In the beginning

[RJM]

... This introduces the problem of imperfection in the material, created universe. My own take is that God created the universe as imperfect from day one, including all the aberrant behaviour in animals species (Lyall Watson is good on this) that can only be qualified as 'evil'. I have a theory about this, but perhaps it deserves a separate thread.

Well, it seems the ideal web forum to start one

Tag me if possible?

 

[RJM]

... Without an arbiter everyone is free to pretty make up their own religion without ever having an objective reason to believe it is true.

Of course this is true. It's the whole issue. It's nuanced, as you say. But common sense tells me to judge a tree by its fruit. That's my right. I can't be instructed what to believe. Surely it goes against plain good sense; on any level it must be wrong?

 

[Justin Swanton]

Of course this is true. It's the whole issue. It's nuanced, as you say. But common sense tells me to judge a tree by its fruit. That's my right. I can't be instructed what to believe. Surely it goes against plain good sense; on any level it must be wrong?

I think one needs to make a distinction between Church and churchmen. I have been - to put it politely - savagely disappointed by some churchmen, and I would never, ever extend my confidence in the Church to any individual cleric in it.

Christ warned about this in his parables. The kingdom of heaven will until the end of time be a mix of good and bad. Wheat and cockles, sheep and goats, good and bad fish, and so on. Of the churchmen he chose one betrayed him, one publicly denied him, and the rest bolted when he needed them most. Not a good start for the hierarchy. Some wit said: "The proof of the divine origin of the Church is that it has survived 2000 years of the clergy." That is very true.

The point though is that as a Catholic I am confident that no matter how unworthy some of the clergy may be, they will never be able to corrupt the Church's definitive teaching. Christ never guaranteed that churchmen would all be saints, he just guaranteed that his organisation would never fail. And if you want to judge the Church by its membership choose the best ones, i.e. the saints. A good Catholic like Mother Teresa shows what Catholicism is all about. Bad Catholics including bad clergy are Catholic in name only.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Well, it seems the ideal web forum to start one

Tag me if possible?

Let me find the time and energy. It's a big subject.

How does tagging work?

 

[Thomas]

I had a conversation with a school's head of science and we both agreed that, compared to some of the fantastical theories out there — multiverse, that blue-cheese cosmology thing, that fact that Elvis is alive and well somewhere in a parallel universe — the idea of a God is not so far-fetched.

 

[RJM]

I think one needs to make a distinction between Church and churchmen. I have been - to put it politely - savagely disappointed by some churchmen, and I would never, ever extend my confidence in the Church to any individual cleric in it.

Christ warned about this in his parables. The kingdom of heaven will until the end of time be a mix of good and bad. Wheat and cockles, sheep and goats, good and bad fish, and so on. Of the churchmen he chose one betrayed him, one publicly denied him, and the rest bolted when he needed them most. Not a good start for the hierarchy. Some wit said: "The proof of the divine origin of the Church is that it has survived 2000 years of the clergy." That is very true.

The point though is that as a Catholic I am confident that no matter how unworthy some of the clergy may be, they will never be able to corrupt the Church's definitive teaching. Christ never guaranteed that churchmen would all be saints, he just guaranteed that his organisation would never fail. And if you want to judge the Church by its membership choose the best ones, i.e. the saints. A good Catholic like Mother Teresa shows what Catholicism is all about. Bad Catholics including bad clergy are Catholic in name only.

I've been thinking about this.

Essentially of course the Church is like the hard shell of a nut, protecting the truth within its rituals and liturgies and dogmas. Its slow to change, and rightly so. But it has changed, in the face of new scientific learning. As in the case of admitting the Earth circles the Sun, etc.

Personally I believe its the humble monks who keep the Catholic Church on course, not the fat Vatican cardinals, etc. They chant and repeat the same words day after day, year after year. Have been doing it for 2000 years. I have great respect for the Church.

However, I go to church and listen. I go to church and pray. I think about what I hear, and meditate on the readings I have heard, etc.

