Thread: Meaning Of Life Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026676
Posted by Frank Mitchell (# 17946) on :
 
Long ago I read Dale Carnegie's famous "How To Win Friends And Influence People". His main advice was to see things from the other guy's point of view, which could be a valuable intellectual method too. Later I joined The Samaritans, and found myself empathizing with all sorts of problems. This gave me a different perspective on the circumstances which make life meaningful, or meaningless. I decided the whole Meaning Of Life thing becomes a Non-Issue if you just consider it from the angle of other people. It's a additional reason to Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself. Plus it seemed that the people with big Meaning Of Life problems were the characters who saw themselves as somehow in a class apart, with everybody else beneath their consideration. Does this ring any bells?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Long ago I read Dale Carnegie's famous "How To Win Friends And Influence People". His main advice was to see things from the other guy's point of view, which could be a valuable intellectual method too. Later I joined The Samaritans, and found myself empathizing with all sorts of problems. This gave me a different perspective on the circumstances which make life meaningful, or meaningless. I decided the whole Meaning Of Life thing becomes a Non-Issue if you just consider it from the angle of other people. It's a additional reason to Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself. Plus it seemed that the people with big Meaning Of Life problems were the characters who saw themselves as somehow in a class apart, with everybody else beneath their consideration. Does this ring any bells?
To be honest, it doesn’t with me, but then I’ve never moved in such rarefied company.

I’ve never really pondered The Meaning of Life, other than via Monty Python and “42”.

I’m not even sure that there is such a meaning. I mean, the only “meaning” that evolution imposes is survival and ensuring your DNA is passed on to another generation. After that it’s just a cheese and pickle sandwich and catching up with Celebrity Big Brother.

But that’s me as a Universalist Christian, who believes everyone, whether they like it or not, is going to end up in Heaven, drawn to God. So there doesn’t have to be much meaning in this earthly life other than survival and procreation.

Although my new valve guitar amp is pretty cool and I do enjoy playing a bit of Quo through it at a wife-and-daughter-annoying volume. But I don’t think that’s the sort of “Meaning of Life” you mean.

(Is it just me or are big, long thick blocks of text incredibly off-putting, and require real effort to wade through? We seem to have a few people who do that these days.)

[ 08. January 2014, 14:19: Message edited by: deano ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Plus it seemed that the people with big Meaning Of Life problems were the characters who saw themselves as somehow in a class apart, with everybody else beneath their consideration. Does this ring any bells?
Not trying to be rude in any way, but this seems to be a massive generalisation, limited exposure or a failure to see things through other people's eyes. IME, some question the MOL because of other's suffering.
I see this in Christians quite often.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
I’m not even sure that there is such a meaning. I mean, the only “meaning” that evolution imposes is survival and ensuring your DNA is passed on to another generation. After that it’s just a cheese and pickle sandwich and catching up with Celebrity Big Brother.

But that’s me as a Universalist Christian, who believes everyone, whether they like it or not, is going to end up in Heaven, drawn to God. So there doesn’t have to be much meaning in this earthly life other than survival and procreation.
Good grief! that's the best argument against universalism I've seen.

Presumably you believe in the saying of the Heine that off course God will forgive (whatever evil I choose to perpetuate -- that's not Heine) because that's his job. A sort of celestial doormat.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I'm rather with deano on this one (cut that out and frame it: it's unlikely to occur again) in that I don't see meaning beyond the conscious experience of existence.

Where I differ is in not expecting some big cosmic party at the end. It'll just be chaos and old night. Again.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Are we talking about meaning, or about fulfillment? Because I don't see that those are the same thing at all. Fulfillment is you having a purpose; meaning is the universe having a purpose. Helping others, doing good in the world, creating a legacy of something for after you've gone - all of these can be fulfilling. Do they give life meaning? I don't know, because ISTM that for life to have an overriding meaning you need a framework of understanding that goes far beyond you as an individual.

Many people - including most atheists, I'd imagine - don't see that kind of overriding meaning in life, but can find fulfillment nonetheless. It's also possible to have an understanding of what you think the meaning of life is but to be unfulfilled and pretty miserable with it. I'd say in terms of psychological wellbeing fulfillment is probably the more important element. That said there's a chicken and egg scenario between our mood and our outlook, so that complicates matters further.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Plus it seemed that the people with big Meaning Of Life problems were the characters who saw themselves as somehow in a class apart, with everybody else beneath their consideration.
Were those with 'Meaning Of Life problems' ones who
I'm in the first group though it isn't a problem for me.

Sometimes people who believe they have found The Meaning of Life can be a pain because they want to persuade you they have found it and you should share it (or they want to persuade you there isn't a meaning). But then we're all a pain to someone.

And, to be consistent, my advice to those looking for a Meaning is the Buddha's "Be a light unto yourself".

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Where I differ is in not expecting some big cosmic party at the end. It'll just be chaos and old night.
Henry Sidgewick (a founder of the Society for Psychical Research) claimed via posthumous messages in seances, that the after-life was like being in the Senior Common Room of an Oxford college. Not sure if that's good or bad - depends on the vintage of the port I'm told. He also admitted it was just as puzzling and confusing as this life.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
So why do you have Descartes' face and Rabelais' sig?
 
