How to respond to the "Expedite Heaven" argument from nonbelievers?

[JDaniel]

Eating McDonalds IS a mortal sin.

We were speaking of the “food”.

Smoking is a virtue.

Cigars?

God bless,
jd

 

[ThomasToo]

As the question was posed in answer to an atheist’s argument what you (don’t) believe is irrelevant. The issue is whether his argument is valid… and if not why not?

Fair enough I suppose but I guess the gap of belief (which can only be bridged by a Kierkegaardian leap of faith) is so wide that the questions are mutually unintelligible at least on the whole.

I would press your question further; why would God create (human) life in the form it takes? Condemn us for our natural faults? Allow a potential hell? I think that your question stops short and other questions in a similar vein asked with enough persistence and an open mind will cut as Occam’s razor and–at the risk of sounding poetical–cut the trinity into a non-entity.

 

[tonyrey]

Fair enough I suppose but I guess the gap of belief (which can only be bridged by a Kierkegaardian leap of faith) is so wide that the questions are mutually unintelligible at least on the whole.

You have hit the nail on the head. The gap is far wider than you think. I entirely agree with you that it does take an unimaginably enormous leap of faith to attribute an immensely rich, valuable, rational, autonomous, purposeful and fulfilling existence to >>>>>>>>>>> the blind activity of inanimate processes which lack every single one of those attributes!

I would press your question further; why would God create (human) life in the form it takes?

Do you question the value of your life and those you love and admire? Do you regret having been born?

Condemn us for our natural faults?

Of course not. How could a loving Father condemn His own children? That is absolutely ridiculous. We are not condemned by God. If we are condemned it is by ourselves - by our decision to be independent.

Allow a potential hell?

A potential hell is the logical outcome of free will. The only alternative is to regard persons as incapable of responsibility for their actions or for shaping their own destiny.

I think that your question stops short and other questions in a similar vein asked with enough persistence and an open mind will cut as Occam’s razor and–at the risk of sounding poetical–cut the trinity into a non-entity.

When used injudiciously Occam’s razor cuts the “open mind” into a closed machine and persons into puppets composed of particles. Life becomes a futile farce which begins fortuitously, lasts for a few feverish years and ends with frustration.

When used judiciously Occam’s razor cuts everything else out of the picture and reveals One Supreme Being…

 

[ThomasToo]

Do you question the value of your life and those you love and admire? Do you regret having been born?

I enjoy my life at least most of the time but I don’t know that it has objective value in the way you–as a Christian–would want to give it. I don’t regret it, no, but I don’t quite see the relevance of whether or not I enjoy my life.

Of course not. How could a loving Father condemn His own children? That is absolutely ridiculous. We are not condemned by God. If we are condemned it is by ourselves - by our decision to be independent.

How could a loving Father drown all but 8 (if I recall the story correctly) of his children (Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and their wives)? That strikes me as condemnation.

So too is the very notion that we are–to a man–so stained that a human blood sacrifice is needed to make us worthy of divine love. Perhaps worthy is not the right word, ‘amenable to’ perhaps? In either case, to say we are not condemned by God is to ignore the textual reality of much of the bible and the implications of the rest.

 

[ThomasToo]

Do you question the value of your life and those you love and admire? Do you regret having been born?

I knew I was forgetting to say something above! Much of why I value my life, and the lives of those I love, is because I think our lives–that is to say our earthly, physical, embodied existence–is all we have. If, however, I believed, in the truest and fullest sense of that word–a belief without doubt–, that this life with its component suffering is only the anteroom for eternal and perpetual bliss I would probably do the off this mortal coil shuffle without much delay.

 

[tonyrey]

I enjoy my life at least most of the time but I don’t know that it has objective value in the way you–as a Christian–would want to give it. I don’t regret it, no, but I don’t quite see the relevance of whether or not I enjoy my life.

How could a loving Father drown all but 8 (if I recall the story correctly) of his children (Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and their wives)? That strikes me as condemnation.
Why interpret the OT literally?

So too is the very notion that we are–to a man–so stained that a human blood sacrifice is needed to make us worthy of divine love. Perhaps worthy is not the right word, ‘amenable to’ perhaps?

Do you think the blood-stained history of the human race doesn’t show our need to be liberated from evil and given a living example of how to love? Of how to allow our own blood to be spilt rather than spill that of others?

In either case, to say we are not condemned by God is to ignore the textual reality of much of the bible and the implications of the rest.

