Am I really the only solipsist here?

[Avatar]

Metaphorically speaking.

--A

[lucimay]

prove you're here, Prebe.

[rusmeister]

Oh God of Earth and Altar
Bow down, and hear our cry.
Our earthly rulers falter, our people drift and die.
The walls of gold entomb us,
the swords of scorn divine.
Take not Thy thunder from us,
But take away our pride.

Sorry, that's the only Chesterton quote I know. (I'm pretty sure its Chesterton anyway. )

On this last one, he's saying that if evolution means change, we can't ultimately define 'man', 'homo sapiens' or even 'good', because all of these categories become subjective. If homo sapiens is constantly changing, that means that in the next millenium he will have 2 heads and wings and evolve, a la Kohlinar, into a critter without feelings or whatever and will have ceased natural reproduction, etc etc. It won't be recognizable as homo sapiens as we define it today. Point is, we could evolve out of the labels and definitions.

I absolutely agree with him there though. While we probably won't get 2 heads and wings, eventually we'll be unrecognisable by our current standards, either physically, psychologically or socially. (Or any combination of all three.) Assuming we live that long.

Pretty awesome actually.

--A

Harry Callahan wrote:
Who's "we", sucker?

Thank you, Prebe!

Actually this is something that both Lewis and Chesterton point out as not awesome, but horrifying, if change proves not to be merely physical but total - moral standards and the rest. If Frodo were to evolve into Sauron we would not applaud that change. (Pardon my brevity here - hope the point is made.)
See the final few chapters of "Out of the Silent Planet" for an entertaining treatment of that idea.
Gotta run!

[Prebe]

prove you're here, Prebe.

Nasty thought! Go away! Shu, shu!

[Avatar]

We wouldn't applaud the change, but we would if sauron evolved into Frodo.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

you're all nothing but letters on a screen.

[rusmeister]

We wouldn't applaud the change, but we would if sauron evolved into Frodo.

--A

Exactly! But for that we need an absolute standard of what is good that we can measure such change by.

[Avatar]

No, we just need a contrasting standard to compare it to.

--A

[rusmeister]

No, we just need a contrasting standard to compare it to.

--A

If the standard can change at all then you can't use it to measure change. If on each successive day it shifts by a mere 5 inches then your measurement changes every day. The measurement becomes meaningless. Whatever the standard is, it must be based on an ideal - an absolute, that we are looking at to measure progress.

[Zarathustra]

But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought.

"Things" are human definitions. They are artificial conceptual constructs utilized to simplify the actual, real flux of this world into manageable, easily conceivable units. But making a mental shortcut isn't the totality of thinking. There is no reason why we can't think in terms of processes and flux. Everything IS constantly changing. I'm not the same person I was when I began this sentence. Long ago, I started out as a something ejaculated from my dad's penis, and joined to my mother's eggs. It's hard to deny the fact that I've come a long way from that. If a couple cells can turn into a person typing on this message board, I'm not sure why we're even debating the flux of reality. It is the one, true constant: everything is in the process of becoming something else. "Things" are inventions. What we really have are processes. "Things" are just placeholders for portions of those processes.

Notice I was thinking that whole time. Getting rid of "things" doesn't destroy thought. Processes and flux can also be objects of thought. In fact, they capture the temporal reality of nature much better than the illusion of static things.

On this last one, he's saying that if evolution means change, we can't ultimately define 'man', 'homo sapiens' or even 'good', because all of these categories become subjective.

So what? Are you (or Chesterton) saying that we can't think unless we're thinking about objective things? Objective definitions? Good luck finding some of those.

If homo sapiens is constantly changing, that means that in the next millenium he will have 2 heads and wings and evolve, a la Kohlinar, into a critter without feelings or whatever and will have ceased natural reproduction, etc etc. It won't be recognizable as homo sapiens as we define it today. Point is, we could evolve out of the labels and definitions.

If reality evolves beyond your labels and definitions, the thinking person would reconsider his labels and definitions, not doubt the reality of change. What Chesterton is advocating--and what you apparently have accepted--IS the destruction of thinking . . . by advocating a position that denies the reality of change as something destructive to thought. Notice that he doesn't say such a state of flux is unreal, just that it's destructive to think this way. These quasi-logical arguments used to deny the way the world works ("it's unthinkable! Therefore we shouldn't think about it!") are the classic hallmarks of religious "thinking." Neither of you are interested in thinking about the world, only propagating and protecting your dogma in the face of contradictory evidence.