But I really cannot accept that Adam and Eve were real, living human beings, in the literal sense. Or that lions will start eating grass, like oxen.

The shell of the nut is dead, dry wood. It's the inner content that provides life giving nourishment?

What I like about the Catholic Church is that where Christ himself made a judgement, as on divorce, the Church does not see fit to teach something different.

(Don't know about tagging here. Just send a msg )

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Don't know about tagging here. Just send a msg

If you quote someone they will get an alert, unless they have changed that in their settings.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Well, it seems the ideal web forum to start one

Tag me if possible?

OK, started a thread. I wrote the first post in a hurry as I'm actually at work supposedly earning my keep. Till later.

 

[Lux]

DA touched upon the very reason I was forced to change my mind about the existence of God. What I mean by 'forced' is that 'logic forced me' to reconsider my worldview.

A great many, I would go so far as to say most, people are uncomfortable with the concept that the only reason to be here is to procreate so that the species continues on forward. It seems a very cold and sterile (apt word here) kind of reality. It also takes the relevance away from the individual and puts it on the species instead.

DA is spot-on on this point. And my question would be "Why is that?", "Why do we feel that way?" ... I'd think humans are the only animals that have to have more reasons to live than just to survive or procreate.

If we and our universe are a product of an accident, 'logically' there's no purpose what-so-ever to our existence. A purpose cannot exist without an 'intention'. An intention cannot exist without a 'will'. And a will cannot exist without a mind.

The difference for me is that I can perceive reasons for relevance in the above scenario. Best way I can describe it is that difference between an outer reason for existence (a deity that gives meaning to life) and an inner reason for existence (a personal perception that gives meaning to life).

If you don't believe in a transcendent mind, I suppose one must believe "a random event accidentally produced a mind/sentience and whatever purpose a mind in a life-form may create, that purpose has no actual meaning outside that life-form". This is, I believe, what DA means by "an inner reason for existence (a personal perception that gives meaning to life)".

Let's say for the sake of the discussion, this is really the case, that our minds are a product of a random chemical reaction, thus what an accidental mind creates (an inner reason for existence) only means something to that very individual. And we should all respect and accept whatever the purpose other individuals create in their minds for ours to be respected and accepted as well. Am I right so far?

Here comes my favorite practice ... a thought experiment.
[To me this is the best way to test what we actually believe in our gut. ]

Imagine if you are driving across a bridge and happen to spot a man standing up on the handrail of the bridge ... Most of you would probably pull over and rush to that man in fear of him falling off the bridge, I'd assume?

The conversation between you and him would go something like this :

You : Please come down. It is dangerous. You could fall and die.

Him : Yes I know. That's why I'm doing it. I'm trying to kill myself.

You : Please reconsider, you don't wanna do that! Believe me!

Him : How would you know what I want or don't want? It's my life and not yours, so I can do anything with it. If I don't want to live, I shouldn't have to.​

Here's the question. Would you say "OK. You are right." ... ???

I kinda doubt that you do. I kinda think you'd try to convince him not to jump off the bridge no matter what it takes. Given a chance, you may physically try to pull him down against his will.

See the contradiction?

Either you don't believe in "a personal perception that gives meaning to life" that can be determined by each individual, or you believe your personal perception is superior to that of the jumper, so you get to press your own personal perception onto others who don't see the same way ... Do you have that kind of right? If so, where does that right come from?

Think about it, the world population has been exponentially increasing to the point where it can threaten the whole existence of human beings. Simply put, we don't need more people, but fewer. Why not grant those who want to die their wish? Our lives are a product of an accident, so only that individual's personal perception can give a meaning to his life. And if he gives no meaning to life, then there's no meaning to his life.

... But somehow we act as if there is.

Then suddenly, the corny phrase religious people repeat all the time starts sounding not so banal anymore.

"Life is a gift from God. It's sacred."

Something other than us has already determined that a life is valuable and not to be destroyed easily, even that of one's own, which makes me think that we don't actually own it.

