For some theists, the question of the so called 'meaning of life' is related to the question 'what is my purpose'. This is because their idea of meaning is bound up with the fulfillment of god's plan.
The word 'purpose' has two distinct uses:
1) The purpose of a corkscrew is to open bottles. It was specifically designed to fulfil this purpose.
2)My purpose in opening the fridge was to get some chilled water to drink.
Some theists think that in order to have purpose in a truly meaningful sense, there has to be an overarching type 1 purpose that we have been specifically created by god in order to fulfill. My contention is that we can get along fine with type 2 purposes.
So, if we were made to fulfil some plan or higher purpose of god, would that in itself guarantee that our lives would be 'meaningful' in the sense that most people would recognise? Surely it might depend on what god's plan actually is? After all, if it emerged that god created us specifically to be food for a highly intelligent scavenging intergalactic species that were due to pass through our solar system soon, I imagine that there would be muttering in the pews.
The trouble is, Christians don't seem to be able to give us much in the way of a meaningful description of god's purpose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
You know, you remind me of the ancient greek atomists like Leucippus/Democritus - 'Why in the name of all sanity does there need to be any purpose or meaning; let alone an ultimate purpose, or an entity to actuate/fulfill that purpose and allocate purpose /meaning to every aspect of reality ?'
There doesn't - it's very plain and simple - but we have to be aware of the price of that conclusion - the Universe, merely by indifference and insensibility, even by being a non-volitionary unfolding ordering process compelled by physical laws which seek absolute homogeneity in the 2LT - This Cosmos is cruel beyond imagining, for the entropic process has allowed our evolution; dismissively formed lovers,dreamers,artists, believers all for naught....
we are like the murdered soldier in King Lear who will not stand passively by while a man is blinded; we are like Puddleglum in 'The Silver Chair' who have declared 'screw what's obvious and blatant - my belief stops the universe from being malevolently cruel and mocking - this isn't a delusion, this is a breaking away from my programming - I am better than the universe and will be a martyr against it - I defy it !'
Those who gaze on at this defiance, this rebellion of the cosmos' children, are compelled to ask the question:
'are they truly deluded ? Is this religious/philosophical belief in a microcosmic and macro-anthropic order solely an evolutionary adaptation merely to protect an aberrant mammalian species that lost its hair through swimming, walked upright through injuries and infections that compelled it to sleep in ways that aided breathing, gained brain mass via overdosing on protein and transition elements from shellfish; we are monsters , or we are angels/fallen angels - if this universe is as purported , we were never meant to be - no victim of entropy should ever be made self-aware and witness in full knowledge their destruction to the extent that humanity can - no entity should be able to dream as we do, to deludedly hope, to agonisingly despair - to love others where we psychologically,physically , mentally give our all - and relate all those emotions artistically and symbolically to others in a way so empathic that it tortures us...
No, we angels/demons were either never meant to be...
or there is an alternative...
Please be aware that you are not a bringer of light, a bulwark of authenticity, a sword of truth ,
you are merely a mundane puritan, you throw ashes over the flame, you piss on the chalk drawings, you shatter the mirror, you burn the diaries and childish poetry books, you cave the head in of the statue, you despoil every perception of beauty and wonder, you castrate... and the motive ? Is it truly so pure ?
You envy the dancer, you despise the artist, you are jealous of the lover...perhaps it was thwarted desire or unrecquited love or passion , perhaps it was formed in the tears of desperation and loneliness that the orgasm of masturbation wrought when you truly yearned for the real arms around you ? you sought to give and receive - you wanted another to see you as you truly are, in ways you cannot imagine by yourself - your injured pride refusing you to relent and extend a single finger towards another to alleviate your loneliness, your isolation, your despair....
But we? we have danced...
we? we have dreamed...
we? we have loved and made love and brought forth new life and new love through that love...
we? we have made, we have shared in our making and we have shared in the tales of long ago, and create new dreams and new wonders and far-off imaginings - because we have loved, because we can dance, we can sing songs your heart may break at, but it will break not through understanding, but through the desire to understand something you cannot, dare not, you are lost....
the grapes are sour, the wine they drink must be bitter, the fools sing and dance for they do not know they will die....
no, we fools sing and dance and drink deeply from the cup because we live....
one single kiss of peace could melt your heart if only you let it, one single look upon the smallest flower you turn the universe on its head for you, you have eyes but do not see, you listen but you never hear....
come, let us love you...
p.s. Psio - regarding my eating snow...BEHAVE !
