quote: There aren't a lot of basic requirements for being Christian. You have to believe that Jesus is the Christ (the savior).
But if you believe that, don't you have to believe he's also saving you from something? And doesn't that belief bring with it a fair number of theological implications?
quote:
So bother me not with this "authority" thing.
Oh, I won't bother you with it. But I AM curious as to what you get out of being a Christian specifically that you would not get out of being Taoist, Buddhist, or Muslim. You say you assert your Christianity in "the strongest possible terms" -- but why? And why bother? What value is there to "asserting" Christianity when Christianity is being defined as a collection of fables and anecdotes? What moral lessons are available to a Christian that are not available to a well-meaning and determined Hindi?
Part 1: The savior, the messiah...the promised one. The promise was to lead the people of God out of slavery. Slavery to what? Maybe, in my case, I'm being led out of slavery to authority.
I know the typical answer would be "sin" or "eternal damnation" but really, since none of the definitions of any of the concepts really are definitive (I hestitate, therefore to call them "definitions"), maybe Christianity is really just a belief that God wants "something good" for me.
I have a lot of patience with this thing, Tom. I mean, really, I'm just bursting to find out what it's all about, but I know that I'll find out later. In the meantime, it's a fascinating life and I can enjoy living it.
Part II: How do I know I'm not also being Taoist, Buddhist and Muslim at the same time that I'm being Christian? Maybe I'm arriving at the same place I would by any positive path? How would I know. I only know what I know, and while I have curiosity about the rest, I also know that I wouldn't abandon Christianity to follow some other path if that's what it took. From what I understand of things, I'd either be giving up something that already works for me, or I'd be simply incorporating other ideas into it. The latter is somewhat appealing, if the new stuff is compatible and extends the whole. The former (abandoning my current faith) is unlikely and would really surprise the heck out of me if that happened.
It works for me. What other criteria should I have? I have no real access to THE TRUTH in this life. I know of no-one else who does either. I see people who claim to, and I don't believe them.
Of course, the real answer is I don't know because I haven't studied all other religions. But so what? I haven't known (Biblically or otherwise) every woman on the planet and yet I feel absolutely sure that I married the right one. I haven't studied all other cars and yet I'm happy with my Hyundai. I picked my dog as a puppy without knowing what kind of adult dog she would become. And yet I'm willing to assert that she's the best 3-fanged dog on the planet.
Would you take a substitute for Sophie and if so, under what conditions? (I only ask this 'cuz I'm sure the answer is NO, of course)
I just don't worry about it. If I'm making a mistake, so be it. It doesn't "feel" like it, so why should I act like I'm worried about it?
Part III: My God...I hope that there are NO moral lessons that are available to a Christian that are NOT availble to even a Hindi who doesn't mean well. What kind of sucky world would that be if there was ONLY ONE path to moral behavior? What kind of sucky world would it be if there was only path to God?
Just because I believe I found MY one path doesn't mean I can't cheer on people who have found some other path. It's not my job to correct them or steer them, or trip them up, or make them think.
I'd make a really lousy evangelist, tell you the truth. I preface everything with "this is just me."
If someone is seeking and asks me a question, I'll answer. But I don't usually (this thread notwithstanding) go around trying to make sure people know I'm a Christian.
As you've pointed out, that term may have too many meanings to really be informative.
But if someone tries to tell me I'm not a Christian, that's when I will defend my right to call myself a follower of Jesus.
Sure, by their standards I might be a less-than-perfect one. But that's okay. I don't have to satisfy them. It's not their judgement I'll be a-fearing in the good old by and by.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Again.
I sense a fundamental(ish?) disconnect here. I believe that your criteria for what it means to be a believer in ANY faith are not the criteria by which I chose or retain my faith. I also belief that faith is a gift. Like straight teeth.
I have just one more item worth pondering. I believe that you find the contemplation of various philosophies interesting and rewarding, and that the deeper you get into them, the greater your reward.