Posted by Frank Mitchell (# 17946) on :
 
What I meant was, that if you get an intimate look inside other people's situation, you get a different angle on the issues which are meaningful or meaningless to you. The different angle means you're not trapped inside your own problems any more. Your issues become alot clearer, at least on an emotional level. And the Samaritans got a really intimate look. But they didn't all benefit, because some were Middle-Class snobs, who regarded the "Clients" as inadequate characters whose problems were caused by their inferior genetic inheritance.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
And the Samaritans got a really intimate look. But they didn't all benefit, because some were Middle-Class snobs, who regarded the "Clients" as inadequate characters whose problems were caused by their inferior genetic inheritance.
Accusations against your former co-volunteers we are unable to verify. Is it your object in this thread merely to bolster what you consider your insights?
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So why do you have Descartes' face and Rabelais' sig?
We might ask why you don't have St Clint's face. And did he ever speak Latin?
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
And the Samaritans got a really intimate look. But they didn't all benefit, because some were Middle-Class snobs, who regarded the "Clients" as inadequate characters whose problems were caused by their inferior genetic inheritance.
Accusations against your former co-volunteers we are unable to verify. Is it your object in this thread merely to bolster what you consider your insights?
I note that Frank comes from Cheshire, no doubt some of his co-volunteers came from "... the Forest of Wirral. Few or none lived there whom God could love, or a good-hearted man" (Gawain and the Green Knight).

The Wirral was deforested in the reign of Edward III because of the villains and outlaws living in it. Maybe some came back later. Also footballers.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Personally, I break out in hives when I hear the phrase "Meaning of Life." Most of the people I work for and with are pretty fully occupied trying to keep themselves fed, clothed, sheltered and free of institutional interference (the looney-bin for my clients, and the welfare system for my staff).

I always suspect people with "MOL" issue simply have too much time on their hands, insufficient funds to go to a movie, and literacy skills not up to the job of reading decent novels.

[ 08. January 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: Porridge ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It was the preserve, during the 1970s, of well-off, middle class students to take a gap year mid-course, to go off and 'find themselves'. Whether any did, I'm not quite sure.
 
Posted by Frank Mitchell (# 17946) on :
 
I was referring to a particular Samaritan branch in Leicester back in the 1970s. Branches differ, and things may have changed. But some volunteers really did have that attitude towards disadvantaged people. In fairness, they did get some antisocial contacts, including a steady supply of Obscene Phone Callers.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I'm quite surprised how many seem averse to the idea of the meaning of life. I can see that when people look for it, they betray that life is somehow not satisfying. I don't know many who seek the meaning of drinking a cool pint of lager on a beautiful summers day. So perhaps many, when they talk about the meaning of life are thinking more of the pay-off, given that they find life unsatisfying.

Bit still, if we started receiving signals from space which we suspected were sent by an intelligent force, or at the very least looked nothing like random noise, then people would think it quite natural to look for meaning.

If you find no reason to suspect that reality as we know it is not just random , then fine - but I don't. I suspect an intelligence behind it and so think it reasonable to look for meaning.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Ok. So you met some individuals about 40 years ago in a very specific locale whose attitudes towards the client group struck you as insufficiently egalitarian/empathetic. Have we had similar experiences, you ask.

I would say that in my experience, if you have a public facing role (and that has been the case for virtually all of my working life) you will periodically find that public irritating, stupid, belligerent, unreasonable and generally madder than a box of frogs. As a professional, you will nevertheless continue to offer them the information, instruction or advice encumbent upon for the position you occupy. Your post-call debriefing with your colleagues may be somewhat colourful and derogatory. But that is fine, because it is a necessary de-stressing mechanism which enables you to be polite, patient and reasonable the next time the phone rings.

My surmise is that this may have been the dynamic you observed.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Asking about the meaning of life assumes that "life" -- whatever that is -- has some sort of generally recognizable significance which could be labeled and acknowledged.

For those who subscribe to the notion that life has a supernatural creator, the "meaning of life" question surely is more precisely put as "For what purpose has my creator designed me?" IOW, what am I meant to be getting on with?

For those who, like me, suspect that human beings are one of many inevitable outcomes of some combination of circumstances, luck, and natural processes, surely it's the job of each individual to assign him- or herself some way (small or large) of contributing to humanity's general welfare, once one has managed the job of self-care.

As most of my clients are only marginally managing self-care, they contribute to the rest of us by offering their families and caregivers a sense of purpose in assisting them and learning what we can from the process about how we can help each other live as effectively as we are able to.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
For those who, like me, suspect that human beings are one of many inevitable outcomes of some combination of circumstances, luck, and natural processes, surely it's the job of each individual to assign him- or herself some way (small or large) of contributing to humanity's general welfare, once one has managed the job of self-care.
How does someone go about doing this?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Doesn't Maslow factor in somewhere?

When life is a struggle to meet basic needs, its meaning is found in that struggle. "Self-actualisation" requires freedom from more basic anxieties. Maybe it is the province of the comfortable?

Most religious meaning seems to be associated with the experience of inequity in the struggle to survive. Gods were propitiated to stave off lousy harvests. The social challenge, the unevenness of pecking orders, gave rise to issues of fairness and distribution. Disease, natural disasters, wild animals, marauding other tribes, all brought a kind of random risk factor into survival. Propitiation again. Maybe we could find a God who was better than "their" God to give us an edge? Needing to have an edge then moved from a survival need to a more competitive prospering need. Maybe there was karma in there somewhere? If we screwed other people, there would be a reckoning somehow?

So we move up the hierarchy of needs while we scramble up the greasy competitive pole through survival and relative comfort.

Something like that anyway.

The faith in which I believe seems to me to transcend all of that, turn it on its head. Says that if you want to keep your life that way, you will lose it, whereas if you are prepared to live a life for others you will find the meaning you seek. Which is why it, and other faiths containing similar transcendent ethics emerged when the majority of people were struggling with basic survival.