Good catholic boy here....
play with your guitar or put some ice down your boxers...
Yet again you have produced a thing of beauty. Another well crafted fallacy of adverse consequences. Sadly, poetic truth isn't enough.
Mind you I don't think we are that far apart-you have your response to the absurd, I have mine. I defy the universe too but perhaps in a way slightly more Camus way.
"p.s. Psio - regarding my eating snow...BEHAVE !
Good catholic boy here....
play with your guitar or put some ice down your boxers..."
But you must have been sooo cute!
I'm really struggling with the diting this morning, sorry.
as someone who can't play the guitar [double-jointed fourth fingers mean I can't apply pressure to them] I'm jealous !
But you're also aware that I taught logic and this is not a fallacy of adverse consequences, nor is it a black or white fallacy, nor is it a horserace fallacy or a post hoc ergo propter hoc. Nor is it what I have to depict as a 'rogue cum hoc' [i.e. an aberration in a causal progression - [my 'fallacies of momentum in causation' are ridiculed by academia as nonsense - but I believe they do exist!]
this is an analysis of reality and the evidence thrust before us - we are moral, purpose and meaning-seeking individuals - to dismiss this as mere genetic, endocrinal , psychological defence mechanisms to promote social cohesion and sustaining the race doesn't confront the reality !
I did try and e-mail you but you aren't psiomniac@google.com ; so it was a vainglorious attempt.
I have accused you of argument from adverse consequences before and despite what I saw as a clear example, you did and do deny it.
I know you have taught logic but I'm afraid that does not indemnify you from committing this fallacy.
It is my contention that your argument really boils down to:
"If I accept that the universe is fundamentally arbitrary then I will be tipped into nihilism. I will not escape the existential abyss. This would be an adverse consequence, life would be like a sick joke, therefore I will believe that it all ultimately makes sense. Therefore god must exist."
If I am wrong that this is really what your argument amounts to then I retract. However, I have to say, whether you are aware of it or not, your arguments drip with this fallacy, they are redolent of it as you might say.
I think the biological, sociological, game theoretic and psychological components of altruism and their models of interaction do indeed confront reality head on. You do the opposite, you make statements that are unfalsifiable in principle, yet you call that confronting reality. It reminds me of that line in Yellow Submarine when the evil army was retreating and the big baddie shrieks "You're advancing in the wrong direction!"
Over-flexible joints can be a problem for guitar playing but they can be worked on. As for logic I have taught that too. Although it was less the florid latin named variety, more propositional calculus.
I have hotmail but it is not 'psiomniac'. Think more of a muddled ape police officer. (Sorry to be cryptic, call it a bit of security).
way too cryptic dude...perhaps you could e-mail me ? if you could demean yourself, condescending to the level of arguing with a renegade papist [wink!] consorting with the other side, Dawkins might slap your legs...
I'm a bad logician, never got to Boolean algebra - just stuck to Lucasiewicz and Syllogisms, but that which you define as fallacy of adverse consequences I see as a seeking of a rationale... meaning is more normative than non-meaning after all isn't it? [wink!]
if you could demean yourself, condescending to the level of arguing with a renegade papist [wink!]
I already have after all...
Dawkins might slap your legs...
There is plenty of evidence around that I am no Dawkins fan-boy. I like some of the things he has done but he has his flaws in my humble view. Besides he argues with theists all the time.
meaning is more normative than non-meaning after all isn't it? [wink!]
Lol.
Oh come off it - Dawkins doesn't argue, he quarrels !
did you see that thing on channel 4 last night ?
the only thing it's really doing is proving how shallow and two-dimensional professor Dawkin's thought processes are - I am stunned at what he considers substantial evidence or authentic experimentation or valid reasoning - my physics teacher would have had him over her knee spanking him with a leibig condenser - sure I'm as antagonisitc to these new-age weirdos as the next; but there is very little point arguing against them badly and with an autocratic presumption - and all that BF skinner stuff - didn't he realize the trap he was falling into ? Hume would accuse him of abject hypocrisy because that's exactly what his experimentational scientific method does - presumes that habit equates with reality - the big cum hoc ergo propter hoc [no psiomniac, that's not pornographic!]