I'm not built that way. I read philosophy (religious or secular) and experience the mental equivalent of a brain freeze. I have to press my hind-brain into the roof of my mouth just to get the feeling to pass. It's painful. Physically painful. I'm not just lazy about it (okay...I'm lazy about it too). I just don't see the differences between them. Or, I read them and agree with ALL points of view. Or, I read it and suddenly realize 13 pages have passed by and I couldn't tell you what the subject is. Or two treatments of supposedly the same subject are so radically unconnected to each other that I can't even find the common thread, let alone understand the nuances of each author's position.
But I do enjoy thinking about nature and science. And I believe that I have a fairly well-developed power of reasoning -- at least in the field of my expertise I seem to make sense to other people. So, what should I do? Should I seek out that which pains me on the theory that I might find some "better" kernel of thought? Or, should I spend time thinking about the things that excite me and give me pleasure, and, by the way, seem to me to be a useful way to study God?
If I could paint or write music, maybe I'd study God that way. If I could do math worth a damn, maybe I'd study God that way.
I just think we all have these gifts (knowledge, skills, aptitudes, etc.) and we should use them, not trying to use different ones that we don't have.
Long post.
Hope it's not completely tangential.
I hope you don't mind me asking the Sophie question in Part II. I was trying to make the illustration be personal enough, but not offensive. If I crossed a line, I do apologize and I will delete it if it bugs you.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Surely you cannot believe that, had dkw been unaware of the Bible, she would have interpreted whatever episodes she's had as evidence of the Christian god?
KOM...and yet this is precisely what I believe. That the GOD that dkw believes in is manifest and her powers of reason are such that she has reached the conclusions she has because she's clever, observant, and loved.
But I beg to be asked to only answer for myself, not for another person's faith. Would I take it all in and pop up with the name "Jesus" if I didn't know the Bible? No, I don't think so.
But would I, just like the patriarchs, become convinced of the existence of God by the evidence of my own experience of the world? Sure thing. And would I believe, in broad outline, the same general things about that God? Yep.
At least I think I could answer that way for me. Why? Because while I agree that my experiences are given an added depth and meaning by what knowledge of Scripture I posess, I also know that I don't habitually reference every occurrence to some snippet of sacred text. My sense of the holy uses Scripture, tradition, reason, and "heart." They all matter. In fact, I can tell you for sure that I don't get a sense of the holy from Scripture alone, divorced from heart and mind and tradition. Just like I don't get a sense of the holy from the average thought that pops into my head. Or the average emotion.
It all comes together and makes it more meaningful and distinct.
But that was a really good question. I think you may not accept or believe my answer. But I assure you that I'm in earnest. I don't think I'm an example of anything universal, though.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind at all. It's a valid point: there might always be something better, but if you're happy enough with what you have that something better is effectively inconceivable, why risk what you have to go in search of a hypothetical improvement? It's a good point.
-------
I guess the disconnect I'm feeling here is that your version of Christianity doesn't seem to come with any actual responsibilities. Of course there's more risk associated with looking for satisfaction elsewhere than with staying put -- because staying put doesn't actually come with a price. If you encounter something that seems like truth, you find a way to fit it into your religious worldview; if you encounter something ostensibly of your religion that doesn't seem like truth, you discard it. In all cases, you're still relying on your personal worldview for your perspective and guidance.
What I don't understand, then, is what you -- or anyone in a similar situation -- would get out of belonging to any particular religion. If what it ultimately boils down to is your understanding of truth, and if your religion acts mainly as a noise filter designed to deliver the most important truths to you first (but not exclusively), it seems to me that at best liberal religion functions as a ratings system for philosophy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess the disconnect I'm feeling here is that your version of Christianity doesn't seem to come with any actual responsibilities.
Could you contrast this with the offensive statement often made by theists that atheists do not have any morality, or any basis for morality, and that they have no reason not to simply do as they wish all the time?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for responsibilities, I'm pretty sure it's my turn to do the dishes and take out the trash.
You know...it's like a lot of things, you can always skate by and do nothing. Or, you can only do what you're asked to do -- the minimalist or "satisficing" approach. Or, you can do more and take it more seriously.
I find my "responsibilities" growing commensurate with my willingness to take things seriously.
