Thursday, January 21, 2010

Looking Through Life

"I was standing today in the dark toolshed.  The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam.  From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place...Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes.  Instantly, the whole picture vanished...Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun.  Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

When you have got into the habit of making this distinction you will find examples of it all day long.  The mathematician sits thinking, and to him it seems that he is contemplating timeless and spaceless truths about quantity.  But the cerebral physiologist, if he could look inside the mathematician's head, would find nothing timeless and spaceless there - only tiny movements in the grey matter.

In other words, you can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another.  Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always misled.  The cerebral physiologist may say, if he chooses, that the mathematician's thought is 'only' tiny physical movements of grey matter.  But then what about the cerebral physiologist's own thought at that very moment?  A second physiologist, looking at it, could pronounce it also to be only tiny physical movements in the first physiologist's skull.  Where is the rot to end?  The answer is that we must never allow the rot to begin.  We must, on pain of idiocy, deny from the very outset the idea that looking at is, by its own nature, instrinsically truer or better than looking along.  One must look both along and at everything."

C.S. Lewis, Meditation in a Toolshed, God in the Dock


This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, and not through the eye

William Blake

For both C.S. Lewis and William Blake it is not enough to simply look at a thing and say you have seen it all.   Pondering Lewis' experience in the toolshed for just a moment we see what a shame it would be to see only the things in the toolshed (boards, tables, tools, etc.), and miss out on the trees, birds, sun, etc.

Going back to our previous discussion of meaning and worship for the believer.  A right understanding of worship is not an experience that happens for 30 minutes one day a week that we know took place because of a raised hand, the singing of a song, or other expression we can see or hear.  We make a cardinal mistake if we look only at those things for meaning (just like looking at money or fame or popularity would be a mistake).  Rather, we must look both at and along those things to what lies beyond them.  For a believer essence precedes existence so who we are should determine what we do.  We don't look at the lucrative singing career for meaning, we recognize the God who created us with the talent, opportunity and priviledge; submit those talents and abilities to Him for His purposes, adore Him for the gift, and live a life in singing that would honor the giver of the gift.  In other words, the meaning is inherent in the life and co-extensive with the life, so that even if an accident were to ruin the vocal chords and render the career over, the worship would continue and the meaning would remain equally strong.  Quite simply, if the meaning of our life is a fabrication of our own making, or a compilation or summation of temporal experiences, then life has no depth and when the object we choose to look at is gone and there is nothing beyond it, then life's meaning is lost as well.

33 comments:

  1. This post is a wonderful expansion on Lewis's words in The Abolition Of Man and his reference to the person who has never been able to conceive the Atlantic as anything more than so many million tons of cold salt water.

    Great points by the way, and points that I spend a fair amount of time trying to pass along to my children. Using the concept of beauty, we point out that we are ourselves made in the image of God, and that in our make up, so to speak, is an affinity towards the beautiful, because God himself is beautiful. It's funny, my children saw a car with "please wash me" written on the side. This was especially funny for them because I always point out to them that if the evolutionist have it right, then we ourselves are only slightly more sophisticated-depending on the entire spectrum of meaningless sophistication-machines than cars that happened by chance, and that beautiful things, love, desires, dreams, and all the rest are ultimately meaninglessness amidst meaninglessness. They are accustomed to my asking them if our car is upset that its hot or raining? We both are quick however to point to and admire beautiful art that man, who was created in the image of God, created; and music, and mountains, family, friends, love, and even sacrifice, altruism, duty, and honor, and how these things point to purpose and meaning for us, but more than that, to the existence of God and his destiny for our lives. (My children would be quick to point out that Reepacheep is my favorite Lewis character. We study him often and re-read the books to bask in the glow of honor emanating from him).

    I have not read "In The Docks" but I am going to move it up on my list. On that note, have you ever heard of Jonathan Park?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan wrote: "I always point out to them that if the evolutionist have it right, then we ourselves are only slightly more sophisticated-depending on the entire spectrum of meaningless sophistication-machines than cars that happened by chance."

    Yikes!! I'm always amazed at the level of ignorance that some kids have to grow up with... it's so sad.

    What does that even mean? "if the evolutionist have it right..." - Unless you have some important evidence you've been hiding the ToE ~is~ right and your silly car analogy (man made machine btw - not self replicating organism build of self replicating cells) is just an ignorant claim with ZERO merit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joe_Agnost. Hey, good to see you back again, I hope all has been well with you as I didn't really hear back on the contuation on the evolution string after my last post. I see it's back on again.

