Science, Spirituality, and Religion

[Moonstruck888]

Ok, why do Catholics believe the first commandment is the most important and the foundation for morality?

If I give you a candid answer to that question, I’ll be banned from the forum.

You’re using Sola Scriptural to interpret the Bible, so you probably should take a greater interest in it. As I tried to explain before, if you want to attack Catholicism, then you shouldn’t use a point of view that we already know is heretical and laughable at the start. You end up sounding like one of the more ignorant fundamentalists that we find quite easily here on CAF.

Then why is the bible relevant at all?

I already explained where I’m going. You’re asking questions about God. I need to know how much you have already learned to determine your bias. Thus far, I have to guess you come from a Protestant background and you don’t have any formal education in Catholic theology.

I don’t come from a protestant background. I come from an atheist background.

You’re putting the focus on my belief, but it’s really yours that was up for question. It doesn’t matter what I believe. You acknowledge that there is no ultimate meaning. We can determine the final value of your claims at the very beginning of the discussion – they equal nothing.

They equal exactly the same as yours sans the invisible puppeteer.

Again, you’re attacking me now to take the attention off of your own beliefs. Again, a being which is ultimately unnecessary and an accidental product of blind, indifferent, unintelligent natural processes states that something is “unacceptable”. Again, this is a meaningless distinction.

I’m attacking you because you are deliberately obfusticating what should be in essence a a straightforward discussion. Why are you doing this?

You must create standards knowing that they have no ultimate purpose and there is no ultimate reason for you to create any standards at all. It’s a meaningless exercise in the end.

If you cannot find a meaning to your own life without having to turn to the improbable and suspend your disbelief, I’m afraid your spirituality is in far worse shape than mine. I am glad of the fact that I can function autonomously.

You’re making attacks on irrelevant entities. It strikes me as an unstable and hyper-defensive position. You create some transient and ultimately meaningless “standards” which cannot be measured or evaluated finally. Your only criteria for success in life is that you achieved the goal of nothingness. Therefore, any standards you create will bring you to that goal – no matter how incoherent, illogical or evil (by Christian standards) they may be.

I would make an attack on a relevant entity, if there were one to make an attack on.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I just caught this later. Could you explain what you mean here?

I assume that you would, as a Catholic, believe in Papal infallability?

Personally, I believe that Benedict XVI is an astute man and a very skilled political manipulator, but I don’t see him as having an infallible link to God.

Even if you do, you’re either taking the word of an ordinary man on what your morality should be or else you believe that you yourself are a direct conduit to God. I believe that if you were to assert the latter publicly, excommunication and public ridicule would not be far behind.

 

[reggieM]

Personally, I believe that Benedict XVI is an astute man and a very skilled political manipulator, but I don’t see him as having an infallible link to God.

Can you explain the Catholic teaching on infallibility?

Even if you do, you’re either taking the word of an ordinary man on what your morality should be or else you believe that you yourself are a direct conduit to God.

Ok, I see what you mean now. But in the Catholic faith, we have several sources together which provide the foundation for our moral belief. We have revelation which was preserved through the Church that Christ founded. From that Church we have the Scriptures. We also have the apostolic teachings which are communicated by the Pope and the Magisterium (and Ecumenical Councils, etc). So, there are some key points to remember:

1. Catholicism does not derive its doctrines from the Scriptures – Catholic teachings existed before the Bible was codified.
2. The Pope does not create new doctrines. He is the custodian of the teachings handed down to him.

In either case, Catholicism does not teach that we must “take the word of an ordinary man” for what our morality should be. We received the teaching of Christ, through the apostles and the Church.

Catholic doctrine does not teach that Christ was “an ordinary man”. That’s another essential point to remember – otherwise you’ll make some big mistakes about what we believe and why we believe it.

 

[reggieM]

If I give you a candid answer to that question, I’ll be banned from the forum.

No, I’m asking you what the Catholic teaching is, not what your opinion is on Catholic teaching. If you know the Catholic doctrine, then you’ll know why I made the previous statement.