I suppose in evolutionary terms, we represent the socially co-operative element rather than the pecking order competitive element. I think there is a lot more to it than that, but then I would, wouldn't I?

[ 08. January 2014, 23:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
deano:
quote:
I’ve never really pondered The Meaning of Life, other than via Monty Python and “42”.
Would it be any easier to move one step along the alphabet and contemplate The Meaning of Liff ?

Admittedly there are more than 42 parts to this.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
For those who, like me, suspect that human beings are one of many inevitable outcomes of some combination of circumstances, luck, and natural processes, surely it's the job of each individual to assign him- or herself some way (small or large) of contributing to humanity's general welfare, once one has managed the job of self-care.
How does someone go about doing this?
Help somebody else get a little further up the hierarchy than they currently are, assuming you've managed to get some distance up it yourself?
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
... it's the job of each individual to assign him- or herself some way (small or large) of contributing to humanity's general welfare, once one has managed the job of self-care.
How does someone go about doing this?
Make a small positive difference to someone, smile at a neighbour, do a bit more for a client, resist the impulse to get cross with a call centre employee for something they have no control over, say "Thank You" more. Don't expect to change the world, or even to be thanked. Don't give up.

Don't be embarrassed at feeling a bit better about your self. You may worry that it's all just an ego trip but perhaps you have done some good anyway. Don't worry that you aren't doing much - better to light a candle etc

Later on you can worry about "humanity" - if you have the time.

Don't stop.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
For those who subscribe to the notion that life has a supernatural creator, the "meaning of life" question surely is more precisely put as "For what purpose has my creator designed me?" IOW, what am I meant to be getting on with?

For those who, like me, suspect that human beings are one of many inevitable outcomes of some combination of circumstances, luck, and natural processes, surely it's the job of each individual to assign him- or herself some way (small or large) of contributing to humanity's general welfare, once one has managed the job of self-care.
With repsect, I reject your premise.

I believe that circutstances, luck and natural processes were all created by God, just as much as atoms, rocks, stars or whatever other accretions and combinations of matter have evolved since God created them goodness knows how many of how few Big Bangs ago, or if you believe String Theory, when He created the Strings that resonate back and forth bringing universes into being.

As a practicing member of the Church of England, I say the Nicene Creed regulary, and these lines from first part is the part always resonate most powerfully with me...

quote:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
To me, everything we see around us, all of the matter and energy we see, from the further magnification on an electron microscope, right to the outermost reaches visible by the Hubble telescope, all come under the heading of "The 'Seen' bits Made by God".

But those other aspects you mention, the "circumstances", luch and natural processes, are the UNSEEN parts that are mentioned.

God created our universe with the right value for the Plank constant, and also created the processes of evolution and quantum processes.

Processes are concepts. They are "unseen", they are abstract. The results are not of course. The results of evolution are all around us and from those results we have been able to reverse engineer what the process is.

"Luck" is a process as well I suppose. God created luck, both good and bad, and we fall beneficiary or victim of it just as we do any other process. It goes with the territory.

So as a Christian I don't have to look for any meaning implicit in life. Life just is. It isn't till we die that the meaning becomes clear.

In this life we make the best of it, and of course the best of what our earthly lives can be is laid down in many places, not least The Bible.

Christ was God made man and He tried to show us how we can make this earthly life (because it was, and is, nasty, brutal and short) better. But He also tought that the BEST, the absolute standard of BEST is still to come. "Better" is relatively better than what we have.

But as humans who have evolved sticking to this messy, rocky body drifting in space, we don't have the ability to understand or imagine what the BEST is. So we were given "better", but still have a really hard time implementing it.

Of course not all think the same way as I do, but please don't imagine that belief in God somehow mandates that we have to look for "Meaning". We don't.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
With repsect, I reject your premise.

. . .

Of course not all think the same way as I do, but please don't imagine that belief in God somehow mandates that we have to look for "Meaning". We don't.
Surely directing one's actions in conformity with a belief system (which is what religions generally ask their adherents to aspire to), er, means that one is functionally in pursuit of meaning for one's life?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
With repsect, I reject your premise.

. . .

Of course not all think the same way as I do, but please don't imagine that belief in God somehow mandates that we have to look for "Meaning". We don't.
Surely directing one's actions in conformity with a belief system (which is what religions generally ask their adherents to aspire to), er, means that one is functionally in pursuit of meaning for one's life?
No. Not to me it doesn't.

Just because I follow a set of ideas which guide me in my Christian faith (you call it a belief system), doesn't mean they have to "give meaning" to my life. They give a direction, they give guidance and sometimes they give me pause for thought. They show me what the right path is, but I don't always follow it. But "meaning". No.

My life's "function" is to try to raise my kids to be good citizens of the world, to encourage them to be the best they can be, to help in that, to provide for my family, and in the small amount of time in between all that, read a few books, play my guitar and sing along to cheesy old 70's country songs, and watch a bit of football when it comes on the telly.

I'm happy. I could be happier. I wish that the world was better, and I try to do my bit through Church to do that. But if you can find "meaning" in that then you are better than me.

I'm not even sure what "The Meaning of Life" means in and of itself! Isn't it begging the question, in that if someone asks, "what is the meaning of life?", aren't they assuming that life has meaning? I don't think it has to.

I think we could all do a better job of LIVING this life, rather than trying to find a MEANING in it, that probably isn't there.

[ 09. January 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: deano ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Christ was God made man
Was? Is. The divine nature is forever linked to our human nature that he took up at his ascension.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
[Deano

Your last two posts read with interest. But I just have to ask - if you believe that the whole of the universe from the farthest particle to the nearest was created by God, where do you envisage him/her/it to be and how big is he/s/he/it?!