    I do want to jump in quickly on this line and say that the point of this post, the previous one and another that is being drafted now is concerning meaning in life. Specifically, where meaning would come from for the naturalist. The quotes by Lewis and Blake were presented to illustrate how we see things.

    So, in an attempt to sort of re-route the discussion, what would you say in response to Lewis' statement on the mathematician and the cerebrial physiologist? Further, as we've never really touched on the topic, where do you find meaning in life?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I got really busy at work the last few weeks... sorry for abandoning the other thread. It looks like lastchancetosee did an admirable job though! There's not much left to add.

    Jeremy asks: "what would you say in response to Lewis' statement on the mathematician and the cerebrial physiologist?"

    I'd say that's an interesting way of looking at things (pun intended!) ;)
    I don't have any problem with his quote.

    Jeremy asks: "where do you find meaning in life?"

    Every person has their own "meaning". It's a personal subjective thing. For me? I find meaning in teaching my children with the hope that they will be well rounded educated (critical thinking) individuals when they grow up. I also find meaning in making my wife happy - this is a favorite of mine.

    There is plenty of meaning in my life even though I've accepted that this life is the only life I'll have. I know there is nothing after death and that makes the meaning I find is THIS life all the more important!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joe Agnost -
    I'm sure Dan is also, conversely, amazed at the level of ignorance that some kids have to grow up with as well.
    Perhaps you might address the meat of the issue and communicate why you disagree with Dan's comments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks?

    Regarding your question of what was meant by "if evolutionists have it right..."....well, I'll take a stab at what the author intended to convey;
    If those who believe that the theory of evolution is correct (that's what he meant by evolutionists) are proven to have based their faith in a proven, substantiated, fundamental law of the universe, thereby invalidating the beliefs of anyone who does not subscribe to the theory of evolution...
    I think that's what Dan probably meant.

    You know exactly what he meant Joe. He's not hiding important evidence from you. He has the same evidence you do. He simply chooses to interpret it differently and arrives at a different conclusion than you do.
    The problem is not the evidence, the problem is due to having different worldviews, and evidence will not prove to be sufficient to resolve differing worldviews.

    Jon G

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe Agnost said:
    "Every person has their own "meaning". It's a personal subjective thing. For me? I find meaning in teaching my children with the hope that they will be well rounded educated (critical thinking) individuals when they grow up. I also find meaning in making my wife happy - this is a favorite of mine.

    There is plenty of meaning in my life even though I've accepted that this life is the only life I'll have. I know there is nothing after death and that makes the meaning I find is THIS life all the more important!"

    Joe - In my opinion the first things you mention, teaching your children, bringing joy to your wife, those both sound like "good" things for you to be doing... kudos to you.

    But I don't understand, from an evolutionist point if view, what further meaning there could be in life beyond successfully passing on your genes to your offspring. I understand the desire to have "successful" offspring....i.e.; offspring who continue to pass along your genes...but what inherent value is there in making your wife happy?

    I'm not trying to be abrasive… just asking for your point of view.

    Jon G

    ReplyDelete
  7. JonG wrote: "Perhaps you might address the meat of the issue..."

    Ok - claiming that a car has anything to do with the ToE is ludicrous. Cars are made by people and are not self replicating (I thought I made this point already...).
    If cars could get together and reproduce with DNA mutations being passed to it's children then a comparison could be made.

    This (clearly) isn't the case.

    An open mind and 2 seconds on google will show you many many refutations of this fallacy.

    JonG continues: "He has the same evidence you do. He simply chooses to interpret it differently and arrives at a different conclusion than you do."

    Not quite Jon... but close. He is ~choosing~ to interpret the evidence differently than ALL of the experts in the field. What he is doing is comparable to my walking into a surgeon's office and claiming to know more about surgury than they do - ridiculous right?! And then claiming that the surgeon is wrong - even though the surgeon works every day of his life showing that I am wrong.
    The very people that have spent their lives ~learning~ science and have spent countless hours working on the subject have arrived at the conclusion that the ToE is correct. All of the evidence points this way - all of it. Not one piece of evidence refutes - or gives any problem - to the ToE.

    The few "scientists" that claim the ToE is wrong are either Liberty "university" grads, or don't have a biology degree in the first place (there are plenty of creationist engineers out there - with PhDs and everything, not so many biologists though!)

    ReplyDelete
  8. JonG asks: "But I don't understand, from an evolutionist point if view, what further meaning there could be in life beyond successfully passing on your genes to your offspring."

