A colossal accident?

[James1215]

You cannot say, “I was made for purpose x” if you were not made by an act of volition. … If you believe yourself to truly be an accident it is nonsensical to ascribe any purpose or value to your existence. It is that fear of death that makes the atheist ascribe meaning to what he would otherwise call an accident. Take that fear away and the rational act seems to be suicide. Why should one bother to continue experiencing the meaningless, purposeless existence that invariably results in suffering and death? For the paltry moments of youth? when everything works right and feels good? Those things are illusory as well.

This is missing the point I made, which was that if we talk about purpose in terms of purpose given by God, and then remove God, no wonder nothing matters (though suicide still doesn’t beckon). But actually, if there is no god, all those benefits of youth, that nostalgia and experience of age - everything that we use to narrate our lives - they still have meaning to us even though they do not (cannot) refer to a creator of the universe or of us. If we have no god, we were not intended and we serve no higher purpose… but tough luck really! Atheism obviously grants no belief in a supernatural higher purpose, but religion does not have the answer either. Were we created to serve the Abrahamic God? Are we destined for reincarnation unless we behave well? Are we subject to the rules of karma?

 

[tonyrey]

As people get older and death approaches they become more realistic and often more cynical. They ask themselves whether all this talk about goodness, beauty and love is wishful thinking and merely a cloak to conceal the absurdity of life. In a pointless universe everything must be pointless!

On the contrary if you believe there is nothing after death there is nothing to fear - as Socrates pointed out! You cease to exist and so do your problems.

I think your judgement of what constitutes purpose is based on theism, so naturally if we attribute everything to a sort of deity, then remove the deity, we have nothing valuable left. But why say that without a divine source, everything is pointless?

Everything would be pointless in a pointless universe but that wouldn’t prevent people from inventing purposes which give them the illusion they are getting somewhere!

Anyway, if there is a divine source for everything we hold dear, why might we still have room to fear that there might be no purpose, or that love, beauty and goodness are illusory?

There is no reason because purpose, love, beauty and goodness are realities which are explained only by a divine source. They cannot exist in a void nor can a divine source be devoid of them!

Correspondingly, if there is no such divine source, it turns out we have been living just fine through belief in these things, and have no reason to fear the ‘absurdity’ of life.

If you believe in love, beauty and goodness you are in effect believing in the divine source because they converge in one Perfect Being! You have a purpose which you would otherwise lack, but tragically some people are led to believe those realities don’t exist, see no reason for living and take to drugs or commit suicide…

Either way you look at it, individual fear of loss contributes nothing towards having reason to believe in divine objective grounding.

Christian belief in God is based on love not fear unless it is distorted by Christians or anti-Christians - as has often happened…

 

[James1215]

On the contrary if you believe there is nothing after death there is nothing to fear - as Socrates pointed out! You cease to exist and so do your problems.

Yes, I was joking with ‘convert or die scared’ as I do not think there is anything to fear, in spite of many theistic views.

Everything would be pointless in a pointless universe but that wouldn’t prevent people from inventing purposes which give them the illusion they are getting somewhere!

Well no, not everything would have to be pointless in a universe which existed incidentally or accidentally. Purpose is a question of purpose of something to someone. As long as there are somethings and someones, there can be purpose. In any case, my point was that obviously all notions of purpose would be lost (or changed) if they were invested in a god who people lost faith in. If God is everything, take God out the picture and there’s nothing left.

There is no reason because purpose, love, beauty and goodness are realities which are explained only by a divine source. They cannot exist in a void nor can a divine source be devoid of them!

As you can tell from my comment above, my atheism is not a belief that God should be removed, but that there aren’t any supernatural deities in the first place. As such, I do not think that beauty/love/goodness can only be accounted for by a non-existent Being. Even if no-one agreed, it is still possible to look at what I think are the non-objective grounds for these values, which in my case are essential to my atheism. These would be psychological, evolutionary and cultural.

