Is there a rational basis for morality in a purposeless universe?

[Portofino]

Thank you for your wisdom.

You took the words right out of my mouth

 

[Bradski]

Given the speed at which such a code had to be implemented throughout the culture of the earliest men, there wasn’t enough time to work out a consensus code of morality. Men and women just knew, and those that didn’t were ostracized and or punished. The survival of man and his community took precedence.

I don’t think it’s valid to say that there wasn’t a consensus. Any morality at all that is used to develop a civilisation or is developed within that process, is, by definition, consensual.

And to say there wasn’t enought time? There is a degree of morality even in primates. This process has been going on for millennium. To suggest that morality is a recent invention (or should I say discovery?) by the Christian faith is simply not a sustainable viewpoint.

If it was, then you’d have to suggest that morality was fixed when scripture dictated its limits. And that suggests that we are no more moral now then we were two thousand years ago. I don’t think you’ll find that many people would agree with that.

 

[Bradski]

I would propose that those who say the universe has no purpose are either depressed or disingenuous. They want everything in the universe to have the same purpose at the same time? I think that betrays an inner desire to be a monotheist, to be honest. …(I wink, but show me where I err!)

How many times does this need to be said…

There is no purpose in the universe. It could not care less about you. It has no aim. There is reason behind what happens in its unfolding.

But…there is purpose in individual life. It is to live a life that brings some satisfaction to whoever is living it.

Look at an anthill. It serves no ultimate purpose in the grand scheme of things. Destroy one and it would count for nothing. However, it is important to the ants. Now scale that up and you might understand the concept.

 

[tonyrey]

I would propose that those who say the universe has no purpose are either depressed or disingenuous. They want everything in the universe to have the same purpose at the same time? I think that betrays an inner desire to be a monotheist, to be honest. …(I wink, but show me where I err!)

A dogma that requires justification!

But…there is purpose in individual life. It is to live a life that brings some satisfaction to whoever is living it.

How can there be purpose in individual life in the context of no purpose in the universe?

Look at an anthill. It serves no ultimate purpose in the grand scheme of things. Destroy one and it would count for nothing. However, it is important to the ants. Now scale that up and you might understand the concept.

Ants have no concept of anything whatsoever!

 

[Bradski]

A dogma that requires justification!

I’m sure you know the meaning of dogma. My personal and individual belief, whether others happen to believe it or not, is not dogma. I don’t have to justify it, just state it as what I understand the situation to be.

How can there be purpose in individual life in the context of no purpose in the universe?

If I get hit by a truck tomorrow, then it will affect a number of people. My life, my existence, has meaning both to myself and to the people I know. The less the connection I have with anyone, the less meaning it has. You can easily and very quickly reach a position where my death has zero affect on those who might hear about it.

The fact that someone is dying as you read this has no affect on you at all. And no affect on how we all live our lives (unless their circle of influence is considerable - such as the US President or the Pope). If the effect is meaningless as far as the big picture goes, then it has, quite literally, no purpose in the grand scheme of things.

When you extrapolate an individual life in considering the universe itself, you could almost say it is less than meaningless. But… life has meaning in itself. You don’t have to agree with this but it seems perverse to deny that this is a position held by many.

Ants have no concept of anything whatsoever!

You do this a lot. It might be better for a conversation if you qualified your statements so that I at least would have an idea what your point is likely to be. Can you repeat that and tack a ‘therefore’ on the end of it so I don’t have to double guess your meaning.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

How many times does this need to be said…

There is no purpose in the universe. It could not care less about you. It has no aim. There is reason behind what happens in its unfolding.

But…there is purpose in individual life. It is to live a life that brings some satisfaction to whoever is living it.

Look at an anthill. It serves no ultimate purpose in the grand scheme of things. Destroy one and it would count for nothing. However, it is important to the ants. Now scale that up and you might understand the concept.