But I'm guessing you meant this in a different way. Like...doesn't God ASK anything of you? Yes indeed. And it's flipping difficult too! I'm supposed to be the best person I can be, and try to learn what that means. And serve others. And not be so full of myself. And give back. And not judge. And help. There's all kinds of stuff.
And there's things I'm not ready to do. Like "be a light unto the world" (usually interpreted to mean go out and "evangelize" in some active way). And I'm prepared to receive a calling. And I'm not ready to give up my precious vacation time to build houses in some needy area. But some of that stuff is a responsibility too. Maybe not those specific things. But I believe that faith leads to a need for action.
The other fun thing you asked is what do I get out of it? Well...a lot.
I mean, I have friends I wouldn't have met another way. I get to play drums. I will be taking some interesting classes. I get to sing. I've made bread. I made a stepping stone. I got to portray "Daniel" for a bunch of little kids.
And then there's the hope. The belief that things will be shown and explained. And that I'll like it. It might be a salve to the innate fear of "what if there's NOTHING after death" but then again, isn't that the very definition of hope -- an irrational belief in positive outcomes.
I also get 10% off of EVERYTHING. You wouldn't know about that. Not being a card-carrying member. But it's a great benefit. It's the real hidden meaning behind "Jesus Saves."
WWJD = What Would Jesus Discount? A: EVERYTHING!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, to me your version of Christianity, takes the the actual question of "How shall we then live?" in a much different light than many of the other persuasions. I suspect more seriously, and less flaunting than some of the other varieties.
I don't know if I can accurately describe the ways, but humanitarian service of all kinds, that is not necessarily religiously affiliated at all, seems to be more of an outpouring of your brand of Christianity.
AJ
(examples I can think of off hand, are the fact that you wouldn't buy your wedding flowers from south american countries where exploitation occurs, and you buy free trade chocolate if possible...)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Could you contrast this with the offensive statement often made by theists that atheists do not have any morality, or any basis for morality, and that they have no reason not to simply do as they wish all the time?
Certainly. This statement stems from the assumption that it is not possible for morality to exist without higher authority; in other words, it is often assumed that those things which God calls "good" -- as listed in scripture, for example -- are "good," and those things listed as "bad" are "bad." And if that is the case, someone who relies on his own personal morality to determine what is good and/or bad can ultimately only be trusted to do whatever he wants; he is committing an act of extreme hubris.
Atheists and agnostics, of course, do not see it this way.
But it is hard for me to understand why someone who belongs to a religion that they believe embodies "The Truth" would not see it this way. After all, one of the unique perks of a religion -- as opposed to a philosophy or social club -- is that it does constitute an appeal to a higher moral authority; religion assumes that there is a Truth, and moreover that this Truth is knowable -- even if imperfectly -- and communicable. Otherwise, all the advantages Bob gets from his faith -- the ability to play the drums, meet new people, sign up for plays, try to be a good person (by the standards he has chosen to define as "good"), and the hope that there's something decent waiting on the Other Side -- are the exact same things he could get from any church, or any belief system with an extra helping of social structures.
I don't know if Dana sees it this way or not. Her horror at being depicted in this fashion suggests otherwise, but I don't understand what she's saying if she isn't saying this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horror might be overstating the case. Disconcerted would be closer. What you’ve described is certainly a fairly common attitude toward the Bible in some circles of liberal theology, but it’s not one I share. I can’t quite figure out where the miscommunication is, though, so I’m not sure how to explain. I shall ponder.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question...if God is "IN" us, then how could I possibly separate the good that is "me" from the good that is "God?" I mean, suppose the real answer to the question Tom is asking is that ultimately I am on the path to closer joining with God. I'm a little bit joined now, and hope to be a lot more as I go through this life, and the afterlife.
I'm not sure if this is just sophistry or if it's something that arises from a consistent theology, but the thing that changes my experience of religion from "no better than a social club" to "something that approachs TRUTH" is the path itself.
That this is leading somewhere is the difference I perceive. I guess the question I have is what does it matter whether my "truth" is "THE TRUTH" that applies to everyone? I can't treat my truth any differently than I do -- it's the truth...for me. I believe it.
And I hope that my awareness of it, and perception of it continues to grow.