The “textual reality” is a literal interpretation of parables and Jewish hyperboles which are essential to hammer home the reality of moral and spiritual truths. The nails of the crucified Christ are a more potent message than all the admonitions in the world. Love is revealed by actions rather than words and has inspired more people to lead good lives than any other factor you can name… “I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…”

When used injudiciously Occam’s razor cuts the “open mind” into a closed machine and persons into puppets composed of particles. Life becomes a futile farce which begins fortuitously, lasts for a few feverish years and ends with frustration.

When used judiciously Occam’s razor cuts everything else out of the picture and reveals One Supreme Being…

No comment on your part.

[/QUOTE]

 

[ThomasToo]

To enjoy your life and not regard it as objectively valuable is illogical because enjoyment stems from the objective features of life. The fact that you also regard other people’s lives as valuable is further evidence of its objective value. Do think you imagine that it is valuable?

See my addition above (post #25). Incidentally, is there an easy way to link to a post in a thread without quoting it?

No comment from you!

Discussion of evolution, which is what my comment would have to reference to answer your query, is–so I understand–forbidden. As such I am unable to comment but would happily explain why this is hardly the leap of faith you imagine via PM or email.

Why interpret the OT literally?

Why interpret the Gospels literally? There is one thing on which I agree with many fundamentalists and that is when you don’t take any one part of the bible as truth then there is no objective reasons (i.e. one that is not a case of the fallacy of special pleading) to take any other part.

Do you think the blood-stained history of the human race doesn’t show our need to be liberated from evil and given a living example of how to love? Of how to allow our own blood to be spilt rather than spill that of others?

I think that much of our blood-staining is men fighting over which god is the right one (as the late comedian Richard Jeni put it, ‘you’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend’). These aside they show that Thanatos–to use Freud’s term–is one of our basest drives and is intrinsic to our nature.

The “textual reality” is a literal interpretation of parables and Jewish hyperboles which are essential to hammer home the reality of moral and spiritual truths. The nails of the crucified Christ are a more potent message than all the admonitions in the world. Love is revealed by actions rather than words and has inspired more people to lead good lives than any other factor you can name… “I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…”

Do people need a dead Jew and the threat of hell to do good actions? Set aside all the violence that religion has stirred–for surely if you want credit for the good you must also be willing to accept the same for the bad–many people are simply honest, good and decent without any reference to the supernatural. If, however, love is revealed in actions than surely you would agree that two hands at work do more good than a thousand folded in prayer.

No comment on your part.

Discussion on reductionist theories of consciousness don’t really seem germane here so I didn’t reply on them nor on the fallacy that Occam, properly applied, shows there to be a god of any sort, let alone yours. To reply on the second would, again, require reference to forbidden topics.

 

[tonyrey]

I knew I was forgetting to say something above! Much of why I value my life, and the lives of those I love, is because I think our lives–that is to say our earthly, physical, embodied existence–is all we have.

Don’t you think it would be even more valuable if it were not cut short, harshly for many people - especially children, frustrated in some way for almost everyone, with so much unfinished business, unrectified injustice and the inconsolable sadness of being separated from loved ones forever?

If, however, I believed, in the truest and fullest sense of that word–a belief without doubt–, that this life with its component suffering is only the anteroom for eternal and perpetual bliss I would probably do the off this mortal coil shuffle without much delay.

That would be to devalue this life which has its own values and purposes - and to underrate the pleasures and joys of a physical existence. There is always plenty of unfinished business no matter how long we live if we are concerned about the unnecessary misery and suffering in the world. All this is quite apart from the fact that Thomas does not seem to mind being separated from his loved ones or be concerned about their feelings.
Are you sure that is the case?

 

[Betterave]

I would press your question further; why would God create (human) life in the form it takes? [WHY NOT?] Condemn us for our natural faults? [LIKE WHAT?] Allow a potential hell? [WHY NOT?] I think that your question stops short and other questions in a similar vein asked with enough persistence and an open mind will cut as Occam’s razor and–at the risk of sounding poetical–cut the trinity into a non-entity.

It’s not very interesting to mention the wonderful argument you could make if only certain conditions held which don’t currently hold… Why not just tell us something concrete about your first three questions here.

p.s. Appeals to Occam’s razor are almost always a waste of time. The razor - don’t posit more entities than necessary (Scotus’ before it was Occam’s) - must obviously be balanced by Chatton’s anti-razor - don’t posit fewer entities than necessary. Abstract gestures towards the principle itself are usually made only by people who have no understanding of the position they are arguing against.