Does that help explain it? (Don't feel bad. Chesterton was what we would consider a certified genius, he's wordy and doesn't go in straight lines like, say, C.S. Lewis does.

I would not at all consider this man a "certified" genius. Not even an "uncertified" genius. Honestly, these conclusions (i.e. "you can't think without things") are something I'd expect a schoolchild to come up with. They are arguments used to resist the advance of knowledge, a way to deny uncovered truths in favor of old, accepted assumptions or Stone Tablet commandments. That is the opposite of critical thinking.

(Funny coincidence: I'm listening to "Circumstances" by Rush off their new live CD. Geddy just sang, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." )

[rusmeister]

But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought.

"Things" are human definitions. They are artificial conceptual constructs utilized to simplify the actual, real flux of this world into manageable, easily conceivable units. But making a mental shortcut isn't the totality of thinking. There is no reason why we can't think in terms of processes and flux. Everything IS constantly changing. I'm not the same person I was when I began this sentence. Long ago, I started out as a something ejaculated from my dad's penis, and joined to my mother's eggs. It's hard to deny the fact that I've come a long way from that. If a couple cells can turn into a person typing on this message board, I'm not sure why we're even debating the flux of reality. It is the one, true constant: everything is in the process of becoming something else. "Things" are inventions. What we really have are processes. "Things" are just placeholders for portions of those processes.

Notice I was thinking that whole time. Getting rid of "things" doesn't destroy thought. Processes and flux can also be objects of thought. In fact, they capture the temporal reality of nature much better than the illusion of static things.

On this last one, he's saying that if evolution means change, we can't ultimately define 'man', 'homo sapiens' or even 'good', because all of these categories become subjective.

So what? Are you (or Chesterton) saying that we can't think unless we're thinking about objective things? Objective definitions? Good luck finding some of those.

If homo sapiens is constantly changing, that means that in the next millenium he will have 2 heads and wings and evolve, a la Kohlinar, into a critter without feelings or whatever and will have ceased natural reproduction, etc etc. It won't be recognizable as homo sapiens as we define it today. Point is, we could evolve out of the labels and definitions.

If reality evolves beyond your labels and definitions, the thinking person would reconsider his labels and definitions, not doubt the reality of change. What Chesterton is advocating--and what you apparently have accepted--IS the destruction of thinking . . . by advocating a position that denies the reality of change as something destructive to thought. Notice that he doesn't say such a state of flux is unreal, just that it's destructive to think this way. These quasi-logical arguments used to deny the way the world works ("it's unthinkable! Therefore we shouldn't think about it!") are the classic hallmarks of religious "thinking." Neither of you are interested in thinking about the world, only propagating and protecting your dogma in the face of contradictory evidence.

Does that help explain it? (Don't feel bad. Chesterton was what we would consider a certified genius, he's wordy and doesn't go in straight lines like, say, C.S. Lewis does.

I would not at all consider this man a "certified" genius. Not even an "uncertified" genius. Honestly, these conclusions (i.e. "you can't think without things") are something I'd expect a schoolchild to come up with. They are arguments used to resist the advance of knowledge, a way to deny uncovered truths in favor of old, accepted assumptions or Stone Tablet commandments. That is the opposite of critical thinking.

(Funny coincidence: I'm listening to "Circumstances" by Rush off their new live CD. Geddy just sang, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." )

Well, Malik, I don't see much point in responding, because you're at least as dogmatic as I am. But one thing I will take a moment to refute - your idea that you are evolving into a different creature from your parents. An oak tree does not produce acorns that slowly turn into birches. In that sense, the flux of reality you are talking about is non-existent. Every creature is produced, not from nothing, or even from an inferior organism, but from a fully developed adult version. The test of your argument is to bring it to its logical conclusion, which is insanity. There's nothing for us to talk about if for you, things don't exist. Technically, you are not even capable of understanding my thoughts, which are in a state of flux and mean fluxy, uh, things that are totally different from your fluxy things.

[Prebe]

I actually think that was a good post Malik. What do you know
Although both you and I use standards in our daily lives, and it is hard to deny that such standards exist. I agree that standards (with the possible exception of the speed of light in vaccuum) are subject to change. However, in the lifetime of a person many standards are, for all practical purposes, constant.

[Avatar]

Exactly...the fact that their children will have different standards doesn't matter.