You have probably explained this in other threads over the years, but I'm afraid I've long forgotten. [Smile]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...if you believe that the whole of the universe from the farthest particle to the nearest was created by God, where do you envisage him/her/it to be...
If you believe that the whole of War and Peace from page 1 to page 1472 was written by Leo Tolstoy, which page do you think the author is on?
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
The problem in defining the Meaning of Life is simply solved by changing "the" to "a". Everyone probably has an answer to the basic question of What am I here for? And there can be as many answers as there are people.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[Deano

Your last two posts read with interest. But I just have to ask - if you believe that the whole of the universe from the farthest particle to the nearest was created by God, where do you envisage him/her/it to be and how big is he/s/he/it?!

You have probably explained this in other threads over the years, but I'm afraid I've long forgotten. [Smile]
As Ken aluded to, God being the creator of the universe is of course outside of the universe. How big is God? No idea, but I believe the size of a creator isn’t linked to his creation. JK Rowling is about 5 foot taller than her books if you stack them on top of each other, and at the other end of the scale Sir Christopher Wren was a titch compared to St. Pauls Cathedral.

God is the Creator. God made the Heavens and the Earth (or as we call it today, the Universe), and all things seen (matter, stuff, whatever we glimpse through microscopes or telescopes) and unseen (processes, abstract concepts, things we have to work out by looking at the results of, and other stuff like that which philosophers and great scientists come up with).
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
... I believe the size of a creator isn’t linked to his creation. JK Rowling is about 5 foot taller than her books if you stack them on top of each other, and at the other end of the scale Sir Christopher Wren was a titch compared to St. Pauls Cathedral.

God is the Creator. God made the Heavens and the Earth (or as we call it today, the Universe), and all things seen (matter, stuff, whatever we glimpse through microscopes or telescopes) and unseen (processes, abstract concepts, things we have to work out by looking at the results of, and other stuff like that which philosophers and great scientists come up with).
[Overused]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

But that’s me as a Universalist Christian, who believes everyone, whether they like it or not, is going to end up in Heaven, drawn to God.
Even socialists? [Biased] [Razz]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

But that’s me as a Universalist Christian, who believes everyone, whether they like it or not, is going to end up in Heaven, drawn to God.
Even socialists? [Biased] [Razz]
Oooh! No, not them of course. I mean there is a limit!
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not even sure what "The Meaning of Life" means in and of itself! Isn't it begging the question, in that if someone asks, "what is the meaning of life?", aren't they assuming that life has meaning? I don't think it has to.
As to thinking that life does not have meaning I agree with you and, apparently, we both disagree with Nicky Gumbel (who, for all I know may also be in the habit of reciting the Nicene Creed).

quote:
As Ken aluded to, God being the creator of the universe is of course outside of the universe
here, if I don't agree - it is after all an untestable hypothesis - I certainly can't disprove it. What I don't see, despite having been taught it relentlessly, is that God is in any way inside the universe. Again it's only an hypothesis but it would explain the lack of evidence for God's existence wouldn't it?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
...it would explain the lack of evidence for God's existence...
The lack of direct empirical (i.e. observational, from which no causal inferences can be made) evidence, don't you mean?

Let's not have any epistemological question begging.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I like the book of Ecclesiastes, which begins by saying that life is meaningless and ends with the message that our purpose is to fear God and keep his commandments.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
...it would explain the lack of evidence for God's existence...
The lack of direct empirical (i.e. observational, from which no causal inferences can be made) evidence, don't you mean?

Let's not have any epistemological question begging.
evidence

Pronunciation: /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
....
noun
[mass noun]
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

As regards Christianity

When you're inside the Christian bubble there seems to be a lot of such facts and information - when you're outside there's none, really - none. There's wishful thinking, there's selective consideration, there's confirmation bias, there's ignorance, there's faith.... but none of it points to, and only to, a deity, let alone any particular flavour of deity.

It's like arguing that there's no evidence that a God created the universe. When I was in the bubble I replied - "Who do you think did create it then?". Now I think the proper question is "What evidence do you have that the universe was created?" Exiting faith, for me, took me back to basics - and the basics don't seem to me to support the concept of god(s)/supernaturality.

‘To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason.’ Martin Luther allegedly - some of us are unable to do so. Of course, there's a possibility that I'm wrong, just as there may be fairies at the bottom of our garden. Anyone who thinks they have irrefutable evidence can PM me - I'll read and respond but I really can't do faith - not again.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:


As regards Christianity

When you're inside the Christian bubble there seems to be a lot of such facts and information - when you're outside there's none, really - none. There's wishful thinking, there's selective consideration, there's confirmation bias, there's ignorance, there's faith.... but none of it points to, and only to, a deity, let alone any particular flavour of deity.
I agree that if you're looking for logical, rational, scientifically valid, objective, etc. etc. proof for the 'meaning of life' in Christianity it's not going to happen.

But people witness or experience lives being changed and/or challenged, peace of mind, a sense of purpose, a spiritual experience that needs physical expression, theological arguments that appeal to their own intellectual inclinations ..... These things are sufficient as personal, subjective forms of evidence, but obviously won't appeal to those who place scientific standards as their only priority.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
HughWillRidmee: There's wishful thinking, there's selective consideration, there's confirmation bias, there's ignorance, there's faith.... but none of it points to, and only to, a deity, let alone any particular flavour of deity.
The last one does.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
evidence

Pronunciation: /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

....

noun

[mass noun]

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
I don't see any definition here which limits evidence to direct observational data, from which one must not make any causal inferences.