If you believe in love, beauty and goodness you are in effect believing in the divine source because they converge in one Perfect Being! You have a purpose which you would otherwise lack, but tragically some people are led to believe those realities don’t exist, see no reason for living and take to drugs or commit suicide…

I think reasons for suicide are often different from these, and a lot more personal than philosophical. I would never say that someone’s thoughts on the universe and everything ought to lead towards death, either. For example, I would not seriously say to a nihilist that he cannot sustain a reason for his continued existence, and then point out Nietzsche’s end-of-life psychopathy as if this is a natural outcome. That sure is one way to undermine the opposition!

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I was joking with ‘convert or die scared’ as I do not think there is anything to fear, in spite of many theistic views.

“To die, to sleep–
To sleep–perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause…
Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?” - Hamlet

Anyone who rules out the possibility of life after death is being unrealistic. If justice is not a mere illusion it must correspond to reality…
Well no, not everything would have to be pointless in a universe which existed incidentally or accidentally. Purpose is a question of purpose of something to someone. As long as there are somethings and someones, there can be purpose.

In any case, my point was that obviously all notions of purpose would be lost (or changed) if they were invested in a god who people lost faith in. If God is everything, take God out the picture and there’s nothing left.

All notions of purpose would be lost anyway because it is absurd to believe purposeless objects - which have no reference to the future - can produce purposeful beings - whose activity does have a reference to the future.

As you can tell from my comment above, my atheism is not a belief that God should be removed, but that there aren’t any supernatural deities in the first place. As such, I do not think that beauty/love/goodness can only be accounted for by a non-existent Being. Even if no-one agreed, it is still possible to look at what I think are the non-objective grounds for these values, which in my case are essential to my atheism. These would be psychological, evolutionary and cultural.

If the values are non-objective they exist only in human minds and don’t correspond to reality. In other words they can be ignored and rejected by cynics who choose to live like animals according to the law of the jungle.

I think reasons for suicide are often different from these, and a lot more personal than philosophical.

I didn’t say they are the only reasons.

The reasons I would never say that someone’s thoughts on the universe and everything ought to lead towards death, either.

What is the basis of your “ought” judgment?
For example, I would not seriously say to a nihilist that he cannot sustain a reason for his continued existence, and then point out Nietzsche’s end-of-life psychopathy as if this is a natural outcome. That sure is one way to undermine the opposition!
It is not a natural outcome because people have a survival instinct but it is logical if you believe you have no purpose in life.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes it does, you just said “experience is required for knowledge” implies that empiricism must be empirically evidenced.

Sure did. The statement you just made however is…

How is it that a supposed dogma can entail some method of being tested…

I am pointing out that your assertion “experience is required for knowledge” does not entail a method of being tested.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…they still have meaning to us …

What meaning can you derive from an accident?

… but religion does not have the answer either. Were we created to serve the Abrahamic God? Are we destined for reincarnation unless we behave well? Are we subject to the rules of karma?

The fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy mathematically demonstrates that Christianity is the One True Faith. G-d gave us all the evidence we need.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

That was not an appeal to any authority as I did not cite an authority. The only relevant point that these mystery other people make is the one I gave here, which can be evaluated without recourse to any authority.

By indicating, in a vague fashion, others think as you do (anonymous authorities), you attempt to lend your thinking credibility. If others do think as you, cite a source or example. Otherwise, avoid speaking as if it is common knowledge, which is it not.

What can we be certain of, if all we have is perception?

This is your assumption that all we have is perception. Since this is your claim, you need to demonstrate it to be true.

Is there a difference between perceptions and hypotheses based on perception? Some say yes there is, in that perception is immediate and foundational, whereas hypotheses constructed on it are prone to change and doubt.

Who are these individuals? Citation please!

Your question seemed to be whether we simply have belief in our thoughts, or whether we can be certain of them. Posing the above distinction means that having certainty of our thoughts is possible within empiricism, because thoughts can be considered perceived, therefore to be immediate and foundational.

It appears your position is still that that thoughts are perceived but have yet to substantiate it with any form sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. At this point, I think you’ve implictly ceded the point and are merely attempting to make an argument from bafflement. What does immediate and foundational mean in this context? These are terms you’ve introduced without much qualification. Would you care to expand on their meaning in your argument?