Indeed, "a life is valuable" is a self-evident fact, and we are not to change it. And most of us act as if this notion is The Truth whether we realize it or not. Not only that, we think there's something wrong with those who don't think this way.

This is one of the logical dead-ends that eventually forced me to become a theist.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

DA touched upon the very reason I was forced to change my mind about the existence of God. What I mean by 'forced' is that 'logic forced me' to reconsider my worldview.



DA is spot-on on this point. And my question would be "Why is that?", "Why do we feel that way?" ... I'd think humans are the only animals that have to have more reasons to live than just to survive or procreate.

If we and our universe are a product of an accident, 'logically' there's no purpose what-so-ever to our existence. A purpose cannot exist without an 'intention'. An intention cannot exist without a 'will'. And a will cannot exist without a mind.



If you don't believe in a transcendent mind, I suppose one must believe "a random event accidentally produced a mind/sentience and whatever a purpose a mind in a life-form may create, that purpose has no actual meaning outside that life-form". This is, I believe, what DA means by "an inner reason for existence (a personal perception that gives meaning to life)".

Let's say for the sake of the discussion, this is really the case, that our minds are a product of a random chemical reaction, thus what an accidental mind creates (an inner reason for existence) only means something to that very individual. And we should all respect and accept whatever the purpose other individuals create in their minds for ours to be respected and accepted as well. Am I right so far?

Here comes my favorite practice ... a thought experiment.
[To me this is the best way to test what we actually believe in our gut. ]

Imagine if you are driving across a bridge and happen to spot a man standing up on the handrail of the bridge ... Most of you would probably pull over and rush to that man in fear of him falling off the bridge, I'd assume?

The conversation between you and him would go something like this :

You : Please come down. It is dangerous. You could fall and die.

Him : Yes I know. That's why I'm doing it. I'm trying to kill myself.

You : Please reconsider, you don't wanna do that! Believe me!

Him : How would you know what I want or don't want? It's my life and not yours, so I can do anything with it. If I don't want to live, I shouldn't have to.​

Here's the question. Would you say "OK. You are right." ... ???

I kinda doubt that you do. I kinda think you'd try to convince him not to jump off the bridge no matter what it takes. Given a chance, you may physically try to pull him down against his will.

See the contradiction?

Either you don't believe in "a personal perception that gives meaning to life" that can be determined by each individual, or you believe your personal perception is superior to that of the jumper, so you get to press your own personal perception onto others who don't see the same way ... Do you have that kind of right? If so, where does that right come from?

Think about it, the world population has been exponentially increasing to the point where it can threaten the whole existence of human beings. Simply put, we don't need more people, but fewer. Why not grant those who want to die their wish? Our lives are a product of an accident, so only that individual's personal perception can give a meaning to his life. And if he gives no meaning to life, then there's no meaning to his life.

... But somehow we act as if there is.

Then suddenly, the corny phrase religious people repeat all the time starts sounding not so banal anymore.

"Life is a gift from God. It's sacred."

Something other than us has already determined that a life is valuable and not to be destroyed easily, even that of one's own, which makes me think that we don't actually own it.

Indeed, "a life is valuable" is a self-evident fact, and we are not to change it. And most of us act as if this notion is The Truth whether we realize it or not. Not only that, we think there's something wrong with those who don't think this way.

This is one of the logical dead-ends that eventually forced me to become a theist.

It's interesting that you always give us two choices in your thought experiments, there are always other options!
Even though I don't think life is necessarally a gift from God, it is an opportunity, and it's hard to get it back once you give it up. As far as I know.
I'm not against suicide or assisted suicide because I understand the wish to escape unendurable pain. But I also know that a lot of pain can be overcome with time or help and that it's hard to see that at times. So I would help someone out of the darkness in the hope that it will get better with time.

So I guess I failed your test if I really believe in my gut? And I don't see the contradiction you constructed!