    In terms of evolution - yes, it's just successfully passing your genes along. That wasn't was I was asked though - I was asked what meaning ~I~ find in life, not what the ToE tells us the meaning of life is.

    Biologically speaking it's passing on your genes. Personally speaking it's whatever meaning you find personally.

    "but what inherent value is there in making your wife happy?"

    None. It makes me personally happy - but that's it!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joe Agnost said:
    “Ok - claiming that a car has anything to do with the ToE is ludicrous. Cars are made by people and are not self replicating (I thought I made this point already...).
    If cars could get together and reproduce with DNA mutations being passed to it's children then a comparison could be made.

    This (clearly) isn't the case.

    An open mind and 2 seconds on google will show you many many refutations of this fallacy.”

    Dan’s point, in my opinion, was that evolutionists should be considering all forms of life as simply more complicated machines than those that are man made. Organisms of all types do meet the criteria and definitions of machines, right? Not man made ones, of course, but I don’t think Dan was implying otherwise. From his point of view it’s a rather easy assumption to make, regardless of what evidence may or may not be available, that machines are MADE, i.e.; there must be a maker. I believe that would be his stance, but I do not mean to insert my words for him…. That certainly is my stance.

    Joe Agnost said:
    “Not quite Jon... but close. He is ~choosing~ to interpret the evidence differently than ALL of the experts in the field. What he is doing is comparable to my walking into a surgeon's office and claiming to know more about surgury than they do - ridiculous right?! And then claiming that the surgeon is wrong - even though the surgeon works every day of his life showing that I am wrong.
    The very people that have spent their lives ~learning~ science and have spent countless hours working on the subject have arrived at the conclusion that the ToE is correct. All of the evidence points this way - all of it. Not one piece of evidence refutes - or gives any problem - to the ToE.

    The few "scientists" that claim the ToE is wrong are either Liberty "university" grads, or don't have a biology degree in the first place (there are plenty of creationist engineers out there - with PhDs and everything, not so many biologists though!)

    I comprehend your point and your analogy, but I respectfully disagree with it and in particular with your usage of the term “ALL”. ALL the experts in “the field” do not agree….EVER. Furthermore, you seem to be stating that the only field that carries any weight with respect to Darwinism is the field of Biology. I strongly disagree with that point. I think that there are many, many fields that have a “stake” in this debate including Biology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Molecular Chemistry, Molecular Biochemistry, Organic Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry….the list goes on and on but there’s no reason for me to try to list each and every discipline, of course.
    I would refer you to the document titled “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” which can be found on the discovery.org website.
    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
    The latest numbers I found were that the document had been signed by over 700 scientists.

    You also seem to put down any scientist who doesn’t agree with Darwinism by putting those quotes around the word “scientist”. If you review that document you will see dissenters with titles such as “Emeritus Professor of Biology – San Francisco State University”, and “Senior Scientist – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution”, and “Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering – Ohio State University.” I’d say those are valid scientists who are stating publicly their disagreement with Darwinian methodology.

    So perhaps you may not have your facts right if you think that the whole of the scientific community stands united on the principals and theories of Darwin.

    Jon G

    ReplyDelete
  10. J_A, thank you once again for carefully and honestly answering the questions posed to you.

    You and I spent some time before on the topic of the ToE so I will respectfully focus on the question of meaning if that's alright this time.

    I have a difficult question for you, which I know you are more than capable of answering, but out of deference to your family i'll use my own as the example in my question.

    Supposing I believed as you do that meaning in life is a completely subjective thing and I decide that making my wife happy gives my life meaning. How would you console me, then, if in an equally subjective way my wife decided what brought meaning to her life was to leave me and my children for the mailman? Wouldn't she be justified in defining her life's meaning that way and then acting on it? Would that part of my life then be devoid of meaning because something outside my control eliminated that which I chose to hold meaning for me?

    Please understand my intention is not to belittle or demean your family or your belief, you are certainly entitled to it. I'm just wondering how if meaning is subjective it can possibly be really meaningful at all. You said that it has no inherent value, so you would have to live life (at least in the perspective of your life being meaningful) as a complete fabrication of your own making. In essence not really meaningful at all. Is that right?

    ReplyDelete
  11. JonG wrote: "Dan’s point, in my opinion, was that evolutionists should be considering all forms of life as simply more complicated machines than those that are man made."

    Yes, that appears to be his point. It's my position that such an idea is ridiculous as life forms are self-replicating and man-made machines are not.