The rest of your post, including your definition of faith (along with Luther's opinion about reason) is irrational.

I don't do the (erroneous) irrational version of faith, and that is why I reject the philosophy of naturalism. In fact, naturalism is self-refuting anyway. What stronger evidence could there possibly be against a particular truth claim than self-refutation?

Only a perfect and infinite mind can explain the objective validity of reason, without which knowledge is impossible. Naturalism cannot even explain reason itself, and is therefore based on your idea of 'faith'.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Only a perfect and infinite mind can explain the objective validity of reason, without which knowledge is impossible.
So since I believe knowledge (in the sense of 'true justified belief') to be impossible (though of course my belief may be wrong) it is perfectly possible for me to not believe there is a perfect and infinite mind.

I'm not saying lots of things don't seem to keep happening but I've never been convinced there's any reason why they should continue to do so.

It sort of works mostly, but often doesn't.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Only a perfect and infinite mind can explain the objective validity of reason, without which knowledge is impossible.
So since I believe knowledge (in the sense of 'true justified belief') to be impossible (though of course my belief may be wrong) it is perfectly possible for me to not believe there is a perfect and infinite mind.

I'm not saying lots of things don't seem to keep happening but I've never been convinced there's any reason why they should continue to do so.

It sort of works mostly, but often doesn't.
That's very like Hume. Although he did make a sort of joke about it, that although an ultra-skeptic, he did leave rooms by the door not the windows. Don't give up the day job, David.

I sort of agree. The older I get, the less I believe, and the less I know. Beliefs seem exhausting to me now, too much effort.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But people witness or experience lives being changed and/or challenged, peace of mind, a sense of purpose, a spiritual experience that needs physical expression, theological arguments that appeal to their own intellectual inclinations ..... These things are sufficient as personal, subjective forms of evidence, but obviously won't appeal to those who place scientific standards as their only priority.
I don’t doubt that lives change, I’ve seen it happen, but lives change all the time and in many different situations - not all religious. If someone’s behaviour changes after they convert to a religion which offers them forgiveness for a lifestyle they wish to leave it doesn’t prove the validity of the religion – be it Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Scientology...... It merely demonstrates that, at least temporarily, that person has adopted a different lifestyle – possible explanations might include fear (say, of hell), escape from guilt, social acceptance or even a pair of blue eyes in a pretty face (seen it).

By the same token does the failure of many Christians to live without peace of mind, who are anti-social, who cheat and defraud both in financial matters and in personal relationships constitute evidence for the non-existence of god? One of the reasons I started to question my faith was because of the many Christians I knew who talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things – so far as I can see belief doesn’t seem to be relevant.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: There's wishful thinking, there's selective consideration, there's confirmation bias, there's ignorance, there's faith.... but none of it points to, and only to, a deity, let alone any particular flavour of deity.
The last one does.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your comment. Having faith in a deity does not, IMO, point to the existence of a deity – it merely points to the existence of faith. Over the centuries many people have enjoyed total faith that the end of the world was nigh, even to selling all their possessions etc..
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't do the (erroneous) irrational version of faith and that is why I reject the philosophy of naturalism. In fact, naturalism is self-refuting anyway.
Watched it – like most people who argue against evolution the arguer misunderstands the scientific theory of evolution and the nature of evidence as utilised by the scientific method to direct exploration. Quick five points, paraphrased because it really isn’t worth watching again

1 – He repeatedly asserts that evolution means we only employ traits beneficial to the survival of the species and discard all others - most variation is neutral and may persist without positively or negatively affecting survival (though a future variation may work with it to good or harm).

2 – Seeing what helps the species survive is presented, without any attempt at justification, as being incompatible with seeing what is. That is silly, why can’t what we see be both. Since this seems to be the core of the argument the argument falls here.

3 – He claims that his argument, whilst not proving the existence of an intelligent designer*, is evidence for such a being. He misunderstands the difference between a) evidence for and b) a statement which, if true, could (and only could) permit the existence of his preferred solution, albeit alongside others. In fact, were his reasoning correct his argument would merely allow for an intelligent designer to be one of as many imaginary solutions as can be thought of.

4 – Using Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and C S Lewis (d.1963) as authorities on modern evolutionary theory indicates an attempt to bolster a weak argument with a spurious appeal to authority. He clearly doesn’t understand either that science is a self-critical and, where appropriate, self-adjusting discipline, or that evolutionary theory has been much refined by evidence-based techniques they would not have known (DNA, dating through decay – Darwin didn’t even know of Gregor Mendel’s work).

*Some intelligence – ask me about sinuses or the epiglottis; the laryngeal nerve or the vas deferens. Even better ask me about koalas – I love being asked about koalas. And whilst you’re about it - explain to me how siting the sewage outflow next to the pleasure gardens demonstrates intelligence.

quote:
Only a perfect and infinite mind can explain the objective validity of reason, without which knowledge is impossible. Naturalism cannot even explain reason itself, and is therefore based on your idea of 'faith'.
So people who claim knowledge of the existence of god(s) (any and every) are either mistaken, lying or possess a perfect and infinite mind – do we need to trouble William of Ockham?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But people witness or experience lives being changed and/or challenged, peace of mind, a sense of purpose, a spiritual experience that needs physical expression, theological arguments that appeal to their own intellectual inclinations ..... These things are sufficient as personal, subjective forms of evidence, but obviously won't appeal to those who place scientific standards as their only priority.
I don’t doubt that lives change, I’ve seen it happen, but lives change all the time and in many different situations - not all religious. If someone’s behaviour changes after they convert to a religion which offers them forgiveness for a lifestyle they wish to leave it doesn’t prove the validity of the religion – be it Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Scientology...... It merely demonstrates that, at least temporarily, that person has adopted a different lifestyle – possible explanations might include fear (say, of hell), escape from guilt, social acceptance or even a pair of blue eyes in a pretty face (seen it).