Let’s be clear. Naive empiricism specifies that it is a theory about the requirements for knowledge that is not a certain statement, but at most a proposition in which we have reason to believe.

To which I could respond with naive empircism is a false theory of knowledge because* we have reason to believe that the proposition for naive empricism is not true*. How do we evaluate which theory is correct?

We do not have to ‘know’ empiricism in any certain way in order to demonstrate the self-consistency of the proposition. This is just as well, because inductive reasoning cannot provide certainty.

Inductive reasoning cannot provide certainty sounds like a claim. Would you be able to defend this assertion? I know Hume held this position.

Therefore, when we talk about the knowledge that it is necessary to have about empiricism, we talk about the reason to believe which we must have regarding empiricism. To put that in shorthand, if the proposition is supported, we would have knowledge that knowledge needs empirical evidence, in these terms.

Having the knowledge that knowledge needs empirical evidence is self-supporting. It is functionally saying that we can perceive the fact knowledge is only from empiricism is true, since you have indicated all knowledge stems from perception. You may observe events that support it but you cannot observe the theory to be true.

Irrespective of these extraneous issues, empiricism need not be self-contradictory or dogmatic.

Empiricism is the only way for knowledge, which has been the point of contention for the last 40+ pages of the thread, is self-refuing as an epistemology. To employ they naive empiricism theory and pose it as uncertain preposition merely demonstrates the inherent flaws as an epsitemological position. You’ve attempted to characterize knowledge as an uncertain state. However, if one is uncertain about the “knowledge” they possess, can it even be construed as knowledge? I appears you’ve equated mere evidence as knowledge and that’s why you are having your difficulty.

 

[James1215]

Anyone who rules out the possibility of life after death is being unrealistic. If justice is not a mere illusion it must correspond to reality…

I do not rule out the possibility that we never die, I just find that idea highly implausible and do not believe it. Even if I wished it were true, I would still be embarrassed by not also thinking it was true. How is it just that we should live forever?

All notions of purpose would be lost anyway because it is absurd to believe purposeless objects - which have no reference to the future - can produce purposeful beings - whose activity does have a reference to the future.

My point remains that purpose as defined in relation to a deity is not found in a world-view without a deity. However, I do not think that other sorts of purpose cannot be meaningfully conceived. Indeed, if we do not have a creator god, or there is one but he/she/it/they never had designs for us, these sorts of self-made purpose are all we’ve got.

If the values are non-objective they exist only in human minds and don’t correspond to reality. In other words they can be ignored and rejected by cynics who choose to live like animals according to the law of the jungle.

Well if something exists in human minds, it is real in a sense. I think your belief is real, even though I think the object of your belief is not. If we are animals and do live in a metaphorical jungle, then I say the jungle isn’t that bad. There’s at least a lot of potential and goodness to play with.

What is the basis of your “ought” judgment?

My understanding of morality is that a moral judgement is an expression of fear/desire/disgust as well as a command to do or not do something. Above all it deals with harm, and to a lesser degree, with happiness. It operates through social norms and very real social approval/disapproval as well as sheer obedience or rational argumentation. Or a combination of all. One can explain this via evolution and culture, and see adaptive benefits in group conformity/empathy etc etc. I’m sure you’ll find this notion itself immoral, but I don’t think theistic morality, in terms of what is empirically evident about it, actually operates in any other way. Just because there are 10 commandments doesn’t mean that people follow them; hence they are merely the preference of God (or of us). No one is demonstrably punished on earth for their sins, so the only people to enforce them are other people. Whether people are indeed punished or praised after death we can only wait to see…

It is not a natural outcome because people have a survival instinct but it is logical if you believe you have no purpose in life.

It still does not follow from the idea of having no purpose that one would commit suicide. Think Newton’s first law! Also, the idea that we serve no purpose therefore should remove ourselves is actually intuitively comprehensible only when there is a divine power granting a general purpose. If we do not cut the mustard for them, maybe we should die, or go to hell - just get ourselves out of the picture. Nihilism is better than that.