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Really awesome post, Lux! Now I will tear it to shreds. I'm kidding, of course! There are some interpretations where you missed the mark I was going for, though your interpretations are not any more wrong or right than mine. So just some clarification of your comments compared to where I am coming from.

If you don't believe in a transcendent mind, I suppose one must believe "a random event accidentally produced a mind/sentience and whatever a purpose a mind in a life-form may create, that purpose has no actual meaning outside that life-form". This is, I believe, what DA means by "an inner reason for existence (a personal perception that gives meaning to life)".

Close in most respects.
IF life is a simple random aspect of what happens when you give a universe 14 billion years, then yes the meaning for life is within the individual. (That is not what I believe, more on that later)*.

Let's say for the sake of the discussion, this is really the case, that our minds are a product of a random chemical reaction, thus what an accidental mind creates (an inner reason for existence) only means something to that very individual. And we should all respect and accept whatever the purpose other individuals create in their minds for ours to be respected and accepted as well. Am I right so far?

This is where you go off the rails. Though we would all find our own reasons for why we are here, we would also find reasons to live with, and support each other. Call it a biological imperative. (Which is also why atheists can have morals all by their little selves). We do better when we work together. The tricky part here is this philosophy only works for smaller groups. The bigger the group, the more people you have with their own ideas of what is the best way to go, creating conflicts. Which is why in our huge societies of today we tend to stick to a select few of families and friends. It is resurrecting the workable size group within the huge group.

Imagine if you are driving across a bridge and happen to spot a man standing up on the handrail of the bridge ... Most of you would probably pull over and rush to that man in fear of him falling off the bridge, I'd assume?

I kinda think you'd try to convince him not to jump off the bridge no matter what it takes. Given a chance, you may physically try to pull him down against his will.

Yes I believe most people would try and get the jumper to back down. Not always though. There are times when we have seen crowds watching a jumper on top a building; a segment of them are shouting "JUMP". Whether morals come from outside ourselves or from within, there are always the ones with crappy morals.

The reason most of us would try to talk the jumper down is, well, probably there are thousands of variations of reasons. They all roughly come down to the same basics. We don't want to see someone throw their life away. We would want to help because if it were US on that ledge, we would hope there would be someone there to help us! Again it is not a matter of contradicting reasons why life is important; it is more that we are all alive together and we know most all of us share that desire to live. So no contradiction.

Tea provided an excellent suggestion as to when we would want to honor a person's desire to die. Terminally ill, with nothing but constant unending pain. They want to stop suffering. Would you tell them no. I wouldn't. Even someone I loved with all my heart. In this case it is the right thing to respect that individual's wishes.

Then suddenly, the corny phrase religious people repeat all the time starts sounding not so banal anymore. "Life is a gift from God. It's sacred."

Something other than us has already determined that a life is valuable and not to be destroyed easily, even that of one's own, which makes me think that we don't actually own it.

Indeed, "a life is valuable" is a self-evident fact, and we are not to change it. And most of us act as if this notion is The Truth whether we realize it or not. Not only that, we think there's something wrong with those who don't think this way.

You completely lose me within this strained logic strand. Wouldn't it be equally critical for life to be sacred if there is nothing after death? It would be even more critical it seems to me. We are alive and we exist only as long as we are alive. Once we are dead we are dead. Gone. Caput. That is a powerful motive for staying alive seems to me. And just as logical as the theist thinking you posted.

This is one of the logical dead-ends that eventually forced me to become a theist.

You have used your line of reasoning to come to the conclusion you have. A case can be made, which I stated just above, that a desire to live is part of the biological imperative that we all possess. That and the knowledge that once we are dead there is nothing more. Seems to me the logical dead end doesn't really exist, except that you want it to.

*Of course as a pantheist, I do believe that the universe is alive. Every single atomic particle of it. So perhaps we do not die when we quit our living body. Perhaps our consciousness (energy) transfers back into the rest of the whole. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed!

 

[Lux]

It's interesting that you always give us two choices in your thought experiments, there are always other options!