Then why is the bible relevant at all?

The Bible is the writtten form of the revealed teaching given to the Church. It’s a visible point of reference. It’s a product of the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church – capturing the words and teachings of Christ. It’s of immense relevance and value to the Faith for that reason. The Church provides us with the true interpretation of the text --as promised by Christ. Without that, we’d have anyone making wild claims about what they think the Bible means. That’s the Sola Scriptura error.

I don’t come from a protestant background. I come from an atheist background.

Ok. Interpreting the bible from an atheistic view will have no meaning in Catholicism. You certainly can’t expect us to interpret the Bible as if we’re atheists. It would be like

If you cannot find a meaning to your own life without having to turn to the improbable and suspend your disbelief, I’m afraid your spirituality is in far worse shape than mine. I am glad of the fact that I can function autonomously.

Again, you’re turning the discussion about your own beliefs to a personal attack on me. My views haven’t even been entered. You affirmed the positive statement that there is no ultimate meaning. I’m merely working through the logic of that position. That’s about as straighforward as it gets. Again, my views are irrelevant. You’re only attacking me (and here with a personal insult) because you don’t like the consequences of your own view. I’ve said nothing about your views that you can refute. You would do a lot better to simply embrace the consequences. Many atheists do that. They affirm that there is no ultimate purpose. They also affirm that they cannot righly condemn any moral action on moral grounds. That would make this discussion a lot more successful. You would start by affirming what you believe and what it means.
Instead, you don’t like what your own beliefs actually mean so you attack me.

I would make an attack on a relevant entity, if there were one to make an attack on.

Ok, you just contradicted yourself because for no reason you added me, Pope Benedict and the Great Joo Joo up on the hill to the discussion thus claiming that they had some relevance of some kind.

 

[edwest2]

What do you think will happen if China keeps developing military hardware and the USA let’s her military hardware fall apart because there are no longer any scientists and engineers to maintain it?

Why do you think the USA was nothing before 1939 and the world superpower by 1945? What do you think changed?

What do I think changed? Men died for God and country. That’s why there are crosses and Stars of David at cemeteries at Normandy.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Moonstruck888]

Again, you’re turning the discussion about your own beliefs to a personal attack on me. My views haven’t even been entered. You affirmed the positive statement that there is no ultimate meaning. I’m merely working through the logic of that position. That’s about as straighforward as it gets. Again, my views are irrelevant. You’re only attacking me (and here with a personal insult) because you don’t like the consequences of your own view. I’ve said nothing about your views that you can refute. You would do a lot better to simply embrace the consequences. Many atheists do that. They affirm that there is no ultimate purpose. They also affirm that they cannot righly condemn any moral action on moral grounds. That would make this discussion a lot more successful. You would start by affirming what you believe and what it means.
Instead, you don’t like what your own beliefs actually mean so you attack me.

This, all of this, and basically everything you’ve said is based on an assumption that morals have to be handed down via a supernatural being. How do you justify that assumption?

 

[reggieM]

This, all of this, and basically everything you’ve said is based on an assumption that morals have to be handed down via a supernatural being. How do you justify that assumption?

If you’re willing to conceed all of the points that I’ve raised thus far and you want to change the topic now and move to a new discussion, that is fine with me. But let’s get it out on the table first so we have agreement, ok?

You stated:

Yes. Living morally is meaningless, that is to say that it’s relative to cultural norms, changes in circumstances and personal prejudices and opinions.

I fully agreed with that and offered a further explanation. Are we still agreed?

I followed with this:

You must create standards knowing that they have no ultimate purpose and there is no ultimate reason for you to create any standards at all. It’s a meaningless exercise in the end … Whatever set of values you “arrive at” have no ultimate purpose or meaning. They are unnecessary and arbitrary in an ultimate sense.

Right?

Finally, as a side point that we can return to, you stated:

I know plenty about [the Catholic religion].