 

[ThomasToo]

Don’t you think it would be even more valuable if it were not cut short, harshly for many people - especially children, frustrated in some way for almost everyone, with so much unfinished business, unrectified injustice and the inconsolable sadness of being separated from loved ones forever?

I think it would be better if all many people ever experienced was a life (in the words of Hobbs) that is nasty, poor, brutish and short. Unfortunately, that is the way the world is. I do not, however, grant that it would be more valuable if we got a bonus round (or a do-over).

That would be to devalue this life which has its own values and purposes - and to underrate the pleasures and joys of a physical existence. There is always plenty of unfinished business no matter how long we live if we are concerned about the unnecessary misery and suffering in the world. All this is quite apart from the fact that Thomas does not seem to mind being separated from his loved ones or be concerned about their feelings.
Are you sure that is the case?

But everything every (orthodox) Christian writer has ever laid down from Paul onward has indicated that the joys of Heaven so outstrip those on earth as the sun does a lamp. If I had true faith then I would know that my loved ones and I would be reunited and would hope that they would know that I was going somewhere (far far) better. Separation only comes with the belief that this life is all there is which is why I intend to live for as long as possible an d have as much fun as I can while I exist. Then I’ll go back to the same place I was before I was (i.e. non-existence) and that will be that–assuming the singularity is a pipe dream.

 

[ThomasToo]

It’s not very interesting to mention the wonderful argument you could make if only certain conditions held which don’t currently hold… Why not just tell us something concrete about your first three questions here.

I only said to Tony that I couldn’t reply to two of his direct questions because of present rules.

Brief responses to your questions which, to be frank, seem close to asking me to prove that I can’t fly but I shall attempt post card answers to deep and important questions.
Why wouldn’t an all-loving, all-powerful god make (human) life in a different form?
As I addressed above, we are, on the aggregate, destructive and puerile, believing what we wish were so rather than what is so. Our base drives run contrary to (Christian/Catholic) norms of morality on almost every point. This doesn’t get into the myriad biological flaws that a competent engineer would remedy.

Why would an all-loving, all-powerful god not contemn humans for possessing human nature?
It is, at best, strange for any god who had a hand in creating mankind to then make it a sin–without getting into the Euthyphro dilemma–more or less, to be human. Man is made curious and is commanded to not satisfy his curiosity and all his progeny is punished for one act that is so very human: satisfying (or trying to satisfy) curiosity.

Why would an all-powerful, all-loving god disallow the existence of a place of perpetual torment?
It’s hard to sum this one up in a few brief sentences and for a fuller treatment I would recommend If Grace is True by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. It is contradictory, however, for a being capable of doing anything and with a desire–it would seem–to prevent as much suffering as possible (I’m hardly perfectly loving but I will forcefully assert that suffering is an objective bad and any love would remove or diminish as much as possible) to allow a place such as Hell or a being such as Satan–who as one pre-Vatican II phrase put is, is prowling the world for the ruin of our souls–to exist. At worst the gates of heaven must stand open and inviting for all the dead to come and try. This, however, stands opposed to the orthodox notion that the choice at death is an eternal one.

 

[tonyrey]

Incidentally, is there an easy way to link to a post in a thread without quoting it?

There probably is but I don’t know how.

I enjoy my life at least most of the time but I don’t know that it has objective value in the way you–as a Christian–would want to give it. I don’t regret it, no, but I don’t quite see the relevance of whether or not I enjoy my life.

To enjoy your life and not regard it as objectively valuable is illogical because enjoyment stems from the objective features of life. The fact that you also regard other people’s lives as valuable is further evidence of its objective value. Do think you imagine it is valuable?

How could a loving Father drown all but 8 (if I recall the story correctly) of his children (Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and their wives)? That strikes me as condemnation.

Why interpret the OT literally?

Do you think the blood-stained history of the human race doesn’t show our need to be liberated from evil and given a living example of how to love?

In either case, to say we are not condemned by God is to ignore the textual reality of much of the bible and the implications of the rest.

Love is revealed by actions rather than words and has inspired more people to lead good lives than any other factor you can name… “I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…”

Discussion of evolution, which is what my comment would have to reference to answer your query, is–so I understand–forbidden. As such I am unable to comment but would happily explain why this is hardly the leap of faith you imagine via PM or email.

The details are irrelevant. If purpose is reduced to that which is purposeless it cannot somehow become purposeful. You can’t get something from nothing. Purpose is either an illusion or it is not.

Why interpret the OT literally?