Perhaps what needs to be added is the obvious observation that the universe is considered as material/physical in its nature. Neither mountains nor ant hills are rational.

Another thought to think about. Rational minds can describe “morality” six ways to Sunday. But – what is really essential for human life is the description of moral actions.

 

[Sair]

It depends on what you mean by a hedonist ethic. There is a school of thought that holds that immediate pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and is often held and lived in such an immature and simplistic manner that, let us face it, usually makes the “hedonist” totally miserable, like a little kid left alone with nothing but candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That is not what Epicurus taught at all, although I would also argue that Epicurus did not fully understand what pleasures true prudence would guide humans to desire.

The essence of hedonism is that pleasure is the only intrinsic good, that is, the only state of affairs that is good by definition. This is, of course, quite different from the common understanding of hedonism, which is pretty much as nothing but a combination of idleness and thrill-seeking.

If the serious pursuit of pleasure requires a balance between effort and reward, then this is the way of life of the hedonist - pleasure, joy and happiness are the motivating factors, not any belief that one is sacrificing onesself for an imagined “higher” good, whatever that may be.

I would argue that the standard theistic belief in an afterlife of reward is, essentially, hedonistic - it’s just that the pleasure is deferred from this life to (what is believed to be) the next. I don’t think there is any Christian or other monotheist who sincerely thinks they will be miserable or bored in heaven but still believes this destiny to be worth striving for.

Epicurean hedonism is profoundly moderate, taking into account the somewhat paradoxical fact that an excess of immediate pleasure (be that excessive consumption of food, alcohol, or thrill-seeking etc) tends to lead to longer-term pain and thus is not worth it. And as has been pointed out already on this thread, Epicurus considered the pleasures of friendship and intellectual exchange to be the highest obtainable for humans. A serious and philosophical hedonism, it could be argued, requires some intellectual and emotional effort to actually find - and, indeed, indulge - the joy in those everyday activities that promote our comfort and well-being.

 

[Bradski]

Perhaps what needs to be added is the obvious observation that the universe is considered as material/physical in its nature. Neither mountains nor ant hills are rational.

Yet we are part of it. We are part of the universe. We are not separate from it. We are integral parts. We are pieces of the universe itself. We are parts of the universe that has become self aware. And we are rational.

There is, therefore, a part df the universe that is rational, but the whole has no purpose.

 

[Contarini]

One might well ask, even if one believes God commanded a particular set of behaviours, what rational reason is there for adhering to said behaviours?

Because the divine commands are expressions of the eternal law, which is the divine wisdom and is the very nature of God. Morality is rational because morality is an expression of the created nature acting in a manner harmonious with the divine nature from which it came.

Pure divine command theory is not an orthodox view. Atheists routinely reduce Christian morality to command, which is why it’s hard even to have this conversation.

Fear of punishment and desire for reward might do it - both perfectly rational - but as I recall, this is generally considered a lesser reason for following divine command than pure love of God. Is love a rational condition?

Of course it is–or rather can be. Rightly ordered love is the desire for that which is good–the divine nature itself and/or the various created goods that imitate and participate in the divine nature.

Rational morality is the desire to act according to one’s nature and in a manner that brings one closer to union with the divine nature from which we came.

There are plenty of rational justifications for moral behaviour that have nothing to do with religion. The ethic of reciprocity is perfectly rational, arising as it does from an understanding of the principle of cause and effect, which is essentially what rationality is.

So are you saying that rational morality consists of behaving to others in a way that is likely to make them treat you well? Would it then follow that if you had reason to think others wouldn’t treat you well even if you treated them well, or if you were strong and self-sufficient enough not to care, it would no longer be rational to behave morally?