When I asked you to explain why Catholics consider the first commandment to be the foundation for morality, you could only answer with your own opinion and not in what Catholic doctrine teaches – so, is it true that you really don’t know that much about it?

I also pointed out that you were using Sola Scriptura to interpret the Bible falsely. Do you agree?

I also said:

You certainly can’t expect us to interpret the Bible as if we’re atheists.

Right?

Finally, given that atheistic morals are established by each person for their own meaning and purpose (and there is no ultimate meaning, value or purpose to them) then you cannot righly condemn any moral action on moral grounds.

Do you agree?

 

[Moonstruck888]

If you’re willing to conceed all of the points that I’ve raised thus far and you want to change the topic now and move to a new discussion, that is fine with me. But let’s get it out on the table first so we have agreement, ok?

Yes, we have an agreement. I’m sure I’ve committed every heresy you’ve accused me of. Of course, you’ll understand that means nothing to me. Nothing.

I also pointed out that you were using Sola Scriptura to interpret the Bible falsely. Do you agree?

I agree with you, but under the caveat that I contend that the Bible is so flawed that it is beyond any kind of reasonable interpretation.

Finally, given that atheistic morals are established by each person for their own meaning and purpose (and there is no ultimate meaning, value or purpose to them) then you cannot righly condemn any moral action on moral grounds.

Do you agree?

let me explain something to you about morality. You don’t have to go to evil-bible.com see that any creator of the living force on this world would have to be a malevolent psychopath.

All you have to do is look at how the natural world functions. For example there is an endosymbiant called Wolbachia pipientis that is found in the nematode Onchocerca Volvulus that is transmitted to humans through the bite of a blackfly of the genus Simulium. The larval nematodes spread throughout the body and when the worms die their Wolbachia symbiants are released, triggering an immune system response that causes the destruction of the tissues of the eye.

These lifeforms serve no purpose but to combine fortuitously to affect 18 million people, causing 270,000 cases of blindness per year. Why would any loving creator have allowed this? It makes absolutely no sense and it is only one example of a myriad of similar examples.

What does it matter whether it is the pope or the scripture that is infallible? What matters is why anyone would worship a being that at best is completely indifferent to human suffering and at worst directly involved in it.

If I had created a planet with a living force on it and I could see that my creations were suffering needlessly, I would intervene and try to correct what I’d done. On these grounds, I contend that not only am I morally superior to your God, but that you probably are, and that most of the fallible mortal moral relativists on this planet are.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, we have an agreement. I’m sure I’ve committed every heresy you’ve accused me of. Of course, you’ll understand that means nothing to me. Nothing.

My point is not to accuse you of heresy but to establish how you view things. The Bible was codified and preserved by the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Faith. So, it should be read for what it was intended.

I agree with you, but under the caveat that I contend that the Bible is so flawed that it is beyond any kind of reasonable interpretation.

I’ll repeat this same thing below – that should depend on what its intended purpose, meaning and methodology is. It’s written from a theological perspective, so it requires theological tools to understand it. That’s something like a different language and the correct translation is needed for various languages.

let me explain something to you about morality. You don’t have to go to evil-bible.com see that any creator of the living force on this world would have to be a malevolent psychopath.

Here’s where I’ll repeat the above. It depends on the purpose, intent and meaning of what we find.
In this case, you’re condemning God as an evil being. But wouldn’t your judgement require some knowledge of the purpose and intent of the data you found? If you knew the reason why God created things, then you could judge the success or failure of those things based against the purpose.

That’s why having an ultimate purpose for one’s actions is essential. That’s how we can judge whether something is good or evil – it depends on the purpose for why it exists.

These lifeforms serve no purpose but to combine fortuitously to affect 18 million people, causing 270,000 cases of blindness per year. Why would any loving creator have allowed this? It makes absolutely no sense and it is only one example of a myriad of similar examples.