By the same token does the failure of many Christians to live without peace of mind, who are anti-social, who cheat and defraud both in financial matters and in personal relationships constitute evidence for the non-existence of god? One of the reasons I started to question my faith was because of the many Christians I knew who talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things – so far as I can see belief doesn’t seem to be relevant.
As I say, people use personal experience as their guide. Perhaps if you'd been deeply influenced by Christians who'd walked the walk as well as talking the talk your personal choice might have been different. But in your case, the influence of those who didn't practise what they preached was greater.

The Bible itself makes reference to people who don't practise what they preach and to those who practise what they don't preach. It also indicates that God uses all kinds of ways and means to see his wishes fulfilled - and also that bad influences have a nefarious effect. None of this proves God's existence; all it does is indicate that the people who wrote the Bible reflected on the same issues that you have, yet for them, faith was still possible.

At the end of the day, we can only do as we see best.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Perhaps if you'd been deeply influenced by Christians who'd walked the walk as well as talking the talk your personal choice might have been different. ....
You may be right, since such decisions appear to be made unconsciously based on our unique mix of nature and nurture perhaps more influence from "the right sort of Christians" (True Scotsmen perhaps?) would have altered my thoughts.

a) I hope they wouldn't have done so and

b) What that would mean that is that if those influences had been wrong about the existence of god etc. then I would also be wrong about such matters and worse, be unlikely (unable?) to reason out that I was wrong.

On the other hand - I suspect that, perhaps because it happened so much when I was young, I really dislike people trying to influence me and react against it - so perhaps more would simply have resulted in less.

For clarity - I've known many good people who were Christians who walked-the walk, but ISTM it was, excluding the God bit, the same walk that good, non-Christian people also walk.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
HughWillRidmee: Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your comment. Having faith in a deity does not, IMO, point to the existence of a deity – it merely points to the existence of faith. Over the centuries many people have enjoyed total faith that the end of the world was nigh, even to selling all their possessions etc..
True, there are many false faiths (and mine might very well be one). But that doesn't take away that my faith points toward a deity.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
With repsect, I reject your premise.

. . .

Of course not all think the same way as I do, but please don't imagine that belief in God somehow mandates that we have to look for "Meaning". We don't.
Surely directing one's actions in conformity with a belief system (which is what religions generally ask their adherents to aspire to), er, means that one is functionally in pursuit of meaning for one's life?
Or creating meaning. Or simply trying to live well, even though you haven't got a clue what's going on.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
The problem in defining the Meaning of Life is simply solved by changing "the" to "a". Everyone probably has an answer to the basic question of What am I here for? And there can be as many answers as there are people.
That's right. It is still an important question.

I loved the OP. It gets at the reality, I think. [Angel]

The New Church has a particular answer to the question that I have always found satisfying. Its premise is the idea that God is love, with three points about what love does: The purpose of creation, then, is for there to be something that God can love, that He can make happy, and that can freely love Him in return and therefore be joined with Him.

This happens when humanity lives in mutual love and service of their own free will. Service then becomes the cause of happiness.

This definition gives meaning and purpose to everyone's life, and meaning and purpose to creation itself.

I think that this is basically what Frank was saying in the OP. [Overused]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God is love, with three points about what love does:
The purpose of creation, then, is for there to be something that God can love, that He can make happy, and that can freely love Him in return and therefore be joined with Him.

This happens when humanity lives in mutual love and service of their own free will. Service then becomes the cause of happiness.

This definition gives meaning and purpose to everyone's life, and meaning and purpose to creation itself.
Yes.

I think these things bring meaning and fulfillment together. Not easy to do 'tho, as it means letting go of some of our animal-given-natural selfishness.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But that doesn't take away that my faith points toward a deity.
It points towards your belief in a deity, not the deity itself.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
perhaps more influence from "the right sort of Christians" (True Scotsmen perhaps?) would have altered my thoughts.
This No True Scotsman objection is something I've often found interesting. Jesus would have been an offender, as he himself made distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable 'followers'. But that's his prerogative, I should think.


quote:
I really dislike people trying to influence me and react against it
Does this mean you have no interest in trying to influence other people?? I'll bear that in mind in future!

quote:

For clarity - I've known many good people who were Christians who walked-the walk, but ISTM it was, excluding the God bit, the same walk that good, non-Christian people also walk.
The Bible doesn't claim that only people who are Christians can be 'good people'. In fact, there are references in the Bible to people who are righteous without the law, i.e. to those who do God's will without being aware of it. To me, this is a sign that God is Lord and Master of all creation, not just of a few oddballs who turn up to service every Sunday.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Bible doesn't claim that only people who are Christians can be 'good people'. In fact, there are references in the Bible to people who are righteous without the law, i.e. to those who do God's will without being aware of it. To me, this is a sign that God is Lord and Master of all creation, not just of a few oddballs who turn up to service every Sunday.
Great point! So true.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jesus would have been an offender, as he himself made distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable 'followers'. But that's his prerogative, I should think.
You mean there’s good indoctrination and then there’s bad indoctrination? And how do we know it’s good – because it sticks?