--A

[Linna Heartbooger]

Intellectually, I know that everybody and everything is "real." Emotionally though, I can't get over the feeling that I'm the only real person, or that everything ceases to exist when I stop looking at it.

The feeling colours my thoughts to such an extent that I've been forced to develop a strict personal morality to prevent me from treating people as objects. Because I know they're not, even if it feels like it.

I think THIS actually is a very relevant and very important point, Av!

I have some measure of this same problem... when I'm "stuck inside the house alone" for a long time, I cease to think so much about the people and the world outside... (and how my actions indirectly impact them - and could directly impact them if I get up and take action) In doing so, I regularly fail to live up to my own standards of ethics. (sigh)

Chesterton was what we would consider a certified genius, he's wordy and doesn't go in straight lines like, say, C.S. Lewis does. When I first read him a couple of years ago it was at a crawl. Now that I've gotten his drift, he's much, much easier to follow.)

Now... Can I be bad and treat this like it's the "solipsism / mock-solipsism AND Chesterton" thread? If so:

Spoiler

Just wanted to note that I personally have that problem rusmeister mentioned w/ Chesterton's writing. (I know you'd encouraged me to read him once, rusm.) I sometimes have trouble understanding irony, and like... Chesterton's writing is so heavily-veined with (sometimes rather biting, yet whimsical!) irony that ...you could read most of his content as the exact opposite of what he meant on multiple different levels at the same time!!! Someday I may pick him up again, (my husband really enjoys him - even reads his old collected newspaper articles.) but until then I'm going to focus on reading the many other people who are more accessible and who give me alot of direct benefit.

...just reading the letters between GKC, GB Shaw and HG Wells (who were all friends, oddly enough) leaves me shaking my head as to how people could have not heard of this guy.

Now -THAT- actually sounds like something that could be fun...

[rusmeister]

The introductory and concluding remarks from "Heretics":

Whether the human mind can advance or not, is a question too little discussed, for nothing can be more dangerous than to found our social philosophy on any theory which is debatable but has not been debated. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there has been in the past, or will be in the future, such a thing as a growth or improvement of the human mind itself, there still remains a very sharp objection to be raised against the modern version of that improvement. The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut. Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

an amazing essay follows, and ends thus:

Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. (Ahem! (Polite cough) Ed.) Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch20.html

[Zarathustra]

Well, Malik, I don't see much point in responding, because you're at least as dogmatic as I am. But one thing I will take a moment to refute - your idea that you are evolving into a different creature from your parents. An oak tree does not produce acorns that slowly turn into birches. In that sense, the flux of reality you are talking about is non-existent. Every creature is produced, not from nothing, or even from an inferior organism, but from a fully developed adult version. The test of your argument is to bring it to its logical conclusion, which is insanity. There's nothing for us to talk about if for you, things don't exist. Technically, you are not even capable of understanding my thoughts, which are in a state of flux and mean fluxy, uh, things that are totally different from your fluxy things.

How can I be dogmatic when I'm constantly revising my position? I started out as a Christian, moved on into agnosticism, and then to "practicing" atheistism . . . meaning, for all practical purposes, I live my life as if there were no god--not that I hold an absolute, dogmatic belief that god doesn't exist. I'm willing to be convinced the second He's willing to convince me.

Now, which dogma do you think I hold? Which position am I unwilling to critically reconsider?

No, an oak doesn't usually produce a birch. But are the differences between an oak and a birch really so absolute, so fundamental, that very small changes to their properties over millions of years couldn't conceivably turn one into the other? We're only talking a difference of bark texture and color, of leave shape and branch distribution (I assume, I'm no tree expert). Those are not insurmountable differences. Each individual organism on the planet undergoes a much more drastic change during its own lifetime--from acorn to tree, from egg to bird, from fetus to human--than the change we're suggesting here. A birch is more like an oak than an acorn is like the grown tree. To say that the slight change is impossible, while this drastic change is normal and happens all the time, is not reasonable. What is the rational justification for admitting the existence of drastic changes, but denying the possibility of small changes? You do admit that acorns turn into trees, right? Why is this no more incredible than a tree with x set of properties turning into a tree with y set of properties (over millions of years of gradual change, of course)? Logical objections can be ruled out immediately: from a purely logical perspective, your position is self-contradictory. Big changes can't happen if small changes are impossible (yet you admit the former, while denying the latter). The only possible objection remaining would have to be an empirical one (since we've eliminated the logical objection). Yet, there is nothing at all about the universe which precludes incremental change of organisms. In fact, there is a mechanism for such unexpected change. Have you forgotten mutation?