Edwin

 

[Portofino]

So are you saying that rational morality consists of behaving to others in a way that is likely to make them treat you well? Would it then follow that if you had reason to think others wouldn’t treat you well even if you treated them well, or if you were strong and self-sufficient enough not to care, it would no longer be rational to behave morally?Edwin

That others treat you well – not necessarily. A Christian, a Buddhist, or a secular humanist could appreciate that hatred, jealousy, or anger are toxic emotions. Loving your enemies–and forgiving their trespasses–is to your emotional benefit. If you love those who hate you, you are free (and, indeed, may end up helping them). The victim who lives with bitterness and hurt doesn’t hurt the perpetrator, but himself. As one Christian observed, “he who is the first to forgive is the happiest” (and the most at peace). Treat everyone well and with kindness; if they do not receive it, your politeness and kindness returns to you.

 

[tonyrey]

A dogma that requires justification!

An unnecessary and impolite personal remark.

My personal and individual belief, whether others happen to believe it or not, is not dogma. I don’t have to justify it, just state it as what I understand the situation to be.

Statements amount to dogma when they are asserted so categorically that they accept no other possibility. Perhaps one is tolerable but three are excessive in a philosophical discussion:

There is no purpose in the universe. It could not care less about you.** It has no aim.**

How can there be purpose in individual life in the context of no purpose in the universe?

If I get hit by a truck tomorrow, then it will affect a number of people. My life, my existence, has meaning both to myself and to the people I know. The less the connection I have with anyone, the less meaning it has. You can easily and very quickly reach a position where my death has zero affect on those who might hear about it.
The fact that someone is dying as you read this has no affect on you at all. And no affect on how we all live our lives (unless their circle of influence is considerable - such as the US President or the Pope). If the effect is meaningless as far as the big picture goes, then it has, quite literally, no purpose in the grand scheme of things.

When you extrapolate an individual life in considering the universe itself, you could almost say it is less than meaningless. But… life has meaning in itself. You don’t have to agree with this but it seems perverse to deny that this is a position held by many.

Meaning presupposes the existence of objective purpose.

Ants have no concept of anything whatsoever!

You do this a lot.

An unnecessary and impolite personal remark.

It be better for a conversation if you qualified your statements so that I at least would have an idea what your point is likely to be. Can you repeat that and tack a ‘therefore’ on the end of it so I don’t have to double guess your meaning.

It should not be necessary to point out that the statement “However, it is important to the ants” implies that ants **understand **what is important rather than acting instinctively. Ants have no concept of importance.

 

[tonyrey]

If enduring extreme pain is a form of hedonism the term can be applied to any decision whatsoever! We get pleasure from everything we choose to do…

Thank you for all those quotations which - significantly - often refer to happiness. The distinction between pain - or pleasure - in the mind and in the body stretches hedonism beyond its usual meaning. If a person chooses to be tortured and killed so that others may be free he or she is not generally considered to be a hedonist. How could extreme suffering and death be outweighed in the pleasure stakes by a sense of achievement? I think a more appropriate term is “joy” which is a spiritual rather than a physical state.

A true hedonist wouldn’t sacrifice his happiness for the sake of the happiness of others. At the very least he would expect to benefit to some extent. Christianity is superior to Epicureanism because it is not a worldly philosophy. Even the hedonism you describe is tempered with the principle of equality and doesn’t observe the pleasure-pain calculus strictly for oneself. It is not egoistic and introduces the value of subordinating one’s pleasure to ideals and moral principles.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is to equate morality with satisfaction - which begs the question! It implies that we are happy when we know we have done the right thing and yet feel extremely miserable! An example is giving up the person we love because we believe it is our duty to do so no matter how unhappy we are and even if we see no point in living without that person. If life is so full of regret and frustration we regret the day we were born how can we possibly be experiencing more pleasure than failing in our duty? We might be haunted by a sense of guilt but we certainly wouldn’t suffer so much because we would have a source of constant consolation…

 

[Sair]

Thank you for all those quotations which - significantly - often refer to happiness. The distinction between pain - or pleasure - in the mind and in the body stretches hedonism beyond its usual meaning. If a person chooses to be tortured and killed so that others may be free he or she is not generally considered to be a hedonist. How could extreme suffering and death be outweighed in the pleasure stakes by a sense of achievement? I think a more appropriate term is “joy” which is a spiritual rather than a physical state.