You’ve reviewed the data and decided that a loving creator could not have allowed this. But again, you don’t know why this insect or natural process was created. There are many worse things in nature that you could offer – bacteria, viruses and things that not only cause blindness but which kill people. But you have to judge the value of these things from some perspective. You could use an atheistic perspective, a Catholic perspective, or some other religion’s perspective to judge these things.

Judging and condemning God from an atheistic perspective, obviously, makes no sense. As we already agreed, there’s no way to make those kinds of moral arguments.

So, I think in this case you’re adopting another perspective from which to judge God. I think you would have to judge God from the perspective of a believer. Why not try the Catholic perspective? If you judge God from that point of view, you have to have some understanding about God’s purpose.

In atheism, the terms like ultimate purpose, meaning, value – and especially terms like sin, redemption, expiation, heaven, spiritual recompense and final justice – are all meaningless really.

But if we need those terms in order to judge God, then we have to use the perspective where those terms have meaning.

What does it matter whether it is the pope or the scripture that is infallible? What matters is why anyone would worship a being that at best is completely indifferent to human suffering and at worst directly involved in it.

I think this is a good way to look at it. First, why would anyone worship. Then, you have determined that God is indifferent, or He is a direct cause of evil. But how can you validate those claims?

Again, from an atheistic perspective, I could not judge whether you are good or evil in an ultimate sense. There’s no way I could ever validate it. This would be true for every person who ever lived. Why? Because if they had no ultimate purpose, I could not say or know if they were successful in achieving an ultimate purpose. Whatever they did would end the same – in nothingness and non-existence.

So, we have to have some ultimate purpose which we measure the goodness or evil of an action against.

If I had created a planet with a living force on it and I could see that my creations were suffering needlessly, I would intervene and try to correct what I’d done.

Excellent point. But the key here is “suffering needlessly”. In order to know if it is necessary or not, you should have the entire scope of the plan in mind.

So again, if you want to judge morality by a Catholic perspective, then you have to take the whole plan into consideration.

That’s why I questioned you about your Bible interpretation. It’s like saying that basketball is evil because players wear shorts and they will freeze to death in the winter. But obviously, basketball is played indoors.

So, it’s similar in judging God. If you judge God from an atheistic perspective, for example, it would be something like this:

“This is the only life we have while we’re on earth. So, since God made us suffer evil – then God is clearly malicious to us”.

But that’s obviously missing a major point. In atheism, the belief is that life on this earth is all we have and it totally ends at death. But that’s not the Catholic view.

If God exists, there are many more things you have to consider that go far beyond the atheistic worldview. That’s the only way to be able to make solid judgements. Otherwise, you’d only be looking at a small part of the story that wouldn’t make sense.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So, I think in this case you’re adopting another perspective from which to judge God. I think you would have to judge God from the perspective of a believer. Why not try the Catholic perspective? If you judge God from that point of view, you have to have some understanding about God’s purpose.

Yes. That’s correct. I’ve had to adopt the perspective of assuming that God exists for purpose of this thought experiment.

If God has a grand plan that involves the apparently pointless suffering of sentient beings, the very least he could do is let us in on the precise details of that plan that we might try to minimize the damage to ourselves.

Say, for example that a moral person has to let two people die to save ten people. He would not do this with no consideration, no consultation. There are plenty of sucidal people in the World. Why does the loving God not check for volunteers when he makes one of his necessary culls?

No, I don’t buy the higher purpose argument at all. If this were actually going somewhere according to a grand design, we’d have found some evidence of design in the nature of the Universe. The Universe behaves as if it is emergent, period doubling cascades, bifurcations, non linear dynamics. I suspect it behaves as if it is emergent because it is emergent.

 

[reggieM]

If God has a grand plan that involves the apparently pointless suffering of sentient beings, the very least he could do is let us in on the precise details of that plan that we might try to minimize the damage to ourselves… No, I don’t buy the higher purpose argument at all. If this were actually going somewhere according to a grand design, we’d have found some evidence of design in the nature of the Universe.

