"absurdity" is about right

Originally posted by KellyJay
I really believe there is meaning to this life, and it goes way beyond
the current borders of our existence here too. I did not become a
Christian until I was 25 years old, I’m 49 now. Before I got saved I
had next to no contact with Christianity. My experiences with
Christian pastors were limited to marriages, funerals and a few
minutes of Christi ...[text shortened]... of what is
better between a life that cheats and one that is committed to their
spouse?
Kelly[/b]

Kelly,

Thanks for the very considered reply. It's worthy of more thought than my head can give it right now--especially your last question; and all I can say for the moment is that I think there is a difference in quality of life in those two choices, afterlife or not. My mind is just too tired to get it into words right now.

Algernon may have gotten at it a bit with his reference to "rootlessness." And, as you and I have noted before, we grew up in different circumstances. My growing up and remaining for most of my life in the church always had an oppressiveness about it, but I have been fortunate in discovering that the true alternative to that is not in rootlessness.

Be well, my friend.

For if God does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one. Women would no more have rights than a female goat or chicken have rights. In nature, whatever is, is right. But who can live with such a view?"

Reminds me of first year grad students trying to sort out general equilibrium problems. They are stuck in static thinking. If WLC is going to claim that without God whatever is in nature is right, then the over 100 year push by modernity to give women equal rights is "right." As usual WLC fails to give the problem careful consideration, relying instead on knee-jerk fundamentalism.

I've never understood why fundies think him so clever. Among other academics, he's small beans.

Craig is an idiot. The claim "Without God, whatever is natural is right" is merely a clear statement of the naturalistic fallacy. This guy has no business writing on ethics, evolution, or theology

Originally posted by bbarr
Craig is an idiot. The claim "Without God, whatever is natural is right" is merely a clear statement of the naturalistic fallacy. This guy has no business writing on ethics, evolution, or theology

I suspect the problem is that he actually has a sucessful business writing on ethics, evolution, and theology.

Originally posted by telerion
I suspect the problem is that he actually has a sucessful business writing on ethics, evolution, and theology.

LOL. Yes, that does seem to be the problem.

BTW, I got a chance to read Schopenhauer's "On the Vanity of Existence." He does indeed seem to suggest that the temporality of life makes the present more valuable; in fact, he seems to suggest that only the present is of any value since, unlike the past or future, the present possesses the "advantage of actuality" which makes it something instead of nothing. But Schopenhauer seems to think it is utterly hopeless for man to think that he could actually take advantage of the present since its transitory "unceasing motion" disallows "any possibility of that repose which we continually strive after." He sees life as a meaningless "mistake" marked by the task of having to fend off boredom. Whereas Craig would try to solve such a problem by inventing supernatural beings in order to concoct deeper meaning, Schopenhauer says that it is best to just view life for what it is -- merely a "process of disillusionment."

I haven't read any other essays by Schopenhauer, but there has to be more to his thinking than this; otherwise I see no reason why he would not have committed suicide, but according to Wikipedia, Schopenhauer died of deteriorated health due to natural causes. But I still got a chuckle from one of Camus' remarks: "Schopenhauer is often cited, as a fit subject for laughter, because he praised suicide while seated at a well-set table."

Originally posted by Nordlys
What is the "big chance" you are talking about? I would say that if you have the chance to care about others, that is a big chance you shouldn't miss. It gives both pleasure and meaning in the here and now. Somehow, many Christians make it sound like caring about others would be a nuisance which keeps us from doing fun things like hurting others, a ...[text shortened]... ould you do if you'd lose your faith? Would all your ethical values go together with it?

The "big chance" would depend on the person and what each values
at the moment. Caring for others has its rewards, I'm not attempting
to deny that, even animals seem to care about their own kind, yet
many of them eat others animals, and some even eat their own kind
when they can. That is life in the moment, what the needs are in the
animal world are taken at the time opportunity arises, with people the
same is true of needs, and I’m afraid wants too. As I was saying
before if some are committed to their spouses and others are jumping
around from person to person sexually, does it matter one way or
another except in life?