A true hedonist wouldn’t sacrifice his happiness for the sake of the happiness of others. At the very least he would expect to benefit to some extent. Christianity is superior to Epicureanism because it is not a worldly philosophy. Even the hedonism you describe is tempered with the principle of equality and doesn’t observe the pleasure-pain calculus strictly for oneself. It is not egoistic and introduces the value of subordinating one’s pleasure to ideals and moral principles.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is to equate morality with satisfaction - which begs the question! It implies that we are happy when we know we have done the right thing and yet feel extremely miserable! An example is giving up the person we love because we believe it is our duty to do so no matter how unhappy we are and even if we see no point in living without that person. If life is so full of regret and frustration we regret the day we were born how can we possibly be experiencing more pleasure than failing in our duty? We might be haunted by a sense of guilt but we certainly wouldn’t suffer so much because we would have a source of constant consolation…

I think you are too fixated on pushing the claim that Christianity is morally superior to hedonism. But in that regard, you are comparing apples with oranges. The only qualifying factor for a hedonistic ethic is that pleasure/happiness is the sole intrinsic good - good by definition - and hence the key factor in the moral calculus when we come to decide what is the right course of action.

What is commonly understood by hedonism is very much a bastardised version of the philosophy advanced by Epicurus and his followers - the latter is far more subtle and moderated by rational consideration.

Are you generally extremely miserable when you know that you have done the right thing? How, then, do you know that you’ve done the right thing? If you have made five other people happy, then it might be more apparent; but otherwise you would be using some criterion of ‘right’ that is outside the purview of a hedonist ethic.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you for all those quotations which - significantly - often refer to happiness. The distinction between pain - or pleasure - in the mind and in the body stretches hedonism beyond its usual meaning. If a person chooses to be tortured and killed so that others may be free he or she is not generally considered to be a hedonist. How could extreme suffering and death be outweighed in the pleasure stakes by a sense of achievement? I think a more appropriate term is “joy” which is a spiritual rather than a physical state.

Whether I am “fixated” is totally beside the point and the statement does precisely nothing to further the discussion.

The only qualifying factor for a hedonistic ethic is that pleasure/happiness is the sole intrinsic good - good by definition - and hence the key factor in the moral calculus when we come to decide what is the right course of action.

“pleasure/happiness” is a hybrid term to cover the deficiency of the pleasure principle.

What is commonly understood by hedonism is very much a bastardised version of the philosophy advanced by Epicurus and his followers - the latter is far more subtle and moderated by rational consideration.

Since there are various brands of hedonism it would be clearer to use the term Epicureanism.

Are you generally extremely miserable when you know that you have done the right thing? How, then, do you know that you’ve done the right thing? If you have made five other people happy, then it might be more apparent; but otherwise you would be using some criterion of ‘right’ that is outside the purview of a hedonist ethic.

That is precisely what Epicurus did! Epicureanism is not based solely on the pleasure principle. Its highest good is ataraxia, i.e.tranquillity which stems from freedom from fear, simplicity and temperance.

 

[EasterJoy]

How many times does this need to be said…

There is no purpose in the universe. It could not care less about you. It has no aim. There is reason behind what happens in its unfolding.

But…there is purpose in individual life. It is to live a life that brings some satisfaction to whoever is living it.

Look at an anthill. It serves no ultimate purpose in the grand scheme of things. Destroy one and it would count for nothing. However, it is important to the ants. Now scale that up and you might understand the concept.

You do not understand me. I never remotely implied that if the universe has a purpose that this purpose would be to revolve around me. How does the failure of the universe to revolve around me imply that the universe has no purpose, then?