 

[James1215]

I also think Christian life is better than Christian death. In life our actions are made meaningful by the notion of the hereafter, but what makes life in heaven meaningful? We have to serve God under difficult circumstances, strive, overcome odds, help other people - in general we have a strong sense of mission on earth. We have life stages, childrearing, teaching and learning, as well as developing oneself spiritually. In heaven, what are we striving towards? What contrast between good and bad, submission and pain, holiness and fleshiness is left? God is unchanging, monistic and outside time. Sure, we’d ‘experience’ God/be with God, but what is so noble about unchanging, fixed elation? What can we achieve if everything is already perfect? Christian life is certainly more meaningful in my eyes than Christian death, which is highly peculiar given that it is the finite part. If you disagree entirely on these musings, I guess all we can say is that heaven will be meaningful in a different sense, one which has no meaning in human terms…

Where is the purpose in that?

 

[tonyrey]

Anyone who rules out the possibility of life after death is being unrealistic. If justice is not a mere illusion it must correspond to reality…

Since we didn’t ask to be born life is “thrust upon us”! We certainly don’t deserve to die but neither do we deserve to live. But by creating us God has imposed on Himself a duty of care. The very fact that we can conceive of immortality makes death an unjust deprivation of our desire to live forever. You may say you have no wish to be immortal but if you were faced with prospect of annihilation right now I doubt whether you would welcome it!

All notions of purpose would be lost anyway because it is absurd to believe purposeless objects - which have no reference to the future - can produce purposeful beings - whose activity does have a reference to the future.

My point remains that purpose as defined in relation to a deity is not found in a world-view without a deity. However, I do not think that other sorts of purpose cannot be meaningfully conceived. Indeed, if we do not have a creator god, or there is one but he/she/it/they never had designs for us, these sorts of self-made purpose are all we’ve got.

The issue is how we are capable of establishing purposes for ourselves if we have no control over our decisions - which must be the case if all our activity has physical causes.

I

f the values are non-objective they exist only in human minds and don’t correspond to reality. In other words they can be ignored and rejected by cynics who choose to live like animals according to the law of the jungle.

Well if something exists in human minds, it is real in a sense. I think your belief is real, even though I think the object of your belief is not. If we are animals and do live in a metaphorical jungle, then I say the jungle isn’t that bad. There’s at least a lot of potential and goodness to play with.

The reality of a belief does not necessitate correspondence to objective reality. People who live without values are in a real jungle which doesn’t leave much scope for potential and goodness! Life would be nasty, brutish and short…

What is the basis of your “ought” judgment?

My understanding of morality is that a moral judgement is an expression of fear/desire/disgust as well as a command to do or not do something. Above all it deals with harm, and to a lesser degree, with happiness. It operates through social norms and very real social approval/disapproval as well as sheer obedience or rational argumentation. Or a combination of all. One can explain this via evolution and culture, and see adaptive benefits in group conformity/empathy etc etc. I’m sure you’ll find this notion itself immoral, but I don’t think theistic morality, in terms of what is empirically evident about it, actually operates in any other way. Just because there are 10 commandments doesn’t mean that people follow them; hence they are merely the preference of God (or of us).

I don’t find the notion itself immoral because morality is concerned with our personal and social development and fulfilment. The prohibitions to lie, steal, kill and commit adultery are not merely preferences but necessary conditions of our physical and spiritual welfare.

No one is demonstrably punished on earth for their sins, so the only people to enforce them are other people. Whether people are indeed punished or praised after death we can only wait to see…

At the psychological level people do get what they deserve because every virtue and vice incur their own reward of punishment. Egoism leads to conflict - and unselfishness harmony - with others. Even so there is a lot of unfinished business with regard to untimely deaths and gross injustice.

It is not a natural outcome because people have a survival instinct but it is logical if you believe you have no purpose in life.

It still does not follow from the idea of having no purpose that one would commit suicide. Think Newton’s first law!

Constant awareness of the futility of it all is enough to drive anyone to suicide, especially if accompanied by failure and misery in daily life.

