Your analogy is therefore incorrect.

I can point to it. You can go, try for yourself, decide if it does seem like a real Swiss watch (if you know the criteria that make Swiss watches what you want), decide if you can afford it... - but that's your choice. I'm telling you where you can get one.

You've really missed my point. Or been confused by your own analogy.

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Loremaster wrote: But to continue your analogy, you are unable to show the real Swiss Rolex watch. All you can do is talk about how you found it, but provide no definitive proof of its existence. Your analogy is therefore incorrect.

I can point to it. You can go, try for yourself, decide if it does seem like a real Swiss watch (if you know the criteria that make Swiss watches what you want), decide if you can afford it... - but that's your choice. I'm telling you where you can get one.

You've really missed my point. Or been confused by your own analogy.

If you don't believe in Swiss watches - if you think they are all, to the very last one, actually made in Thailand (and most are - granted - this is why your experience with Swiss watches has been so dismal) then my pointing to one would be futile, as far as you are concerned.

No, I don't guess I missed your point.

rusmeister wrote:If you don't believe in Swiss watches - if you think they are all, to the very last one, actually made in Thailand (and most are - granted - this is why your experience with Swiss watches has been so dismal) then my pointing to one would be futile, as far as you are concerned.

No, I don't guess I missed your point.

If you can suggest that Loremaster doesn't really believe in Swiss watches, then yes, you missed his point.

I don't believe he was arguing that Swiss watches aren't real, but instead that your analogy wasn't apt because watches are physical artifacts, whereas you're proposing an authentic interpretation of a religious text. While it may become problematic to tell a fake watch from the real one, this can only arise as the fake approaches the real one in quality and appearance. Thus, there is a standard of comparison which is unquestionable. The Swiss watch is a real Swiss watch by definition. There is nothing circular about defining an object as itself. In logic, that's called the law of identity. A = A. "A Swiss watch is a Swiss watch."

However, in claiming that your interpretation or brand of Christianity is the authentic one, you have no corresponding, unquestionable standard of comparison. You can't say that yours is the authentic one, the real one, and all the others are fake copies. Maybe yours was merely the first draft Christianity, and others corrected its imperfections. Maybe God will add a Even Newer Testament that renders the 1st two worthless. Or perhaps Christianity isn't the way to go, at all. Maybe the Muslims are right.

Maybe Christianity itself can't even "tell time," in this analogy. How would we know? There's another major difference: we can check a watch's accuracy with physical means, but we can't check a religion's accuracy except by dying.

When talking to an atheist, telling him that he is describing a fake version of Christianity is about as relevant as a Star Wars fanboy arguing that his favorite mythology is more realistic than a Star Trek fanboy's favorite mythology. To someone on the outside, the debate looks hopelessly silly.

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote:If you don't believe in Swiss watches - if you think they are all, to the very last one, actually made in Thailand (and most are - granted - this is why your experience with Swiss watches has been so dismal) then my pointing to one would be futile, as far as you are concerned.

No, I don't guess I missed your point.

If you can suggest that Loremaster doesn't really believe in Swiss watches, then yes, you missed his point.

I don't believe he was arguing that Swiss watches aren't real, but instead that your analogy wasn't apt because watches are physical artifacts, whereas you're proposing an authentic interpretation of a religious text. While it may become problematic to tell a fake watch from the real one, this can only arise as the fake approaches the real one in quality and appearance. Thus, there is a standard of comparison which is unquestionable. The Swiss watch is a real Swiss watch by definition. There is nothing circular about defining an object as itself. In logic, that's called the law of identity. A = A. "A Swiss watch is a Swiss watch."

However, in claiming that your interpretation or brand of Christianity is the authentic one, you have no corresponding, unquestionable standard of comparison. You can't say that yours is the authentic one, the real one, and all the others are fake copies. Maybe yours was merely the first draft Christianity, and others corrected its imperfections. Maybe God will add a Even Newer Testament that renders the 1st two worthless. Or perhaps Christianity isn't the way to go, at all. Maybe the Muslims are right.

Maybe Christianity itself can't even "tell time," in this analogy. How would we know? There's another major difference: we can check a watch's accuracy with physical means, but we can't check a religion's accuracy except by dying.

When talking to an atheist, telling him that he is describing a fake version of Christianity is about as relevant as a Star Wars fanboy arguing that his favorite mythology is more realistic than a Star Trek fanboy's favorite mythology. To someone on the outside, the debate looks hopelessly silly.

Spot on, Malik23.

Agreed...you don't need to have faith in objects that you know exist. You don't have to believe in the postman...you know he's there.

--A

Avatar wrote:You don't have to believe in the postman...you know he's there.

What? From half of your DNA-profile?

Prebe wrote:

Avatar wrote:You don't have to believe in the postman...you know he's there.

What? From half of your DNA-profile?

From seeing him come up the drive every morning.

--A

I see. I was making a double joke on the expense of both you and the regularity of the SA postal service that I assumed was non-existent

It would seem that I was wrong. Heh!