Just a few points.
First, if God has an ultimate purpose, then argument of moral outrage against God would fail – unless its an outrage against the meaning that God has for the action. So, it’s essential to know if God has a purpose and then what the purpose is.
From the Catholic perspective, God has a purpose for all things because God is the source of rationality itself – so He has an ultimate reason for everything in the universe. Since God, by definition, is good – then His reasons are good.

So, really, the moral condemnation of God is not for the actions that you see – but because you believe that God has not revealed the reason and purpose for His action.
If you knew the purpose, then you could judge whether the action was good or bad.

On the second point, I don’t agree that you think that suffering does not serve a higher purpose. You have evidence of the fact in your own life that suffering serves a higher meaning, and attains greater good. You can see evidence of that fact in the lives of other people – you don’t need religious faith to see that.

So, knowing that suffering does serve a higher purpose in what you can see, it doesn’t follow that you find no possiblity that other suffering that you encounter does not serve a higher purpose in God’s plan.

As for the cosmological issues that you bring up, that’s another topic, but I’ll just offer these quotes from prominent scientists:

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.”
Nobel Prize winning Physicist Charles Townes
berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias

“The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”
Michael Turner – (Astrophysicist at Fermilab)

“If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA)

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” Alan Sandage (preeminent Astronomer)

 

[Moonstruck888]

On the second point, I don’t agree that you think that suffering does not serve a higher purpose. You have evidence of the fact in your own life that suffering serves a higher meaning, and attains greater good. You can see evidence of that fact in the lives of other people – you don’t need religious faith to see that.

Trust me. I do not think that suffering serves a higher purpose. I think that purpose is relative to the individual. I see know evidence that suffering enobles the soul. It tends to leave people bitter and angry for the most part. Happiness enobles the soul and makes people more compassionate and tolerant.

As for the cosmological issues that you bring up, that’s another topic, but I’ll just offer these quotes from prominent scientists:

Well, congratulations. You’ve just proven that even prominent scientists are not spared the worst cancers of talking rubbish.

 

[reggieM]

Trust me. I do not think that suffering serves a higher purpose.

You deprive yourself of many things in order to attain a higher purpose. I don’t know how old you are, but if you can remember when you were a student, the discipline of learning (the word “discipline” explains this itself) is often painful and requires sacrifice and suffering. Even the painful practice for music or sports performance show that suffering serves a higher purpose. A lower purpose would be lazyness or non-productive, non-creative living. A drug-addict fulfills a low-purpose of gluttony or intoxication. To achieve a higher purpose of happy-living, some suffering is necessary. So, suffering serves a higher purpose in all of those cases.

Happiness enobles the soul and makes people more compassionate and tolerant…

Compassion and tolerance require some amount of suffering. That’s what makes it possible – because otherwise there is just selfishness. So, by restricting one’s own selfish inclinations, one can become more tolerant of others.

But restricting behavior is a form of pain and suffering.

The people we admire in the world, even atheists or unbelievers who achieve things, have disciplined themselves and endured some amount of suffering.

So, I think we can see that suffering serves a higher purpose versus a lower purpose.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You deprive yourself of many things in order to attain a higher purpose. I don’t know how old you are, but if you can remember when you were a student, the discipline of learning (the word “discipline” explains this itself) is often painful and requires sacrifice and suffering. Even the painful practice for music or sports performance show that suffering serves a higher purpose. A lower purpose would be lazyness or non-productive, non-creative living. A drug-addict fulfills a low-purpose of gluttony or intoxication. To achieve a higher purpose of happy-living, some suffering is necessary. So, suffering serves a higher purpose in all of those cases.

When I was a student, I never killed anyone, but I broke the other nine commandments and I committed all seven of the deadly sins on a regular basis…

Compassion and tolerance require some amount of suffering. That’s what makes it possible – because otherwise there is just selfishness. So, by restricting one’s own selfish inclinations, one can become more tolerant of others.

But restricting behavior is a form of pain and suffering.