Oh come off it - Dawkins doesn't argue, he quarrels !
I think that distinction is in the eye of the beholder. For example I think we argue rather than quarrel.
I haven't seen the programme yet so I can't comment other than to say I am sceptical about your assessment of Hume's likely reaction, although on your physics teacher, again I cannot comment.
you're too funny to be an atheist...
atheists only normally make me laugh when they are being serious !!
You could think of me as a Strong Agnostic if that helps.
strong agnsotic, that sounds like something your take for an irritable bowel ?
how can indecision and fence sitting be determined as strong ?
stand in the middle of the road and you get hit with traffic from both ways?
what's a weak agnostic ?
come to think of it what the bloody hell's a strong agnostic?
does one stand there on the skyscraper in a multi-coloured lycra body suit with one's hands upon one's hips - golden hair and cape flowing gracefully behind one, does one stare defiantly through the eyeholes of the mask shielding your identity, and with a voice strong, deep and resolute declare :
'um...er...sorry...I don't really know...what's the question again ...er...yes..um...no...um...ye...um...no...um...no, sorry, I mean yes I do want fries with that...um no...I don't really...or do..I...oh the calamity!!..." ???
I'm not too sure where you are up to with the taxonomy of epistemological stances but a strong agnostic is roughly equivalent to a weak atheist.
By the way, your confusion between agnosticism and procrastination is a common misconception. In fact, I think true agnosticism is the toughest most uncompromising stance there is. Proper respect for irony and all that...
Howdy,
From a Christian... God's purpose is to glorify Himself first and foremost.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
Rhology
Tough and uncompromising , he died for what he couldn't believe in...
doesn't make a good movie tagline does it ? kinda makes one still holding out for a hero ?
although from some of your choices of film , I'm not surprised - Aliens?? what were you thinking ?
anyway, have a read of this and see what you think..
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c6.htm
Tough and uncompromising , he died for what he couldn't believe in...doesn't make a good movie tagline does it ?
No, better would be 'he died because he refused to be told what to believe in'. Not that the movies is always the best guide to the integrity of a philosophical position.
Aliens?? what were you thinking ?
I admit it, I like heroines too.
anyway, have a read of this and see what you think..
I will thanks.
how about:
" he couldn't face the impossible;
and lost the possible..."
Just imagine someone picking up your guitar to play 'prog rock ' or a 'will young' song on it and you stand there in your vest screaming
"get away from her you bitch !!!"
how about:
" he couldn't face the impossible;
and lost the possible..."
or "he didn't waste time with the impossible, there were things to be done..."
I read some of the Chesterton. I can see he has influenced you.
"get away from her you bitch !!!"
Ha ha...good one.
weel chesterton and I are like minds across a sea of inanity...
He was a bloody genius, I have a penchant for agreeing with geniuses...
I have a penchant for agreeing with geniuses...
So do I. Just not the same ones.
ah but there's a significant difference between sane and insane geniuses, warm blooded and cold heartedly ruthless ones; wise geniuses and the damned bloody fools...
genius is all about inspired impracticality after all - and even though I cringe to say it - those who think 'outside the box'
please don't hit me with anything more hard than...well something not very hard...
How about the truth? How hard is that?
You can define genius and/or sanity in any partisan way you please but it will not impinge on the use of the term genius, and whether the sane category is restricted to theists.
would I dare to presume such a thing?
I'd have to hope not.
Did someone mention Chesterton?
.
Yup, OTSOTA is a big fan.
Here is a pressy, then:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/index.html
I am the nice one, after all.
.
Let's try that one again:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc
/books/index.html
.
Thanks.
Hi all! Just wanted to say that I've enjoyed this exchange, and may jump in myself when I've finished my next bow. I'm an instrumentmaker and musician, and a rabidly militant humorless atheist baby-eater. But I only eat the atheist babies.
If any of you are ever in Vienna, drop me a line, and the drinks are on me.
"If any of you are ever in Vienna, drop me a line, and the drinks are on me."
Thanks, but I would prefer them in a glass if it's all the same to you.
It's not all the same to me- I prefer drinks in a glass too. Cheers, and Happy New Year, from chilly Vienna, zilch
Post a Comment