Why interpret the Gospels literally? There is one thing on which I agree with many fundamentalists and that is when you don’t take any one part of the bible as truth then there is no objective reasons (i.e. one that is not a case of the fallacy of special pleading) to take any other part.

There is one very good reason. The Gospels are concerned with the life and teaching of Jesus which are the basis of Christianity.

I think that much of our blood-staining is men fighting over which god is the right one (as the late comedian Richard Jeni put it, ‘you’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend’). These aside they show that Thanatos–to use Freud’s term–is one of our basest drives and is intrinsic to our nature.

All bloodshed is due to lack of love and respect for those who are our brothers and sisters -if one believes in a loving Father. To regard Thanatos as one of our basest drives and intrinsic to our nature is to encourage people to believe we are doomed to be killers whether we choose to or not. Nietszche’s influence on the Nazi mentality and the alleged weakness of Christianity is ample evidence of its pernicious results.

The “textual reality” is a literal interpretation of parables and Jewish hyperboles which are essential to hammer home the reality of moral and spiritual truths. The nails of the crucified Christ are a more potent message than all the admonitions in the world. Love is revealed by actions rather than words and has inspired more people to lead good lives than any other factor you can name… “I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…”

Do people need a dead Jew and the threat of hell to do good actions?

The “dead Jew” has inspired more heroic sanctity and love for the needy than all the atheists who have ever lived on this earth. The hope of heaven has encouraged people to make sacrifices and achieve feats to help the afflicted which they would have otherwise thought impossible. The fear of hell is a salutary warning of the dangers of pride, selfishness and the lust for power. The reality of evil is not something to be ignored or dismissed as a Freudian drive but as a choice for which we are responsible. The sterility of atheism with regard to moral and spiritual values is evidence of its falsity.

Set aside all the violence that religion has stirred–for surely if you want credit for the good you must also be willing to accept the same for the bad–many people are simply honest, good and decent without any reference to the supernatural.

These values are due to the heritage of religion throughout the world and throughout history. It is when people reject, ignore or forget those values that they have full licence to act as they choose. The appalling amount of unnecessary misery, suffering and injustice in our increasingly secular world shows the extent to which those values have been discarded. It is not religion that has inspired violence but man’s distortion of religion. The lack of religion is not a source of inspiration but of cynicism and fatalism - as we have seen with your reference to Thanatos.

If, however, love is revealed in actions than surely you would agree that two hands at work do more good than a thousand folded in prayer.

Two hands at work without faith, hope and love do far more harm than good…

Discussion on reductionist theories of consciousness don’t really seem germane here so I didn’t reply on them nor on the fallacy that Occam, properly applied, shows there to be a god of any sort, let alone yours. To reply on the second would, again, require reference to forbidden topics.

The issue is simply whether one Supreme Being is a more economical, adequate, intelligible and fertile explanation than a multitude of atomic particles and physical laws…

 

[fhansen]

As I addressed above, we are, on the aggregate, destructive and puerile, believing what we wish were so rather than what is so. Our base drives run contrary to (Christian/Catholic) norms of morality on almost every point.

This is a great description of original sin, man creating his own truth, rendering truth relative.

Why would an all-loving, all-powerful god not contemn humans for possessing human nature?
It is, at best, strange for any god who had a hand in creating mankind to then make it a sin–without getting into the Euthyphro dilemma–more or less, to be human. Man is made curious and is commanded to not satisfy his curiosity and all his progeny is punished for one act that is so very human: satisfying (or trying to satisfy) curiosity.

But that’s the point of the doctrine of OS-man isn’t natural, meaning the way God created him to be, and this by our own choice, preferring to distance ourselves from Him, i.e. not believe in Him, let alone love Him. The point of the New Covenant is, in simplest form, that man needs God- in order to have life and have it abundantly, in order to live a life worth living as it’s lived according to His perfect will.

 

[Betterave]

Brief responses to your questions which, to be frank, seem close to asking me to prove that I can’t fly but I shall attempt post card answers to deep and important questions.

It’s bedtime, but quick question: how were my requests for you to explain/justify your (rhetorical) questions anything like asking you to prove that you can’t fly?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I got into an argument elsewhere a while ago with some atheists. I initially posed the question, “Why don’t you expedite the inevitable?” (to use a euphemistic phrase). This question, ironically, was the central object of contemplation for the atheist, Albert Camus.