The people we admire in the world, even atheists or unbelievers who achieve things, have disciplined themselves and endured some amount of suffering.

So, I think we can see that suffering serves a higher purpose versus a lower purpose.

I have a feeling that in many respects you and I have lived lives of a very different character. What I remember about being a student, well, I never killed anyone, but I broke several commandments and numerous biblical admonitions.

I’m, what you might call a hedonist my friend. I believe that the one true sin in this life is not to indulge every pleasurable sensation. We have one chance to live for a few short decades and sadly most of us never live at all.

 

[reggieM]

I have a feeling that in many respects you and I have lived lives of a very different character. What I remember about being a student, well, I never killed anyone, but I broke several commandments and numerous biblical admonitions.

You disciplined yourself enough to study and pass tests. You did that for a higher purpose. If you went to college, then you voluntarily put yourself in a position where you had to study and take exams.

But then there’s work. You have to show up on time, you have to do things you don’t want. You have to do what the boss or customers want. All of that is suffering for a higer purpose.

I’m, what you might call a hedonist my friend. I believe that the one true sin in this life is not to indulge every pleasurable sensation. We have one chance to live for a few short decades and sadly most of us never live at all.

That is consistent and logical. But I think it contradicts your previous view about how a soul can be enobled by compassion and tolerance. The pursuit of pleasure, unhindered by any restraint, really can’t allow for tolerance at all, as I see it.

Plus, there are people who find some very intense and bizarre pleasures in this life – right? If your plans are to experience all of them, I think it really could be very dangerous to yourself and others.

And that’s the trade-off. I’ll have to assume also that you’re not married and you don’t have any children also. When that kind of responsibility comes, you cannot simply live to pursue hedonistic pleasures.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You disciplined yourself enough to study and pass tests. You did that for a higher purpose. If you went to college, then you voluntarily put yourself in a position where you had to study and take exams.

But then there’s work. You have to show up on time, you have to do things you don’t want. You have to do what the boss or customers want. All of that is suffering for a higer purpose.

My “higher” purpose for going to work is money. My higher purpose for passing exams that same. Pursuit of pleasure, the fact that I want to be able to afford nice things, is what makes me go to work.

That is consistent and logical. But I think it contradicts your previous view about how a soul can be enobled by compassion and tolerance. The pursuit of pleasure, unhindered by any restraint, really can’t allow for tolerance at all, as I see it.

I never said I had no restraint. I would not pursue pleasure in any way that I felt was at the expense of other people.

Plus, there are people who find some very intense and bizarre pleasures in this life – right? If your plans are to experience all of them, I think it really could be very dangerous to yourself and others.

The question is what’s happiness to you? I don’t take pleasure in many things that other people do take pleasure in. I have no self interest in pursuing what other people regard as pleasure.

And that’s the trade-off. I’ll have to assume also that you’re not married and you don’t have any children also. When that kind of responsibility comes, you cannot simply live to pursue hedonistic pleasures.

Correct, I am not married and have no children. I’m getting to the age now where it seems unlikely that I will have children.

 

[reggieM]

I’m going to replay this discussion to make sure I’m following it correctly.

Reggie:
I don’t agree that you think that suffering does not serve a higher purpose.

Moonstruck888
Trust me. I do not think that suffering serves a higher purpose.

Ok, my point is that you’re willing to endure suffering to attain a greater good (higher purpose). If you didn’t endure the suffering, you wouldn’t attain the good thing that you want.

Reggie:
You deprive yourself of many things in order to attain a higher purpose.
… restricting behavior is a form of pain and suffering.

Moonstruck888
I believe that the one true sin in this life is not to indulge every pleasurable sensation.

Here, you don’t accept that you deprive yourself. On the contrary, you say that you think it’s a sin not to indulge in every pleasure.

Reggie:
If your plans are to experience all of [the pleasurable sensations], I think it really could be very dangerous to yourself and others.

Moonstruck888
I don’t take pleasure in many things that other people do take pleasure in. I have no self interest in pursuing what other people regard as pleasure.