Now, the real question is what I'm to do with that knowledge? First off, I recognize it is by nature incomplete. So...if I share it, I'm sharing a partial truth, even if I believe that I'm "plugged in" to THE TRUTH.
I can share it still, if asked. But I should be careful.
And maybe the bit of the truth I see is not the part that someone else sees, so if I share with them and they share with me, then maybe we get there a little faster or with a bit less aimless wandering.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess the question I have is what does it matter whether my "truth" is "THE TRUTH" that applies to everyone?
Hm. I submit that if there is a "THE TRUTH," knowing "The Truth" is probably the only thing in the world that matters.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I'm guessing you meant this in a different way. Like...doesn't God ASK anything of you? Yes indeed. And it's flipping difficult too! I'm supposed to be the best person I can be, and try to learn what that means. And serve others. And not be so full of myself. And give back. And not judge. And help. There's all kinds of stuff.
Well, that is all very fine, to be sure, but there's nothing specifically Christian about it, is there? Atheists have a responsibility to do those things, too. And as for your list of rewards, those are good things in life, but the good things in life do not, oddly enough, come only to believers. As it happens, though, I think you misunderstood the question in any case. The intended meaning was "What intellectual or moral positions do you get out of your belief, that wouldn't come from atheism?"
Moreover, I wonder if comrade TomD wasn't asking about a responsibility to believe, rather than do. It seems that there is no particular tenet of theology or Biblical narration that cannot be abandoned if you feel uncomfortable with it. Why not abandon all of them, then? If no single assertion has a real defense, then how can you defend them collectively?
quote:But would I, just like the patriarchs, become convinced of the existence of God by the evidence of my own experience of the world? Sure thing. And would I believe, in broad outline, the same general things about that God? Yep.
Would you believe in an afterlife full of joy for the goodly, and punishment for sinners? Would you believe that your god had become incarnate, and taken all your sins upon himself in the best scapegoat style? (Bear in mind that this is a highly sophisticated theology, as evidenced by dkw's degrees in it. Do you really want to claim that you would, quite unaided, come up with something taught at the college level?) I don't recall whether you are Mormon or not; but if you are, would you - on your own, unaided reasoning - believe that you had a long life before your birth, and may, if sufficiently virtuous, eventually become divine in your own right? I know I'm way oversimplifying Mormon beliefs here, but I trust I've made my point. A sense of wonder is not at all the same thing as even the most broadly brushed of theology.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hm. I submit that if there is a "THE TRUTH," knowing "The Truth" is probably the only thing in the world that matters.
Well, I'd have to agree. And I'm willing to spend this life (at the very least) learning what THE TRUTH is.
I don't claim to know yet. I don't believe that I'll know before I die.
So...what exactly should I be telling others?
And what should I believe when others tell me that they KNOW the THE TRUTH?
I figure some of us are closer to it than others, but even knowing who those people are and listening to them is only of limited value. One has to be prepared and open to the next bit of any knowledge or it doesn't stick. Why should this be any different?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The intended meaning was "What intellectual or moral positions do you get out of your belief, that wouldn't come from atheism?"
Can you change "wouldn't" to "couldn't?"
And then I'll answer you...none. The only thing that can't come from atheism is a belief in and reverence for God.
In a narrow sense, though, atheism is simply defined as a negative -- a disbelief in God (or at least theology)...right? But I'm taking you to mean something broader like -- a person who follows a moral philosophy and simply doesn't believe in God.
So, sure. An atheist could arrive at pretty much every moral position I could arrive at. Except for being thankful to God for it all, there'd be very little difference. We might even behave in similar ways in similar situations.
So what?
quote:Moreover, I wonder if comrade TomD wasn't asking about a responsibility to believe, rather than do. It seems that there is no particular tenet of theology or Biblical narration that cannot be abandoned if you feel uncomfortable with it. Why not abandon all of them, then? If no single assertion has a real defense, then how can you defend them collectively?
Defend? From what?
As for abandoning things...why exactly would I do that? It would take a fair bit of hubris on my part to be convinced that I already know better than anyone else. I might have to set some things aside because I can't follow them, or don't understand them. But your assumption that it means I reject them and hold them to be false automatically is going a bit too far.