quote:
Does this mean you have no interest in trying to influence other people?? I'll bear that in mind in future!
In truth I’ve always liked playing devil’s advocate. Perhaps because I was brought up in an atmosphere where, until my teens at least, there effectively was no alternative to Christianity I’m conscious that choice is only possible when one is aware of different opinions. As I see it; you may disagree; I seek to influence people to know that they have options rather than to make them agree with me – though that inevitably means being contrary. I like to think that I react against things I feel to be wrong, just as we did when I was a white-collar union shop steward. We saw our roles as helping management to maximise the size of the cake, and then preventing the buggers scoffing the lot!

quote:
The Bible doesn't claim that only people who are Christians can be 'good people'. In fact, there are references in the Bible to people who are righteous without the law, i.e. to those who do God's will without being aware of it. To me, this is a sign that God is Lord and Master of all creation, not just of a few oddballs who turn up to service every Sunday.
I find this horrible. If there were a god, and my reasoning says it isn’t the god of, or from, the Bible, it might be capable of being Lord and Master, but surely its essence would be that it did not act as one. “If I say so you will be good/in Heaven whether you want to be or not”? That, to me, is the sign, not just of a Lord and Master (which don’t have to be pejorative terms) – but also a dictator - a self-absorbed puppetmeister who despises humanity.

As Christopher Hitchens (I think it was) pointed out, to love and cheerfully serve a Master who rigidly controls not just your actions but also your very thoughts is the definition of slavery.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I find this horrible. If there were a god, and my reasoning says it isn’t the god of, or from, the Bible, it might be capable of being Lord and Master, but surely its essence would be that it did not act as one. “If I say so you will be good/in Heaven whether you want to be or not”? That, to me, is the sign, not just of a Lord and Master (which don’t have to be pejorative terms) – but also a dictator - a self-absorbed puppetmeister who despises humanity.

As Christopher Hitchens (I think it was) pointed out, to love and cheerfully serve a Master who rigidly controls not just your actions but also your very thoughts is the definition of slavery.
We had this in another thread recently. My own take is that the compunction, the compelling, to enter Heaven and worship God, is not an external force as you and Hitchens believe, but an internal force. I believe that the inate capacity to love that is within us as humans is what will compel each of us to want to enter into a full and complete relationship with God, when we enter Heaven after we die.

An external force would be wrong, but an internal one is just as powerful (perhaps more so), and achieves the same outcome.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Someone mentioned Maslow higher up the thread - I guess this updated version will resonate with many of us!

re. deano's observation, that ties in nicely with a book I've been reading recently - communism emphasised the taking over of individual will by the state; the author argues that, due to this, life lost all its meaning and human beings ceased to be human. So retaining control of one's own will and being able to decide internally how one is to act (bearing in mind society's voluntary code, but not being enslaved to it) is the only way to find true meaning in life.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But that doesn't take away that my faith points toward a deity.
It points towards your belief in a deity, not the deity itself.
Well if you're into Platonic forms it certainly does point to the deity itself. You know - like if Universals are true?

But you might be a Nominalist in which case there are no Universals and indeed, the only thing you could refer to was your belief.

(I've got a new philosophy book. I'm feeling terribly clever and enlightened about the history of the western philosophical tradition)

[ 16. January 2014, 10:19: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well if you're into Platonic forms it certainly does point to the deity itself. You know - like if Universals are true?

But you might be a Nominalist in which case there are no Universals and indeed, the only thing you could refer to was your belief.
I wasn't making any kind of highbrow philosophical point. I was merely stating that a given person believing in a god doesn't mean that god actually exists. And that remains true no matter how strong their faith may be.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Quite.

God exists regardless of one's faith position.

I suppose I was thinking one's particular understanding of God might be a mere shadow of the True God because that is the nature of this world (Plato's cave allegory and all that jazz).

Yet it is possible to have a completely false conception of God I suppose.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
In truth I’ve always liked playing devil’s advocate. Perhaps because I was brought up in an atmosphere where, until my teens at least, there effectively was no alternative to Christianity I’m conscious that choice is only possible when one is aware of different opinions.
Ah. I've always lived in a more pluralistic, multicultural context. Even though my extended family abroad were Christians (of different types) I've never felt that Christianity was the big thing I had to be against. As I see it, a choice against one thing is only a choice for something else. It's not possible to be against everything.

quote:
If there were a god, and my reasoning says it isn’t the god of, or from, the Bible, it might be capable of being Lord and Master, but surely its essence would be that it did not act as one. “If I say so you will be good/in Heaven whether you want to be or not”? That, to me, is the sign, not just of a Lord and Master (which don’t have to be pejorative terms) – but also a dictator - a self-absorbed puppetmeister who despises humanity.
IME different atheists take different views on this. Some say that if there's a God, then the decent thing for him to do would be to 'allow' everyone into heaven, regardless of what they did or didn't believe. Your view is that it would be a dreadful place to go to if there were no other options.

I suppose it depends on how one defines heaven. For many people today, heaven is increasingly losing its specifically 'Christian' connotations and can be conceived of without much reference to God or to Jesus. But that's not a terribly intellectual way of looking at it, perhaps.

In fact, I wasn't really thinking of heaven in my last post, simply of the idea that God, if he is righteous and is Lord and Master of all, can't be absent from any act of goodness, wherever it comes from.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
God exists regardless of one's faith position.
It's just as true to say God does not exist regardless of one's faith position.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Marvin the Martian: It points towards your belief in a deity, not the deity itself.
Um no, my faith is belief in a deity. It points towards the deity.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: It points towards your belief in a deity, not the deity itself.
Um no, my faith is belief in a deity. It points towards the deity.
So did those who believed in Zeus have a faith which pointed towards Zeus?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Boogie: So did those who believed in Zeus have a faith which pointed towards Zeus?
Yes, of course. I don't know about you, but in my semantics 'to point towards' doesn't mean 'to prove the existence of'.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
My own take is that the compunction, the compelling, to enter Heaven and worship God, is not an external force as you and Hitchens believe, but an internal force. I believe that the inate capacity to love that is within us as humans is what will compel each of us to want to enter into a full and complete relationship with God, when we enter Heaven after we die.
If humans have an innate capacity to love some seem to be very good at hiding it.
quote:

An external force would be wrong, but an internal one is just as powerful (perhaps more so), and achieves the same outcome.