This doesn’t follow. If you have to experience every pleasure, how do you know its going to be a pleasure or not? Using heroin or cocaine is a pleasure. There are many drugs like that, each with a different kind of pleasure attached. You’ve said it would be a sin not to indulge in every pleasure – so you’d certainly have to try those. I think you were exaggerating or at least not precise in what you consider a sin there.

Reggie:
You disciplined yourself enough to study and pass tests. You did that for a higher purpose.

Moonstruck888
My “higher” purpose for going to work is money. My higher purpose for passing exams that same.

Here I think we have an agreement. You were willing to endure some level of discomfort, inconvenience and a form of pain or suffering in order to pass tests. So, the suffering you endured was for a higher purpose - to earn money. If you didn’t endure the pain, you wouldn’t achieve the higher goal (and you would be destitute, etc). So, to achieve a higher goal, you endured the pain that it took to get there.

Reggie:
But restricting behavior is a form of pain and suffering.

Moonstruck888
I never said I had no restraint.

Again, we’re agreed. As I said before, “You have evidence of the fact in your own life that suffering (restraining impulses, restricting behavior that would hurt others, etc.) serves a higher meaning, and attains greater good.”

So, I think we can see that is true. While you desire pleasure, you will endure certain levels of pain and difficulty in order to achieve various goals. So, you know that by choosing hardships and sufferings, you will achieve a greater good.

That is based on the purpose you establish in your own life.

So, I can observe that the pain you endure to pass tests turns out to be something good for you since you are able to achieve a higher purpose of getting money.

 

[kk23wong]

In short, true religion is the unity of everyone. The ultimate form of religion is everyone acknowledging their connection with everything (the “oneness”) and we are no different from anything. There is no traditional god or anything the words of ancient “religious” texts describes.

Comments are more than welcome

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

• Einstein

*Truth *is not a theory of everything. It is all around us.

A subject manipulated the world from the very beginning.

Throughout our history, human beings are habitants in only a small planet i.e. the Earth.

“My mother and brothers are those who HEAR God’s word and put it into practice.”

• Luke 8:21

Sounds can be silent. *Silence *cannot be a sound.

By enforing his/her will on us, *Free Will *have been eliminated.

The God is whispering and the whole world have already become a silence.

Technology has exposed the truth, and many scientists and philosophers have nothing to do. For many clear mindsets, we understand…
science, philosophy (spirituality) and religions in such a blue dot.

Truth is always one. No one is always true.

Teru Wong

 

[Moonstruck888]

So, I can observe that the pain you endure to pass tests turns out to be something good for you since you are able to achieve a higher purpose of getting money.

I think that exactly what constitutes a higher purpose is a debate that you and I would find ourselves on opposite sides of.

I see nothing high nor lofty in lust for personal advancement. Greed and ambition are actually rather tawdry and banal as far as purpose goes.

 

[reggieM]

I think that exactly what constitutes a higher purpose is a debate that you and I would find ourselves on opposite sides of.

I see nothing high nor lofty in lust for personal advancement. Greed and ambition are actually rather tawdry and banal as far as purpose goes.

Ok, there’s a misunderstanding here. When I say “higher purpose” it just means “more important” or “more meaningful”. It’s “higher” than something else.

Remember, the question was whether suffering serves some purpose. I call it “higher” than mearly nothing or randomness or accidental entropy.

So, I don’t think your goals are greed, lust and ambition. I also agree that they would be tawdry and banal purposes. But even still – if you said you wanted more pleasure, that’s a “goal”. It’s a purpose that you’re striving for. So, suffering and hardship serve to help achieve that purpose. We consider it a “higher” purpose because it is intended for a good reason and the good you hope to attain is “better” than what you’d get if you avoided all suffering.

Again, you established a reason or meaning to the discomfort and pain that you willingly chose in studies and passing exams. That helps you get more money – and you can do some good with that money. So, the suffering helps you achieve that.