It also puzzled Roman Catholic convert, and theistic existentialist, Walker Percy. Why do so many atheists put up with suffering? Why do they put up with non-suffering? To what end? Especially when you reach the period in your life where the pain outweighs the pleasure…life support, decaying body, viagra, rogaine, memory loss, …etc.

Incidentally, it was brought to my attention during the discussion that many atheists DO believe in an afterlife, even though the ones to whom I was speaking did not…

Anyway, for someone who believes that consciousness terminates at the grave, then the “meaning of life” is arbitrarily created by the subject while he/she still exists; once he expires then so does the subjective meaning of their life. All their earthy actions are, essentially, futile and rendered irrelevant. Pain and pleasure experienced in life are also irrelevant since there will be no memory of any of it after death. By not committing suicide, the non-believer in the afterlife is just delaying the inevitable return to pre-natal nonexistence.

Instead of answering the question, they pointed out that I believe in an eternal paradise, and the question was reversed. After explaining to them what “mortal sin” is and what it means to be in a state of “grace”, they modified the question.

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

I would not know how to respond, since I do not have the full context or discussion you enjoyed.
I get the distinct feeling that some things were misunderstood somewhere.

 

[ThomasToo]

It’s bedtime, but quick question: how were my requests for you to explain/justify your (rhetorical) questions anything like asking you to prove that you can’t fly?

'Why not?'s are (almost) always far more difficult and often impossible to answer satisfactorily than 'why?'s. I think I misunderstood your intent, however, in that instead of wanting explanations of why I set out those questions–or see them as questions–I thought you wanted me to philosophically justify the contrary proposition. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[ThomasToo]

This is a great description of original sin, man creating his own truth, rendering truth relative.

But that’s the point of the doctrine of OS-man isn’t natural, meaning the way God created him to be, and this by our own choice, preferring to distance ourselves from Him, i.e. not believe in Him, let alone love Him. The point of the New Covenant is, in simplest form, that man needs God- in order to have life and have it abundantly, in order to live a life worth living as it’s lived according to His perfect will.

But that doctrine is itself problematic. Aside from the notion that the sins of the father are visited on the son (and grandson and on down the line) I was never–well, almost… since I was a small child and had any understanding whatever–overly fond of the notion of original sin. It never seemed fair (i.e. just) for God to build this garden, put a tree smack dab in the middle of it and say ‘now, no touching’ and wander off. Set aside also that God is allegedly all-knowing so it’s not as though the outcome of this scheme was unknown; God has to have known that we were made curious so that tree was–at best–not a great idea and–at worst–intentionally led us to our current state.

 

[ThomasToo]

To enjoy your life and not regard it as objectively valuable is illogical because enjoyment stems from the objective features of life. The fact that you also regard other people’s lives as valuable is further evidence of its objective value. Do think you imagine it is valuable?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘valuable.’ Insofar as I think our earthly lives are all we will ever have I suppose you could say so in the way that uniqueness seems valuable in itself (and not just economically). If, however, you mean valuable in some transcendental way then no, in the strongest possible terms.

The details are irrelevant. If purpose is reduced to that which is purposeless it cannot somehow become purposeful. You can’t get something from nothing. Purpose is either an illusion or it is not.

I am intentionally not responding to this question and respectfully request that you do the same or move this thread of the discussion to private channels.

There is one very good reason. The Gospels are concerned with the life and teaching of Jesus which are the basis of Christianity.

That begs the question. Why is it reasonable to say that these books over here were inspired by God but need not be taken to be literally true while these others, also inspired by God, must be taken to be literally true. Why is the Garden of Eden (or Noah’s ark) metaphorical (or can be taken to be) but Calvary is–necessarily–literal? It is just than that we can prove the first didn’t literally happen but cannot to the second? Abandonment of the literal acceptance of some parts of the book is like a cut in a knitted sweater; it will start to unravel. With that, as I said, I agree very strongly with the fundamentalists.

Surely also you would grant that the Tanakh are also, although perhaps to a slightly lesser degree, the basis of Christianity. Without them there would never have been Christianity and the first sixty to eighty years of Christians didn’t have the Gospels not to mention that the canonical set was not determined until about 400 AD.

All bloodshed is due to lack of love and respect for those who are our brothers and sisters -if one believes in a loving Father. To regard Thanatos as one of our basest drives and intrinsic to our nature is to encourage people to believe we are doomed to be killers whether we choose to or not. Nietszche’s influence on the Nazi mentality and the alleged weakness of Christianity is ample evidence of its pernicious results.