I do believe you will find it isn't a Christian belief that caring for
others is or better said, can be a nuisance, but rather a purely
human one. I worked in a hospital for 15 years, people do care as
I have already admitted, but how important is that care in the
grand scheme of things? In a world of people whose life is lived
just for the moment, will they live a nonstop denying of one’s
own needs and desires to care for another who can no longer give
something back? Do you think ending the need to care may become
the right thing to do in many eyes? After all suffering in life could
be ended too without to much worry; any life of suffering compared
to no suffering is better how? Can you see the subtle value changes
a society will go through adopting one eternal view over another?

My main point, nothing is of importance except to life, there is no
value anywhere except to life, having something matter only matters
to life. Once life is out of the picture all importance is void, all things
are just things, all events are just events. What or who cares if not
life, and without life meaning isn't found.

As far as lossing my faith is concern, true I don't go after some
things I desire because of my love for my family as well as my
fear and love of God. There are other times where one can have
forces being applied to act one way, or to accept things others want
against what they accept as right or truth as they see it. Acceptance
or caving to pressure would be easier if life is only found in the
moment. Doing what it takes to get ahead, doing what it takes to
get over, doing what it takes to win, becomes a different game played
if one doesn't worry about getting caught or found out. With God
all deeds and words are going to be exposed no matter how well
hidden here, and without God, well OJ is walking free now isn't he?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The "big chance" would depend on the person and what each values
at the moment. Caring for others has its rewards, I'm not attempting
to deny that, even animals seem to care about their own kind, yet
many of them eat others animals, and some even eat their own kind
when they can. That is life in the moment, what the needs are in the
animal world are ...[text shortened]... no matter how well
hidden here, and without God, well OJ is walking free now isn't he?
Kelly

As I was saying before if some are committed to their spouses and others are jumping around from person to person sexually, does it matter one way or another except in life?

If there is no “afterlife” (as I am inclined to think is the case), or at least not one in which there are consequences meted out for what we have done in this life, the short answer is No. However, that does not mean that that it does not matter in this life. At the very least, the consequence of living a shallow, pleasure-grabbing life is a shallow, pleasure-grabbing life—one that is not deep or rich or, for me, fulfilling. The pleasures that are grabbed in such a life seem paltry compared a life of love, companionship, caring intimacy, etc. (which carry their own pleasures).

(An aside: How many Christians have you known that live shallow, frustrated lives with a lot of self-denial and little pleasure? I have known quite a few; they generally are not capable of giving love or joy or pleasure to others either. I am not suggesting that this is in any way fundamental to Christianity or peculiar to Christianity, though it seems more predominant in some Christian groups than others.)

Kelly, I know that you would not trade the life you have now for the old one; the joys you experience now are too rich to trade for the cheap wares that you sought before, whether they were pleasurable at the time or not—and I acknowledge that one of those joys is undoubtedly your religion. I also understand that the “fulcrum” for your change from a shallow and tragic pleasure-grabbing life to the one you enjoy now was your conversion (what you call being saved). It is not my aim to get you to disavow that fulcrum; and you certainly wouldn’t anyway. What I am trying to get at is that that is not the only fulcrum that can cause a person to shift from a shallow, pleasure-grabbing life to a richer, fuller one. Nor is such a fulcrum necessarily religious in nature.

Algernon referred to the insight he gained through Zen as such a fulcrum. Discovering a deep, intimate love with another human being can be such a fulcrum. Some people find such a fulcrum in a reasoned philosophy of living a eudaimonic (joyous, thriving, flourishing) life. Even tragedy can be such a fulcrum. For some of us, such a fulcrum is built of many stones.

For me, without going into detail—and trying to keep with the metaphor—the old fulcrum, including most of its religious aspects, which were not all that different from yours—simply caved in, without my wanting it to, in what I call a “slow catastrophe” beginning about the age of 40. Everything that held my life together—a pretty ordinary life by the everyday standards of our culture—fell apart. I had to find a new way. It has taken a long time. I may well have flipped into a life of quick and easy pleasure-grabbing, but I didn’t; I had help from some wise friends. And my life now, as is yours, is far richer than before—far richer than I could have imagined before, and I am not exaggerating: the limits of the paradigm in which I lived did not allow me to imagine it.