If I understand you correctly, though, you are literally advocating for the idea that an entirely self-centered cosmology has some basis in reality. You say that an anthill serves no purpose in the grand scheme of things, just because you can destroy it and not notice the damage you have done or the losses incurred? Frankly, I am appalled. You don’t care that either the ants will be driven to do the work to make up for your destructiveness or else the loss will be absorbed by all the living things that benefitted from the anthill? I fail to see how you could not more easily destroy the Great Pyramids or the Louvre with exactly the same rationale. Will you lose personal satisfaction if those things were destroyed? So what if you do? Who in the universe ought to care about your satisfaction, by your cosmology? If you don’t feel any loss, then why would you care about any “grand scheme”? If only ants can feel the loss of an anthill, there is no grand scheme.

My impression is that you lack understanding, both in your lack of gratitude for ants and your low expectations for yourself. By my cosmology, the greatest desire of your heart must therefore sit neglected, left dry and lifeless by your lack of attention. If your heart were awake, my friend, if you really understood the great satisfactions to be had even in this life, you would care a lot more, even about the ants. If you ever really enjoyed what this life has to offer, you would have developed a much greater ability to see the purpose in things.

This is what I mean by being one who is willing to trample gold underfoot, neglecting its worth because one is ignorant of it. To such a one as that, yes, gold literally has no value, people have no value, life in all its forms has no value, that is all absolutely true. If you fail to respect all the things of worth that are all around you, though, it is you who suffer the greatest loss. It is bad luck for the ants, yes, but worse luck for you.

 

[EasterJoy]

Epicurean hedonism is profoundly moderate, taking into account the somewhat paradoxical fact that an excess of immediate pleasure (be that excessive consumption of food, alcohol, or thrill-seeking etc) tends to lead to longer-term pain and thus is not worth it. And as has been pointed out already on this thread, Epicurus considered the pleasures of friendship and intellectual exchange to be the highest obtainable for humans. A serious and philosophical hedonism, it could be argued, requires some intellectual and emotional effort to actually find - and, indeed, indulge - the joy in those everyday activities that promote our comfort and well-being.

The Baltimore Catechism, once the gold standard of instruction materials for Catholic schoolchildren, used to give this famous question and answer as a foundational part of its curriculum:

**Q. **Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

It could be argued that we Catholics believe we have found the ultimate answer to the quest of Epicuriuos: That is, the Good News is that the pursuit of the Will of God and the pursuit of our greatest and deepest happiness and the fullest realization of our being are all one and the same thing. We could say that Epicurious was mistaken only in having but an impartial knowledge of where our truest well-being and deepest comfort was to be found. We most certainly do not teach that the pursuit of happiness is in any way in opposition to the Will of God. The only opposition to the Will of God comes in when the soul does not realize where its greatest good is to be found. Truly, if you ever have the privelege of being around those people that radiate holiness, they are some of the most joyful people you’d ever want to meet, and it is catching. Empirically speaking, they’re obviously on to something.

IOW, it is not that people want one good thing and God insists that people put aside the good they want for the good God wants. Rather, the unredeemed soul is like a child who ignorantly reaches for what will harm him–a human tendency that Epicurus himself recognized people were prone to–while God, the parent, lovingly steers the child towards that which the child would choose for himself, if he was only wise enough and mature enough to truly choose for himself between what is good and what is bad.

Obviously, though, I’m one of those who thinks Epicurus has gotten a bad rap.

 

[Portofino]

How could extreme suffering and death be outweighed in the pleasure stakes by a sense of achievement? I think a more appropriate term is “joy” which is a spiritual rather than a physical state…

Semantics is precisely much of the reason that Epicurus gets a bad rap; indeed, there are some pleasure words that have a higher dignity about them (such as joy or bliss) and others that tend to make us uneasy or uncomfortable, from the standpoint of our moral conditioning (pleasure sounds morally suspect; happiness sounds banal and worldly; fun sounds undignified and child-like).