The test of your argument is to bring it to its logical conclusion, which is insanity.

No, the test of my argument is to look at the world and see if it actually happens. If it actually happens that organisms change (and it does, we've witnessed the evidence), then whether or not you can retain you sanity has little to do with the truth, and a lot more to do with your personal capacity to reconcile facts with your very limited assumptions.

You and I understanding each other has nothing do to with the rigidity of our concepts. I can understand fluxy concepts, too. So can you, though you might pretend not to for the sake of backing up Chesterton's argument. Just because everything is in a state of flux, going from one state to another, doesn't mean we can't describe those states and detect their patterns of change. In fact, the regularity with which science predicts the outcome of these changing states proves that we can understand them. Honestly, I don't see the problem here. I think Chesterton is making up a problem where one doesn't exist.

But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty.

Definite convictions don't imply growth. Children have many definite convictions which turn out to be just plain wrong. The history of our race is littered with discarded "definite convictions." The growth happens in our open-minded attitude towards our deepest, most definite convictions, our willingness to abandon them when they are no longer useful or accurate.

I think it is an over-simplistic claim to say the brain is a machine for coming to conclusions . . . but even accepting this argument, there is nothing stopping us from concluding that everything is in a state of flux and our choice of describing specific states or objects within that flux depends largely upon our own personal context. That's a conclusion, too. And it's one that recognizes our bias, our relativity, our possibility of being wrong, and the natural complexity of nature.

When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

Really? He's going to compare the "thoughts" of turnips to the skepticism of a human being? This isn't an argument. It's childish ridicule. I might as well call you stubborn for holding to your beliefs, and compare you to a donkey who is just as stubborn. Donkeys stick to their beliefs just as strongly as you. There. I've demolished your argument with a belittling, inept comparison. Now I'm a "certified genius," too.

There is nothing vague about a thoroughgoing skepticism. This isn't the absence of thought, or the absence of intelligence. It's the absence of belief. That's it. Belief is the stagnation of questioning. Do turnips question? I didn't think so.

Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed.

No, they become dogmas the instant you declare them indisputable. "Dogma" isn't something you create by criticizing another's beliefs. You create it yourself by how unyielding and unquestioning you hold your belief. What a disingenuous attempt, on Chesterton's part, to put the blame back on the person being critical, rather than the originating person who dogmatically holds the belief to begin with. Remember what I said about childishness? That's Chesteron in a nutshell. He won't even take responsibility for his own dogma, but tries to blame it on others who point it out to him.

[rusmeister]

Now, which dogma do you think I hold? Which position am I unwilling to critically reconsider?

That there is no truth that humans can discover and be sure of, that any conclusion is always subject to being in error; that there is no ultimate Truth that we can know. It is on that basis that you deny everything that Christians have been saying.

I don’t think you’ve thought through what it means for “God to convince you.” I imagine the Creator could appear before us but if He did, in all of His glory and majesty, would He be able to command your love? Surely only quaking, abject terror would be the result. So how would you seriously propose that a God that you would love and not only fear convince you?

Your accusation of Chesterton being guilty of childish ridicule betrays a complete lack of knowledge about the man’s life. There are few men in all of history that could be less guilty of that than he. If you ever read his biography you will discover that even his harshest philosophical adversaries (GB Shaw, HG Wells and many others) had the highest respect for him because he did not descend to childish ridicule of others. (There were certain ways that he was childish – but they were purposeful; not at all the sense you seem to take in ‘childishness’)

It is fine to question things. But the ultimate purpose of a question is to find the answer. You are saying that we cannot find the answer. I am saying that we can.

[Avatar]

Sorry about jumping into these threads in the middle of your conversations, but I must be feeling philosophical today. A while since I've really played in the Close.

Now, which dogma do you think I hold? Which position am I unwilling to critically reconsider?

That there is no truth that humans can discover and be sure of, that any conclusion is always subject to being in error; that there is no ultimate Truth that we can know. It is on that basis that you deny everything that Christians have been saying.

Doesn't that depend on what we mean by "Truth"?

Is it possible for a conclusion to be subject to error? Of course it must be. How do we reduce the possibility of error? With evidence. Anything without evidence must be subject to the possibility of error. Hell, things with evidence may still be in error.