I'm sure you're probably thinking "well what about the statements about homosexuality in the Bible, or women as teachers of men." (afterall, I'm married to a Methodist minister)
btw, not LDS.
All I can say is that the more I learn about those passages, the less convinced I am of their universal application, or that they mean what they appear to mean at first blush.
Recently, I've gone from a period of wishing I could just reject certain statements of Paul's, for example, to thinking maybe they just aren't what they seemed to be at first blush.
Did the Scripture change? Or did I?
I think my point is that this isn't a static thing for me. It's an ongoing process. One I'm satisfied is leading somewhere. And one that I see as progressive, rather than circular.
I don't know what else to say.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, that is all very fine, to be sure, but there's nothing specifically Christian about it, is there? Atheists have a responsibility to do those things, too. And as for your list of rewards, those are good things in life, but the good things in life do not, oddly enough, come only to believers. As it happens, though, I think you misunderstood the question in any case. The intended meaning was "What intellectual or moral positions do you get out of your belief, that wouldn't come from atheism?"
So if atheists and non atheists share the same responsibilities, namely to do good and so forth, what does atheism have to offer that religion cannot provide?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This seems like every discussion about religion I've ever seen/heard/participated in. It all ends the same way - People believe what they believe, even when they can't explain why. Even when they can explain their faith, it's nearly impossible to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.
I loaned a book to a friend of mine in fourth grade. Months went by, and I never got it back. To this day, he violently swears on all that is holy that he gave it back, and I deny this just as violently. I have no idea anymore who's telling the truth, I know we each think we are. But maybe I'll never know. Religion's like that for me. It's hard to sway someone's beliefs, because belief is mainly something you feel, and, like music, you can try to explain it but words are never enough.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because honestly, I think religion has better benefits than the competition.
1. Health care system that promises no sickness and death - but the premiums and the deductible are kinda high.
2. Investment Plan - treasures in heaven instead of treasures on earth where moth and rust consume
3. Life Insurance - if you are an innocent victim during one of God's more demonstrative moments, you and your family will be taken care of via resurrection.
But most people like the retirement plan - eternity.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The purpose of religion threads (or at least my participation in them) is not to “convince” anyone, but to understand each other better. So the fact that no one is converted (either way) doesn’t make the thread a wasted exercise, even if it seems to be re-hashing old ground.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, sure. An atheist could arrive at pretty much every moral position I could arrive at. Except for being thankful to God for it all, there'd be very little difference. We might even behave in similar ways in similar situations.
So what?
Then what is the use of this belief in your god? If it doesn't give you any extra morality, and it doesn't give you a better life, and it can't be defended as objectively true - what good is it?
And further, does not the belief of otherwise rational and good men add a spurious legitimacy to the bottom feeders who kill people in the name of the same un-verifiable myth?
quote:Defend? From what?
As for abandoning things...why exactly would I do that? It would take a fair bit of hubris on my part to be convinced that I already know better than anyone else. I might have to set some things aside because I can't follow them, or don't understand them. But your assumption that it means I reject them and hold them to be false automatically is going a bit too far.
Defend, among other things, from the arguments made on this thread. In general, in honest debate, it is good to be prepared to give over if one's opponent makes really good and telling points for which one has no answer. Now, I'm not asserting this is the case here. But the question of what you are to defend from, when I and comrade TomD have spent the thread doing nothing but arguing against your position, strikes me as rather dis-ingenous.
As for setting things aside because you do not understand them - which part of 'kill all the firstborn in order to put pressure on Pharaoh' did you not understand? This is hardly quantum mechanics. It's politics, and rather crude politics at that. And in all honesty, I do not feel that a man who claims to have a responsibility to be the best he can, can in good conscience set such a claim aside with a muttered "Well, it'll all come out right in the end." This is not a novel; beliefs have consequences in the real world, where people bleed and die. You say that "I find my "responsibilities" growing commensurate with my willingness to take things seriously." If you wish to continue this, may I politely suggest that you put up, or shut up?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Because honestly, I think religion has better benefits than the competition.