Thanatos is not so much the desire to kill as to destroy and, frankly, I don’t know that it can be escaped so much as sublimated into more useful affairs. All of us, I think, at least given sufficient age have experienced the happiness (I don’t know the best word here, ‘joy’ perhaps or ‘bliss’ but I don’t know that base happiness expresses its fullness) destruction–albeit to a useful end such as demolition for a remodel–brings. Surely too, then, you would be willing to acquiesce to the involvement of Christianity in the Nazi mentality. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the Church rescinded the charge of deicide against the Jews as a people the charge which was a major factor in the cultural milieu that led to the atrocities. I think there’s more than enough blood on the Nazi’s hands to smear us all so let’s leave that alone and reset the Godwin’s Law counter to zero.

The “dead Jew” has inspired more heroic sanctity and love for the needy than all the atheists who have ever lived on this earth. The hope of heaven has encouraged people to make sacrifices and achieve feats to help the afflicted which they would have otherwise thought impossible. The fear of hell is a salutary warning of the dangers of pride, selfishness and the lust for power.

So hope of heaven and fear of hell are all that keeps you, and Christians at large, from raping, murdering, pillaging and so on? I think better of you than that…

These values are due to the heritage of religion throughout the world and throughout history. It is when people reject, ignore or forget those values that they have full licence to act as they choose. The appalling amount of unnecessary misery, suffering and injustice in our increasingly secular world shows the extent to which those values have been discarded. It is not religion that has inspired violence but man’s distortion of religion.

I don’t find meaningful your distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘man’s distortion of it’ not (only) because I think all religions are man-made but because ‘religion’ intends simply a set of claims immune from criticism because they fall under the banner of faith and whether these religious claims were true or not they were undoubtedly religious just as Jonestown was even though we can all agree Jim Jones was not speaking truth. So too, 9/11 was undoubtedly religion inspired violence even though, again, we can all agree the hijackers were wrong in their religious claims.

The lack of religion is not a source of inspiration but of cynicism and fatalism - as we have seen with your reference to Thanatos.

As I illustrated above, I hope, you see you misunderstood my reference to Thanatos. Without religion I find the world a far more inspiring and beautiful place than I ever did when I thought a god was at the bottom of it all. From the atheists with whom I’ve spoken this is neigh universal.

The issue is simply whether one Supreme Being is a more… intelligible… explanation than a multitude of atomic particles and physical laws…

Again, a repudiation of this claim required explanation of the nature of the physical laws at work and this is not the place for it. Also again, I respectfully ask you to drop this point or move it to private channels.

 

[AntiTheist]

I wrote:

Because our genes prompt us to want to survive at any cost, and this instinct is very strong in most people.

Colmcille wrote:

By this reasoning, if " our genes prompt us to want to survive", are not those self-same genes" prompting" us to look at the" why" of said survival; to look at concepts of “us” and “people”?

Sure. We have a natural curiosity – which greatly aided our ancestors in surviving – so it’s completely naturally for us to turn that curiosity toward everything.

“Why do we want survive?” has a very simple answer: to replicate our genes.

If you ask “Why do we want to replicate our genes?” (or, rather, why do our genes want to replicate themselves through us) the answer is simply that that’s what life does. You can long for some more “satisfying” fantasy answer, but there’s no good reason to think that there is one.

Personally, I find the real answer perfectly satisfying. Here’s a little tip: one sure way to create an unsatisfied life is to decide in advance what the answer to a question has to be for you to be satisfied.

 

[Areopagite]

I wrote:

Colmcille wrote: Sure. We have a natural curiosity – which greatly aided our ancestors in surviving – so it’s completely naturally for us to turn that curiosity toward everything.

“Why do we want survive?” has a very simple answer: to replicate our genes.

If you ask “Why do we want to replicate our genes?” (or, rather, why do our genes want to replicate themselves through us) the answer is simply that that’s what life does. You can long for some more “satisfying” fantasy answer, but there’s no good reason to think that there is one.

Though it is funny that most godless people who try to explain everything by evolution don’t end up replicating their genes very much, do they? It’s the fanatical religious people who have the biggest birth rates. Looks like if you want to better ensure your success in the evolutionary process, then you should become a Muslim … or at the very least, a devout Catholic. Those people seem to be the “fittest” according to Darwinian standards.

Personally, I find the real answer perfectly satisfying. Here’s a little tip: one sure way to create an unsatisfied life is to decide in advance what the answer to a question has to be for you to be satisfied.

And surely you didn’t decide in advance what the answer to the question has to be, right? Oh, wait, you did.