Also, the idea that we serve no purpose therefore should remove ourselves is actually intuitively comprehensible only when there is a divine power granting a general purpose.

How about the purpose that we are here to decide for ourselves what to believe and how to live? That is what does occur.

If we do not cut the mustard for them, maybe we should die, or go to hell - just get ourselves out of the picture. Nihilism is better than that

.

You’re assuming hell doesn’t have its compensations! To satisfy the lust for power and independence brings great pleasure and satisfaction. It is the cause of much or even most of the misery caused by men…

 

[tonyrey]

I also think Christian life is better than Christian death. In life our actions are made meaningful by the notion of the hereafter, but what makes life in heaven meaningful? We have to serve God under difficult circumstances, strive, overcome odds, help other people - in general we have a strong sense of mission on earth. We have life stages, childrearing, teaching and learning, as well as developing oneself spiritually. In heaven, what are we striving towards? What contrast between good and bad, submission and pain, holiness and fleshiness is left? God is unchanging, monistic and outside time. Sure, we’d ‘experience’ God/be with God, but what is so noble about unchanging, fixed elation? What can we achieve if everything is already perfect? Christian life is certainly more meaningful in my eyes than Christian death, which is highly peculiar given that it is the finite part. If you disagree entirely on these musings, I guess all we can say is that heaven will be meaningful in a different sense, one which has no meaning in human terms…

Where is the purpose in that?

If we regard heaven as a journey of exploration, discovery, creativity, friendship, joy, consolation, appreciation and development in a quest for truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love in the presence of God it has plenty of meaning! All the most important things in this life are intangible anyway and even in heaven we never achieve absolute perfection.

I like your description of the Christian life on earth.

 

[James1215]

Since we didn’t ask to be born life is “thrust upon us”! We certainly don’t deserve to die but neither do we deserve to live. But by creating us God has imposed on Himself a duty of care. The very fact that we can conceive of immortality makes death an unjust deprivation of our desire to live forever. You may say you have no wish to be immortal but if you were faced with prospect of annihilation right now I doubt whether you would welcome it!

I like this idea! Still don’t see how if being thrust into life is unjust, prolonging life indefinitely is the cure. The choice between immortality and annihilation is also a false dilemma.

The issue is how we are capable of establishing purposes for ourselves if we have no control over our decisions - which must be the case if all our activity has physical causes.

This is a great issue in all senses of the word, and it is not a closed one. If you want an argument for free will that is compatible with physical determinism, have a look at Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves book. He argues that for one thing, we need determinism to make sense of free will. That everything arises from a material basis poses no problems in this theory, so you cannot say that we have no control over our decisions unless you have a good argument. As part of that, how do you explain the interaction of physical and non-physical, causal and non-causal?

The reality of a belief does not necessitate correspondence to objective reality. People who live without values are in a real jungle which doesn’t leave much scope for potential and goodness! Life would be nasty, brutish and short…

Nobody really lives without values, as all values are a manifestation in some measure of selfish interests. Let’s not forget that Hobbes’s solution to living in the jungle was a secular, and I believe a very effective one, based on the selfish desire not to live in poverty and war. I think society is better for having universal laws backed up by police, in which scenario the state is the leviathan.

I don’t find the notion itself immoral because morality is concerned with our personal and social development and fulfilment. The prohibitions to lie, steal, kill and commit adultery are not merely preferences but necessary conditions of our physical and spiritual welfare.

Of our spiritual welfare, yes, but in theism we don’t get any evidence of divine punishment before death that is not found in my atheistic conception of the psychological functioning of morality.

You’re assuming hell doesn’t have its compensations! To satisfy the lust for power and independence brings great pleasure and satisfaction. It is the cause of much or even most of the misery caused by men…

Then hell would only satisfy my desire for power and independence if I knew I was there entirely by my own volition. When I get there, I will not be totally lustfully satisfied if I find that I cannot access heaven if I so wished (given the new knowledge that Christianity was true), and I wouldn’t truly have my lustful independence if eternity in hell was forced upon me. So that means that, for hell to be a true extension of my earthly sins and rebellion, it wouldn’t be so bad, painful or eternal?