1. Health care system that promises no sickness and death - but the premiums and the deductible are kinda high.
2. Investment Plan - treasures in heaven instead of treasures on earth where moth and rust consume
3. Life Insurance - if you are an innocent victim during one of God's more demonstrative moments, you and your family will be taken care of via resurrection.
But most people like the retirement plan - eternity.
(Sings off-key) There'll be pieee, in the skyyyy, by and byyy, by and byyy....
No, seriously. You cannot argue "If X is true, then good stuff Y happens, therefore X must be true." In any case, what you have here is nothing but a variant on Pascal's hoary old Wager. I believe every atheist here has poked holes in it at one time or another, so let me quickly run over the most salient point : For every god you suggest, there exists an equal and opposite anti-god, who punishes you for believing in the first one. And the anti-god has exactly the same chance of being the real one. The expectation value is zero.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's more than a little harsh, KoM. I think part of Bob's understanding of his faith is that those things which he has difficulty reconciling with his morality -- perhaps including the murder of the firstborn -- he assumes that either he or religious tradition has misunderstood and/or misreported.
In other words, Bob does not appear to believe that the accounts of the Bible can necessarily be taken at face value -- and since a starting point for his belief is a moral God (by his definition of moral), accounts which contradict that primary assumption must be revisited and/or reconsidered.
I don't find this irresponsible in the least. I do, however, wonder how Bob can possibly hope to determine which parts of the Bible are accurate, once he grants the possibility that huge chunks of it are not. But since he's pretty much come out and said that he doesn't believe that he's qualified to make this decision, and is basically just hoping that things work out in the end, even that last bit isn't so much a "gotcha" as a "meh."
I'd like more from my religion than a "meh." I'd like something better than I have now. But I also recognize that what I would consider "better" and what someone else might consider "better" could be very different things.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
um, my last comment was merely a joke. I admit it wasn't really humorous, but it was meant to kind of lighten the tone. I'll try to be a little more serious next time.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gosh, KoM...I didn't realize we weren't having a discussion.
If I thought for a minute I was arguing with you or was called upon to defend some belief of mine, I would either stopped posting altogether or told you, as I think I already have, that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Not my job.
At least not as I see it today.
quote:You say that "I find my "responsibilities" growing commensurate with my willingness to take things seriously." If you wish to continue this, may I politely suggest that you put up, or shut up?
Well, I guess since you put it that way, I'll just leave this thread to you to enjoy all by yourself.
I must say, however, that I am surprised by this sudden angry turn. You seemed to be interested in what others had to say. Was it just me that got you angry? I do feel like I got in the middle of you and dkw having a conversation. Maybe I shouldn't have done that.
And really, I'm not her. I haven't studied this stuff, and my attitude about it is a lot less well-thought-out than hers.
Sorry if I was wasting your time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The purpose of religion threads (or at least my participation in them) is not to “convince” anyone, but to understand each other better. So the fact that no one is converted (either way) doesn’t make the thread a wasted exercise, even if it seems to be re-hashing old ground.
I don't think it's wasted. I love reading the arguments of people who are educated and eloquent, and who fervently believe what they believe. But if you think you're not trying to convert KoM, you're deceiving yourself.
That's the only way a thread like this ends, either everyone agrees to disagree, or everyone decides who's bringing what to the pot-luck dinner after services.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What's wrong with what you've got now, Tom?
Ultimately, it lacks the punch of Truth; it's a philosophy built on a bunch of postulates that are hardly axiomatic, and in many cases relies on as much groundless faith as your typical religion.
It'd be nice to know that the universe actually worked, and that existence was ultimately solvable. Personally, it would be a huge relief to discover that there really was a reason behind all the apparently random crap going on out there, or that there really is something bigger than ourselves.
It's not necessary, but it would be a perk. I'm not particularly happy with the concept of oblivion, and I'd be glad to discover an alternative.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I must say, however, that I am surprised by this sudden angry turn. You seemed to be interested in what others had to say. Was it just me that got you angry? I do feel like I got in the middle of you and dkw having a conversation. Maybe I shouldn't have done that.
I'm not angry, I just mis-understood what you were trying to do. Though it certainly looked like debating.
quote:And really, I'm not her. I haven't studied this stuff, and my attitude about it is a lot less well-thought-out than hers.