How can I convince someone living what I have called a shallow, pleasure-grabbing life that it is a paltry way of living (not that I don’t think pleasure is an important facet of life)? I don’t know—beyond doing what you do: talk to them about my own life, try to remember the things I learned from wise friends, recommend some reading (depending on where they’re at). No easy or systematic answers for me here.

I don’t want to push that fulcrum metaphor beyond its obvious limitations. As I said, my life changed when the old fulcrum collapsed. Part of my fulcrum-of-many-stones today has to do with a sense of deep harmony with life: my own, others, the natural world, akin to Taoist thought perhaps—in the midst of pain and natural tragedies, like anyone else’s life. That harmony was lacking in my prior life, as it was in yours; though I did not see it. It is a kind of harmony that is sorely lacking in the lives of many—religious and nonreligious—and that lack causes a great deal of discord and tragedy in the world.

In the end, to take the metaphor to its silly conclusion, it’s not so much the fulcrum that counts, but which way it tips you. If it is your belief that the Christian message is the only fulcrum that can tip people into a rich, meaningful, loving, caring life, then we are simply at the point to agree to disagree about that. If you conclude that eternal life is a necessary part of such a fulcrum, then we have to agree to disagree about that too. Fortunately, there seem to be a host of things that I think we do agree on (the blessings of wonderful spouses and coffee, for instance). 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello
yes, we discussed that topic before and, as i recall, vistesd (as is his nature) had a very interesting and engaging post during that discussion which made it pretty clear to me that the lack of "ultimate" meaning to life is nothing for me to lose sleep over. in short, i am not interested in debating that with you: i am willing to concede that if God d ...[text shortened]... ot explain it well because he relies on the Naturalistic Fallacy in his attempts at explanation.

One thing I can see: If god does not exist, then human life
is that much MORE precious, being the only somewhat intelligent
life for light years around at least. We therefore represent for better
or worse a beacon living on one of the true jewels of this part of the
Milky Way, namely, Earth. I would be quite happy to know there was
no god. I would be content to be totally responsible for my own
existance, happy in the thought that we are all that is in this neck
of the galaxy anyway and the sooner the human race realizes that
the sooner maybe they will wake up from millennia of delusion
that big brother will fix everything if we only BELIEVE hard enough.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One thing I can see: If god does not exist, then human life
is that much MORE precious, being the only somewhat intelligent
life for light years around at least. We therefore represent for better
or worse a beacon living on one of the true jewels of this part of the
Milky Way, namely, Earth. I would be quite happy to know there was
no god. I would be c ...[text shortened]... from millennia of delusion
that big brother will fix everything if we only BELIEVE hard enough.

Some other mammals should be considered somewhat intelligent as well. Really there is a spectrum in this trait.

Go back 12,000 years ago and while we are still clearly more intelligent our advantage is not so grossly apparent as it is today. We have had some advantages that allowed exponential growth in knowledge.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One thing I can see: If god does not exist, then human life
is that much MORE precious, being the only somewhat intelligent
life for light years around at least. We therefore represent for better
or worse a beacon living on one of the true jewels of this part of the
Milky Way, namely, Earth. I would be quite happy to know there was
no god. I would be c ...[text shortened]... from millennia of delusion
that big brother will fix everything if we only BELIEVE hard enough.

I'm not sure how you can say this, "If god does not exist, then
human life is that much MORE precious, being the only somewhat
intelligent life for light years around at least." My only point is
that nothing is precious except where life is involved! Without
God our lives are only precious to us, and then only as long as
we are alive and possibly remembered. If we have made a lasting
mark within mankind either by some invention or written work
our imprint will last but that too will not stop our lives from
becoming either forgotten or obscure over time.