 

[James1215]

If we regard heaven as a journey of exploration, discovery, creativity, friendship, joy, consolation, appreciation and development in a quest for truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love in the presence of God it has plenty of meaning! All the most important things in this life are intangible anyway and even in heaven we never achieve absolute perfection.

I like your description of the Christian life on earth.

Is that what heaven is? Bible quotes…?

I appreciate aspects of Christian life because I am a good person who shares many foundational values with many Christians. In another life you could have been born as me, with my sense of mission and desire to help people, only lacking a belief in God to back this up. I could have been you, and hypothetically, all that would differ is this belief! That would be a colossal accident…

 

[James1215]

Sure did. The statement you just made however is… I am pointing out that your assertion “experience is required for knowledge” does not entail a method of being tested.

It may not entail caring, but if one does care, then to find out whether one should accept or reject the proposition, one has to actively consider evidence for and against it. That is the method of being tested that is entailed. No one can claim it is true or false or dogmatic without first reviewing the evidence. If evidence finds the hypothesis to be unsupported, it would be dogmatic to continue to assert it. However, the proposition would simply be a failed hypothesis and not in itself a dogma. The hypothesis that the earth is flat, for example, is not a dogma unless someone propounds it against the evidence, and one can only assert that it is a dogma when one demonstrates the evidence against it.

So, let’s consider the evidence for and against empiricism, after we are clear about what empiricism proposes.

It says as a hypothesis, and not with certainty, that all instances of having knowledge will contain in them empirical evidence - evidence grounded in experience.

Knowledge is understood as having reason to believe that a statement made about any aspect of reality outside formal logic is true.

It does not say that perception is reliable, but works within the perceptible realm.

Nor does it imply that a statement cannot be true unless it is known to be true.

Nor that what we perceive is all there is or all there can be.

I’ll leave it there until you’ve dissected everything you take issue with, as there is no point consulting evidence until evidence matters.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Would believing that your existence is merely fortuitous destroy your appreciation of beauty and goodness or diminish your experience of love?

Why should I believe that my existence is “merely fortuitous”? Who has ever proven that?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It may not entail caring, but if one does care, then to find out whether one should accept or reject the proposition, one has to actively consider evidence for and against it. That is the method of being tested that is entailed.

Yet the proposition “experience is required for knowledge” does not entail any method of testing. Those five words imply no method whatsoever. You are now asserting that factors other than the proposition entail a method of testing and even that is untrue, caring is not a method of testing. Nor are verification criterions of meaning rationally sound.

No one can claim it is true or false or dogmatic without first reviewing the evidence.

Sure, we can. We can point out that no evidence is possible. As I have repeatedly done by demonstrating that one cannot deduce evidence for your asserted proposition from observations of the scientific method.

Knowledge is understood as having reason to believe that a statement made about any aspect of reality outside formal logic is true.

knowl·edge
Noun/ˈnälij/

1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.

 

[James1215]

knowl·edge
Noun/ˈnälij/

1. Information and skills acquired through experience.

Well, have it your way!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, have it your way!

knowl·edge
Noun/ˈnälij/

1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.

 

[tonyrey]

Is that what heaven is? Bible quotes…?

Catholics are not compelled to confine their beliefs to Church doctrine. There is wide diversity of opinion within the fold on various subjects.

I appreciate aspects of Christian life because I am a good person who shares many foundational values with many Christians. In another life you could have been born as me, with my sense of mission and desire to help people, only lacking a belief in God to back this up. I could have been you, and hypothetically, all that would differ is this belief! That would be a colossal accident…/quote}
Not as far as I’m concerned, James, because I don’t believe our beliefs are thrust upon us! If they were we wouldn’t be rational beings…

 

[James1215]

Not as far as I’m concerned, James, because I don’t believe our beliefs are thrust upon us! If they were we wouldn’t be rational beings…

Do you choose your beliefs? I assume your answer is that you’ve simply seen the truth, so neither choice nor imposition are necessary.

But would you see the same truths if you were born in a predominantly Islamic country? Or into an atheist family (say), or a Jewish one?