Where others would say, “joy or bliss” Epicurus would say, “true pleasure, highest pleasure – the only pleasure that is worthy of its name,” and be referring to the same thing.

True to his philosophy, he did not have hang-ups or inhibitions about using the word pleasure.

You mentioned that, “Christianity is superior to Epicureanism because it is not a worldly philosophy.” This reminds me of what I think is a source of genuine misunderstanding between those of us who seek to ground morality in pragmatism, and those who seek to ground morality in God or in transcendent truth. Both sides, ironically, are very concerned about the other’s approach, but for different reasons.

The one side says, “without God as a foundation for morality, morality has no reliable foundation at all.” The other side says, “if this is true, we’re in trouble; because the existence and nature of God cannot be proven, or grounded in such a way that all or even most of humanity can agree.” So those of us who are saying, "you can’t have a society where citizens kill each and steal from each other; or, “if you abuse and mistreat others, your conduct will rebound upon yourself, and make you miserable”; or, “it is in our nature as human beings to have the need to give and receive love, and the greater the love we give, the more satisfyingly our nature is fulfilled”, are trying to build morality up empirically, as we see it as the only de facto stable foundation, upon which “reasonable” persons can agree, or be persuaded. We take a “ground-up” approach, as opposed to a “top-down.”

For those who believe that God and the nature of God can be proven, and has been proven, this appeal to pragmatism and self-interest (a variation of natural law thinking) has (at best) a much more limited raison d’etre, and appears to be undermining that which it is seeking to support, by *reducing * morality to pragmatism, common sense, or human psychology.

For the other side, again, the perception is, “it is already undermined, because God cannot be proven through reason and empirical observation alone, nor can a transcendent source for moral values be proven through reason and empircal observation alone.”

Even from the standpoint of a believer, is there not an uneasy tension in using reason to prove God or morality? If reason alone were sufficient, what would be the value of faith? How could an individual with no faith – a man with reason alone-- be a Christian? Though the Catholic posits no conflict between faith and reason, he is ultimately saying, “reason can turn you in the right direction, can orient you towards truth, but reason alone cannot get the job done; only faith can get the job done.” Thus, “there are strongly plausible arguments for the existence of God; but I believe in God because I have faith. There is evidence, but not proof, for the existence of an objective, transcendently-grounded morality; but I believe in an objective, transcendently-grounded morality, because I am a man of reason and faith.”

 

[Sair]

Whether I am “fixated” is totally beside the point and the statement does precisely nothing to further the discussion.

Well, actually it has furthered the discussion, because you have moved away from comparing hedonism to Christianity…

“pleasure/happiness” is a hybrid term to cover the deficiency of the pleasure principle.

It is actually a hybrid term that covers most people’s understanding of what pleasure actually means, in the sense that it covers both physically pleasing sensations and - what many assume to be a separate category of pleasure - psychologically pleasing states of mind; this would seem to be necessary for those who draw a distinction between mind and body!

Since there are various brands of hedonism it would be clearer to use the term Epicureanism.

There are certainly many varieties of hedonism, but their guiding principle is that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.

That is precisely what Epicurus did! Epicureanism is not based solely on the pleasure principle. Its highest good is ataraxia, i.e.tranquillity which stems from freedom from fear, simplicity and temperance.

Epicurean hedonism, as I’ve said before, is based upon the notion that an excess of pleasure tends towards pain, and therefore is counterproductive. Tranquility is considered to be the balance point, wherein you have no fear of any increase in pain or suffering. If any action involves an increase of suffering, it must be questioned as to whether it was the right course of action, upon that criterion - not in relation to whether it meets some other standard of goodness laid down by a text or doctrine or whatever that simply asserts some things to be right and others wrong, regardless of their effect upon the individual.