Everyone is a Christian and all will go to Heaven. It's just that some don't know it yet. .

So what is the possible point of human life? If we’ve all got no option but to end up as lobotomised sycophants because we were made programmed to be so how on earth can you justify the, for many, demeaning pain and suffering whilst they are denied entry to heaven until it suits god. Why insist on an unequally* disastrous human phase when we could go straight to perfection etc.. without it.
*I’m well aware that I’m one of the most fortunate of humans. I had no say in when or where I was born and yet most have had a much tougher existence than I.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As I see it, a choice against one thing is only a choice for something else. It's not possible to be against everything.
I fully agree – the function of the devil’s advocate, AIUI, is to arrive at the truth rather than to convince anyone of a particular opinion. Asking unsettling questions encourages people to think, doesn’t it?

quote:
IME different atheists take different views on this.
Beyond a common lack of a belief in god(s) we probably have opinions almost as varied as those who are not atheists.
quote:
Some say that if there's a God, then the decent thing for him to do would be to 'allow' everyone into heaven, regardless of what they did or didn't believe.
I think that there are many other things that a loving, almighty god would have sorted out long before the question of heaven arose – but that’s just me.
quote:
Your view is that it would be a dreadful place to go to if there were no other options.
Not quite – I can only imagine heaven working under one of two scenarios. One would be that each of us had our own (virtual?) heaven and were able to control who and what affected us – a bit like the LDS view that we become the god of our own planet (provided of course that we are male – females will be content to be one of many wives and do their master’s bidding sweetly). The other is lobotomised, characterless slavery where we are so removed from humanity that we are unable to have opinions/feelings/hopes etc. other than those permitted by the spiritual equivalent of a stone age tribal leader. Whether there is any alternative or not - neither seems to me to be a desirable option.

quote:
I suppose it depends on how one defines heaven. For many people today, heaven is increasingly losing its specifically 'Christian' connotations and can be conceived of without much reference to God or to Jesus. But that's not a terribly intellectual way of looking at it, perhaps.
What do they think is its point then?

quote:
In fact, I wasn't really thinking of heaven in my last post, simply of the idea that God, if he is righteous and is Lord and Master of all, can't be absent from any act of goodness, wherever it comes from.
But if he were to exist and be Lord and Master of all would he not equally and inevitably be present in every act, good, bad or indifferent?

LeRoc
Perhaps a case of differing usage?


to point towards
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
HughWillRidmee: LeRoc
Perhaps a case of differing usage?


to point towards
Well, my faith makes it seem likely to me that some things are true about God.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: LeRoc
Perhaps a case of differing usage?


to point towards
Well, my faith makes it seem likely to me that some things are true about God.
I think that would come under the heading of "Confirmation bias" wouldn't it?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
HughWillRidmee: I think that would come under the heading of "Confirmation bias" wouldn't it?
No. It isn't about proof or evidence.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The function of the devil’s advocate, AIUI, is to arrive at the truth rather than to convince anyone of a particular opinion. Asking unsettling questions encourages people to think, doesn’t it?
True, but the devil's advocate isn't an objective commentator who stands above the fray. We all know that you're an atheist, and that you hope your 'unsettling questions' will lead people towards what you see as the truth of atheism. That's fair enough.

quote:

I can only imagine heaven working under one of two scenarios. One would be that each of us had our own (virtual?) heaven and were able to control who and what affected us – a bit like the LDS view that we become the god of our own planet (provided of course that we are male – females will be content to be one of many wives and do their master’s bidding sweetly). The other is lobotomised, characterless slavery where we are so removed from humanity that we are unable to have opinions/feelings/hopes etc. other than those permitted by the spiritual equivalent of a stone age tribal leader. Whether there is any alternative or not - neither seems to me to be a desirable option.
No. And I can't say I see heaven quite like that, of course!

Some Christians say that heaven will be a fulfillment of our yearnings for peace, love, holiness and righteousness. At present our nature makes us unable to reach those goals, even though we reach out for them. We may not even be able to envision those outcome of those goals. But we believe that an all-knowing God does know. Lobotomies and virtual reality won't be necessary because we'll be gifted with the righteousness and togetherness that we actually desire. It'll be the existing part of us that's brought to completion.

Interestingly, your response to the question of heaven implies that you don't really think that complete harmony here on a godless earth would be 'desirable', since it would occur under unpleasant conditions. So you're not one of these people who, if they had one humongous wish, would ask for 'world peace'?

quote:
But if [God] were to exist and be Lord and Master of all would he not equally and inevitably be present in every act, good, bad or indifferent?
A very good question. I'm not a theologian, but I think Christians have to believe that if the world is as it is, then that's because God allowed it to be so. But that doesn't mean it's how he wants it to be. The Bible suggests that to please God is to reflect certain aspects of his character that might be described as righteous. If we're all made in God's image, then there must be something of God in us that can lead us to God's approval if we choose to emphasise those aspects.

Of course, if being made in the image of God means that everything we do is automatically godly then we have no need to yearn for transformation. But that's not Christianity, is it?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0