Then I suggest you take some time to think about it. These are not trivial matters, after all.
quote:Sorry if I was wasting your time.
Not mine, no. But I suggest you were wasting your own. And you only get so much.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:...hoping that things work out in the end, even that last bit isn't so much a "gotcha" as a "meh."
I'd like more from my religion than a "meh." I'd like something better than I have now
But isn't that the same as any answer to the ultimate question of whether there is a purpose in life? Atheism doesn't offer anything more satisfying except to say, "don't worry about the purpose in life because there isn't any such grand purpose." Science offers nothing in the way of answering questions like "why?" and even what science does know, it admits even that is constantly changing as new knowledge is attained. Science continuously works to inch closer to the ultimate answer to everything, but it also knows that it will probably never get there. Same result, "meh."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But isn't that the same as any answer to the ultimate question of whether there is a purpose in life?"
Yes. Yes, it is. And while atheists and agnostics -- and I'm including myself, here -- can come up with their own hypothetical purposes (and while I'm at it, I think Hypothetical Porpoises would be a great name for a band), the simple fact is that those purposes aren't any more solidly grounded in ultimate truth than most other religions, which got their start in pretty much the same way.
I'd like the Truth. It's hubristic of me, but I'm actually completely confident that I could cope with learning it, even if it involved -- as I do not expect, mind you -- Great Old Ones and incomprehensible, uncaring monstrosities from beyond the pallid mists of eternity. But, then, I don't really believe that anything is incomprehensible, when you look at it right.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just hoping KoM would be a little nicer sometimes, but I guess I was just deceiving myself. Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But isn't that the same as any answer to the ultimate question of whether there is a purpose in life? Atheism doesn't offer anything more satisfying except to say, "don't worry about the purpose in life because there isn't any such grand purpose."
I disagree. Atheism offers the much more challenging proposition that you make your own purpose in life. Now, there's satisfaction!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, camus. If there is no god, the human condition is that much more incredible and awe-inspiring. Not "meh" at all.
quote:Personally, it would be a huge relief to discover that there really was a reason behind all the apparently random crap going on out there, or that there really is something bigger than ourselves.
I honestly don't think I would find such knowledge comforting. I used to think I would, but that has gradually been changing over the last few years. I think that now I like the idea of a godless universe better than the idea of a created one.
quote:I'm not particularly happy with the concept of oblivion, and I'd be glad to discover an alternative.
I'm undecided about oblivion, but right now is not the best time for me to try to sort that one through. I'll leave it alone for the time being.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. Atheism offers the much more challenging proposition that you make your own purpose in life. Now, there's satisfaction!
That's true, I suppose. And if I were an atheist, I would argue that atheism offers freedom from enslavement to an incomprehensible god, but I'm not an atheist.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as I enjoyed that movie, I thought "Get yourself a nice dress" was a rather pathetic showing as a devil's advocate.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: That's true, I suppose. And if I were an atheist, I would argue that atheism offers freedom from enslavement to an incomprehensible god, but I'm not an atheist.
Yeah, but I'm trying to avoid offending the theists, here. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is no god, the human condition is that much more incredible and awe-inspiring.
You mean it's more incredible when you don't imagine that it's God that created us this way, that we were able to achieve this all on our own? I guess I can understand that. Although, when I look at all the atrocities that humans commit, I would rather believe that there is some ultimate reason for that (even if I don't quite understand it) instead of thinking that a billion years of evolution can create in us the concept of art, but not the means for peace. Ironic that I can have faith in an unprovable God, but not in humans.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I wonder if you missed my big post, the last one on the previous page? You don't seem to be responding to it. Or have you given up, and are now just kibitzing?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I AM curious as to what you get out of being a Christian specifically that you would not get out of being Taoist, Buddhist, or Muslim. You say you assert your Christianity in "the strongest possible terms" -- but why? And why bother? What value is there to "asserting" Christianity when Christianity is being defined as a collection of fables and anecdotes? What moral lessons are available to a Christian that are not available to a well-meaning and determined Hindi? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
trying to use different ones that we don't have.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