Are there truths that are not subject to the possibility of error? Depends on what we consider to be a truth, surely? 2+2=4 That's a truth. Gravity..it's existence is a truth, but we're still not sure what causes it or something...been all this M-theory stuff about it leaking over from other dimensions or something. Very confusing.

But if we're talking Truth's with the capital T...

But (personally again), I'm not closed to the possibility of it. You just have to prove it to me. I don't deny (strong word) what Christians are saying on the basis of it being impossible to find an ultimate truth, because it may be that such a thing could be found. There might be a god, but personally I find it highly unlikely, and haven't experienced any evidence to the contrary yet.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Rus, you may have noticed from my other thread here that I'm not a nihilist. What you are describing is a nihilist, not a skeptic. I do think there are "truths," otherwise my defense of Nietzsche's criteria of being "true to the earth" would be contradictory.

I know I exist. I know this world is real. If you want to say I'm dogmatic about those, fine. However, I'm still willing to question those two things (even though I think such questioning can only be done within context of the very thing that's being questioned, and thus can only serve to further elucidate something we already know).

I have thought what it would mean for a Creator to convince me. And honestly, I can't think of any evidence that would do the job. Any being who might appear before me could be dismissed as a "higher" alien, merely claiming to be God. So God would certainly have his work cut out for him if he want to convince me. But being omnipotent, I'm sure He could do it if He really tried.

I freely admit I'm ignorant of Chesterton. All I have to go on are your quotes. Despite your high opinion of him, his criticism of people with whom he disagrees as "turnips" is childish. While getting my philosophy degree, I never came across the "you're as dumb as a turnip" defense. (Though, Hume did counter the cosmological argument for the existence of god by saying you might as well consider the universe an onion, rather than an artifact. But his humor was directed at an argument, not a class of people holding a particular point of view.)

It is fine to question things. But the ultimate purpose of a question is to find the answer. You are saying that we cannot find the answer. I am saying that we can.

I'm not sure that the ultimate purpose of questioning is to find the answer. In fact, I think the history of philosophy has been a refinement of our questions (much like Douglas Adams said . . . ). The universe is like a game of Jeopardy. The Answer is already always with us. It is our being. And we are all trying to find the question that this being answers--i.e. the perspective from which this being makes sense.

Skepticism isn't directed at Christianity. It isn't an attack upon religion, per se. It's not really even an attack upon the "truths" people have found. Rather, it's a recognition that the ways in which people approach their Being create the very problems they are trying to solve. Wittgenstein said that most philosophical problems are actually problems of language--we introduce contradictions and misunderstanding in how we talk about philosophical issues. Heidegger said that the question of the meaning of being has been neglected because it is (supposedly) both self-evident and indefinable. While these two aren't traditionally considered "skeptics," both have advocated taking a step back and looking at how we are questioning reality. Our language has connotations and biases built into it.

So questioning isn't always about finding "the answer," but in discovering the correct ways to investigate reality.

I do think we can know the world, and transcend our subjectivity. But that act of transcendence seems to have infinite levels. The paradox of self-reference makes for an infinite regress.

But really, I think we have different questions in mind when we talk about "The Answer." You, I suspect, are looking for an answer to the death, suffering, and loneliness (or incompleteness, finitude) or our existence. And by "Answer" your mean "solution." I'm not looking for a solution to the things I don't like about reality. Your quest is thus different from mine, because I'm not asking how to solve those problems. My questions tend to be more like: "How can I more closely align my awareness with this world?" rather than, "How can I eliminate or diminish those truths about this world I don't like?" Or, "How can I embrace my reality," rather than, "How can I find ways to deny my reality."

Christianity is nihilistic, because it rejects this world as it actually is, and instead invents a world that is "better" in the eyes of those who have rejected this world. The catch: you can only get there when you die. How convenient. Fulfillment, in your view (or "The Answer") isn't to be found in this world. That is the harshest rejection of reality possible. Your position is absolutely more nihilistic than mine.

[rusmeister]

But my dear Malik, you ARE going to die. Then where will all your fine philosophies be?

Oh, and I think there is a definite distinction between calling people turnips(your accusation) and describing it as an end run or logical conclusion of a certain kind of thought (GKC's actual statement).

Christianity is the most positive philosophy in existence and is not at all nihilistic. It merely acknowledges what most evolutionary scientists admit, that the universe is running down, that we do all die and must leave this world. It fiercely condemns suicide and embraces life.