With God who is the author of life according to scriptures, our
lives will be changed into an incorruptible form after our deaths
here. We are loved by ‘Life’ itself God, with an everlasting love
and nothing about us will become obscure or forgotten, except
those that remain lost to the source of life. So how is a life that
is going to flow into nothing, more precious than one that is never
going to fade away? Flowers are pretty, but they die and that is
that, they are cast in the trash or thrown away somewhere. Only
in life does it matter, only to life does it matter.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]As I was saying before if some are committed to their spouses and others are jumping around from person to person sexually, does it matter one way or another except in life?

If there is no “afterlife” (as I am inclined to think is the case), or at least not one in which there are consequences meted out for what we have done in this life, the short ...[text shortened]... s that I think we do agree on (the blessings of wonderful spouses and coffee, for instance). 🙂[/b]

I have to take some time with this, and I plan too.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]As I was saying before if some are committed to their spouses and others are jumping around from person to person sexually, does it matter one way or another except in life?

If there is no “afterlife” (as I am inclined to think is the case), or at least not one in which there are consequences meted out for what we have done in this life, the short ...[text shortened]... s that I think we do agree on (the blessings of wonderful spouses and coffee, for instance). 🙂[/b]

There is a lot to talk about, I'll just start here and come back to
the rest later.

If there is no “afterlife” (as I am inclined to think is the case), or at least not one in which there are consequences meted out for what we have done in this life, the short answer is No. However, that does not mean that that it does not matter in this life. At the very least, the consequence of living a shallow, pleasure-grabbing life is a shallow, pleasure-grabbing life—one that is not deep or rich or, for me, fulfilling. The pleasures that are grabbed in such a life seem paltry compared a life of love, companionship, caring intimacy, etc. (which carry their own pleasures).

I’m not sure I can agree with you here if there is no after life; what
is the difference between what we both agree is a shallow, pleasure-
grabbing life, or one that we would both agree is deep, rich, fulfilling
on some other level than immediate satisfaction. Outside of our
agreement, they both end in the same way, they both fill the person
who is choosing the lifestyle that suits their personal preferences, who
are we to call someone who lives their life of pleasure sallow if they all
end up the same way we do in the end? What does it matter if you’re
fulfilled in learning and caring for people and another chooses to
sleep around whenever they get a chance, and even taking advantage
when possible? If the end of both is the same, the beginning of both
is the same, satisfaction is found in both just in different ways, and
with a little less restraint on one, but that again a choice of paths.

Do you think there are really good paths in life, and bad ones if the
end is the same for both, as in nothing?
Kelly

"the end is the same for both, as in nothing?"

What is wrong with doing the right thing to achieve a sense of satisfaction within this life?

Surely this is better than doing the right thing to ensure eternity in heaven thereafter; i.e. self interest? This path leads to smug complacency such as RBHill's attitude.

Originally posted by howardgee
"the end is the same for both, as in nothing?"

What is wrong with doing the right thing to achieve a sense of satisfaction within this life?

Surely this is better than doing the right thing to ensure eternity in heaven thereafter; i.e. self interest? This path leads to smug complacency such as RBHill's attitude.

What is a right thing if they both get you the same thing, nothing
in the end?

Your right thing lasts only in life, this life, again as I said, only in life
does any of this matter. What is it do you have that gives you the
ability to call something right or wrong, you after all are only a small
tiny blip in time speck of life, with no more importance then the
next blip sitting next to you. If you are right about there being
nothing after this life time we are in that is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is a lot to talk about, I'll just start here and come back to
the rest later.

[b]If there is no “afterlife” (as I am inclined to think is the case), or at least not one in which there are consequences meted out for what we have done in this life, the short answer is No. However, that does not mean that that it does not matter in this life. At the ...[text shortened]... really good paths in life, and bad ones if the
end is the same for both, as in nothing?
Kelly

Do you think there are really good paths in life, and bad ones if the end is the same for both, as in nothing?

[/b]I’m inclined to think so, yes. But you’re right, in that in my post I put it on a purely personal level. So…let me grapple with it some more. (Part of the problem is that I don’t yet have a clearly-defined general moral philosophy; though there are clearly several out there that others have articulated in these threads.)