It is true that other varieties of hedonism place more value upon positive pleasure, rather than focusing primarily upon the absence of pain (tranquility) but I think it’s safe to say that if you could be assured of freedom from suffering for the rest of your life, that would be quite an attractive prospect. Isn’t that what heaven is supposed to be? Or does it promise some positive satisfaction as well as the absence of pain?

 

[Portofino]

Hi there Easter Joy,

Thanks for your thoughts on Epicurus and of the “bad rap” he’s received. Erasmus had good things to say about his asceticism; and the philosopher-priest Pierre Gassendi devoted his entire intellectual career to rehabilitating his philosophy, without thereby repudiating Christianity. Thomas Jefferson was another individual who considered himself both an Epicurean (“I am an Epicurean”) and a follower of Christ (“the author of the most sublime morality the world has ever known”).

Regarding Bradski’s thoughts about the anthill, incidentally, I don’t think Bradski was saying that he would advocate destroying anthills (or pulling the wings off flies, for that matter). He was just pointing out that the physical universe appears insensible to that destroyed anthill; as I put it to myself, recently, “we live in a universe that seemingly has no understanding of the requirements for life.” By that I mean that, even if people have a right to life, a tsunami or earthquake seemingly does not understand this. Nor does a hungry alligator Human beings have dignity–we experience that dignity–but they are also food (“we fat all other creatures to fat ourselves, and we fat ourselves for maggots”–Hamlet). I think we can all agree on that part of it (“remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return”).

If I am not mistaken, Bradski can agree that we care about our lives, and that we ought to care, if we want to stay alive and to be happy. It’s just that nature, as such, appears insensible to this. The person of faith believes that there is something behind nature, or that interpenetrates nature, that cares about us. If human beings are believed to be a revelation of that transcendent nature (human love as a reflection of divine love) than this is obviously true. But that’s a big “if” – a wonderful possibility; something that we feel; something that we intuit; ultimately, something that we have faith in.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi there Easter Joy,

Thanks for your thoughts on Epicurus and of the “bad rap” he’s received. Erasmus had good things to say about his asceticism; and the philosopher-priest Pierre Gassendi devoted his entire intellectual career to rehabilitating his philosophy, without thereby repudiating Christianity. Thomas Jefferson was another individual who considered himself both an Epicurean (“I am an Epicurean”) and a follower of Christ (“the author of the most sublime morality the world has ever known”).

Regarding Bradski’s thoughts about the anthill, incidentally, I don’t think Bradski was saying that he would advocate destroying anthills (or pulling the wings off flies, for that matter). He was just pointing out that the physical universe appears insensible to that destroyed anthill; as I put it to myself, recently, “we live in a universe that seemingly has no understanding of the requirements for life.” By that I mean that, even if people have a right to life, a tsunami or earthquake seemingly does not understand this. Nor does a hungry alligator Human beings have dignity–we experience that dignity–but they are also food (“we fat all other creatures to fat ourselves, and we fat ourselves for maggots”–Hamlet). I think we can all agree on that part of it (“remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return”).

If I am not mistaken, Bradski can agree that we care about our lives, and that we ought to care, if we want to stay alive and to be happy. It’s just that nature, as such, appears insensible to this. The person of faith believes that there is something behind nature, or that interpenetrates nature, that cares about us. If human beings are believed to be a revelation of that transcendent nature (human love as a reflection of divine love) than this is obviously true. But that’s a big “if” – a wonderful possibility; something that we feel; something that we intuit; ultimately, something that we have faith in.

Portofino:

Makes sense, from a purely philosophical perspective, but, when one accrues the perspectives of other sciences with a philosophical perspective, one has to wonder further. for example, it’s ever easy to forget what matter is. If it is, as physics asserts, continuously reconfiguring point particles immersed in discrete space that only has the appearance of bodies of more or less solid mass, then, obviously, there is someone/something outside of this that prepares and sustains that “illusion” for us while we are alive. I prefer God, rather than the possibility of some lab-coated giants observing us in an ant farm.

God bless,
jd