We are so sick of a binary choice, aren't we? (Hillary or Trump )

I'm always interested in hearing other choices that I did not think of, as to why all our lives are valuable.

Even though I don't think life is necessarally a gift from God, it is an opportunity, and it's hard to get it back once you give it up. As far as I know.

The part I made bold, that's "your own personal perception", which means yours only ... ?
Another person can perceive life as "a curse" if he feels that way and wants to be done with it, can't he? I see that many people share the same view as yours, but you can't force the jumper to share it, or if you think you can, could you explain why you think that?

I'm not against suicide or assisted suicide because I understand the wish to escape unendurable pain. But I also know that a lot of pain can be overcome with time or help and that it's hard to see that at times. So I would help someone out of the darkness in the hope that it will get better with time.

So I guess I failed your test if I really believe in my gut? And I don't see the contradiction you constructed!

In some cases, I'm not against it either. But in such cases suicide has a specific purpose to it -"End the suffering" of the people "who will not get well, but only get worse". And many of us think it's cruel to prolong the suffering when they say they can't and don't want to bear it anymore. Some religious people may say it's a sin, but if it was an act of compassion, I do not think it's wrong or at least will be forgiven.

BTW, do you approve of suicide or assisted suicide of the people who still have a possibility to get well? Does one have to be in pain for you to think it's acceptable to end one's life? And do you think you have a right to decide that for others, not just for yourself? You'd pull the jumper off the handrail of the bridge, wouldn't you?

 

[Lux]

DA, I gotta run. Let me reply to your thoughtful post in a thoughtful manner it deserves, sometime in the next week.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Of course! Look for you on the flip side! (I don't actually have a clue what that means).

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The part I made bold, that's "your own personal perception", which means yours only ... ?
Another person can perceive life as "a curse" if he feels that way and wants to be done with it, can't he? I see that many people share the same view as yours, but you can't force the jumper to share it, or if you think you can, could you explain why you think that?

Not sure I grok you here. If you men that life belongs to oneself, than ultimately yes. But I'm hesitant to make such an absolute statement, our lives are entwined with numerous others and there are real consequences for our actions.
If you are asking about God then I'm not sure he would disprove, there is no ill intent and he would understand the pain. I don't feel I can comment on that one way or another.

BTW, do you approve of suicide or assisted suicide of the people who still have a possibility to get well? Does one have to be in pain for you to think it's acceptable to end one's life? And do you think you have a right to decide that for others, not just for yourself? You'd pull the jumper off the handrail of the bridge, wouldn't you?

Pain is an experience and it's hard to quantify those. And I don't think you can ever know if someone will get better with time, but I work from the assumption that given the opportunity and the tools it is only a matter of time.
I'm not sure anyone has taken their own life who isn't in pain?
None has given me the right to act against there immediate will, but I think there is wiggle room when you have good intentions. And even though you never know until you stand there, I'd like to think that I would pull the person rails. But I also think it's important to note that people just want a way out, if you give them a hand, a ear and a shoulder, some would step down on their own.

 

[Lux]

DA, Tea,

I've created a new thread in Belief and Spirituality

 

[RJM]

Have you ever had the strange and shocking thought that perhaps the universe exists for yourself alone, that the world experiences itself only through you and that if your own light goes out the universe will cease to exist?

In the same way that at night my body lies asleep while my spirit wanders in a shifting universe of dreams which are as real to me as the world when I’m awake?

 

[wil]

That's how the multiverses start....every new thought or choice you create a new one...

It is just all about us.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

The point of a multiverse where every choice of everything since time began? I continue to have a big problem with this theory. It may turn out to be true, and that I don't like it turns out to be my problem. Or it may turn out we had the math wrong. As theories go it is probably the one I am most skeptical of.

 

[wil]

Let me find the time and energy. It's a big subject.

How does tagging work?

Where is this thread and its title?

And does it include this?

. My own take is that God created the universe as imperfect from day one, including all the aberrant behaviour in animals species

Wondering which animal behaviour is aberent?