    The whole point of the ToE involves the self-replicating nature of life and this simply does not apply to cars and such. His analogy is without merit.

    JonG continues: "you seem to be stating that the only field that carries any weight with respect to Darwinism is the field of Biology"

    That's my mistake - I was trying to simplify things with 'biology' to make my point.

    My point is that the dissenters are not generally trained in the fields that they are dissenting. A PhD engineer claiming that the DNA evidence points to creation is a perfect illistration of this - why would an engineer know more about DNA than a geneticist?

    JonG wrote: "The latest numbers I found were that the document had been signed by over 700 scientists."

    And that is pretty sad. With hundreds of thousands of trained scientists the discovery institute could only get 700?

    The NCSE put together a little project of their own to show just how well the ToE is supported by scientists, it's called "project steve". Scientists with the name "steve" make up less than %1 of all scientists worldwide and yet they've managed to get thousands of "steve"s to sign in ~support~ of the ToE.

    700 hundred fundamentalists is less than %1 - a statistically insignificant number. More than %99.9 of all scientists accept the ToE.

    And every single dissenter has something in common with the others - religion. Religion is the only thing backing this creationist/ID movement - it's not science.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Before I reply let me just say that you WILL NOT offend me! You don't need to temper your comments/questions with "Please understand my intention is not to belittle or demean..." stuff.

    I'm not thin skinned and at this point I don't think you (jeremy) would write anything simply to demean or belittle me or my beliefs.

    So don't worry about ~what~ you write or how ~I~ will take it - OK? :)

    Jeremy asks: "Supposing I believed as you do that meaning in life is a completely subjective thing and I decide that making my wife happy gives my life meaning. How would you console me, then, if in an equally subjective way my wife decided what brought meaning to her life was to leave me and my children for the mailman?"

    I would help you find ~new~ meaning in your life, or uncover meaning you had in addition to the meaning that life with your wife gave you.

    "Wouldn't she be justified in defining her life's meaning that way and then acting on it?"

    Yes she would. It would be unfortunate for you though.

    "Would that part of my life then be devoid of meaning because something outside my control eliminated that which I chose to hold meaning for me?"

    Yup. But that shouldn't leave you with a life without ANY meaning.

    If my wife and kids all died this afternoon I would not be left with a life without meaning. The meaning that I find in my life would certainly change though.

    Jeremy continues: "how if meaning is subjective it can possibly be really meaningful at all."

    It's not meaningful in a general, universal sense but in a personal sense. Your feelings about your wife (in the example that your wife is the meaning in ~your~ life) means nothing to ~me~ - but is powerful and meaningful to ~you~.

    "You said that it has no inherent value, so you would have to live life (at least in the perspective of your life being meaningful) as a complete fabrication of your own making. In essence not really meaningful at all. Is that right?"

    Yup - that's about right...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jon G

    Just stealing a second to check up on the comment I left last night, after a quick skim, know that you are, as far as I can tell, doing a splendid job of representing what I meant.

    ReplyDelete
  14. J_A, I will notedly attempt to refrain from using qualifiers before my statements.

    Again, you have honestly answered my questions and so I really have nothing else to ask. I will say, however, that it seems to me sooner or later if life is approached with that sort of outlook eventually (after one disappointment after another and a continual re-assignment of meaning) the whole process will be revealed as pointless. Also based on that view, then if someone has reached the point of just being tired of re-assigning meaning to something else and decides to terminate their own life there would be no good reason to stop them.

    Although I believe you were being honest when you said you would tell me to find something else in which to place meaning, I believe probably a more consistant answer based on your position would be to tell me something like: "No consolation would be needed. Re-define meaning if you want to, or end it all, it really doesn't matter." We've only had conversations over the internet on blogs and yet you came up with something to try to 'cheer me up' and encourage me to continue to delude myself.

    I will pray for you that you would come to know as I have that your life has intrinsic worth and meaning. I look forward to our next conversation and would encourage you to read over my next post on meaning which is really tailored to followers in Christ, but will at least give you some more perspective on where I am coming from as a believer. I hope you'll give it a read.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jeremy wrote: "...it seems to me sooner or later if life is approached with that sort of outlook eventually (after one disappointment after another and a continual re-assignment of meaning) the whole process will be revealed as pointless."

    But that's the point - in the end it ~is~ all pointless. You have to live life for the moment, find meaning in your life at that moment, because in the end you're simply dead and nothing will matter.

    Jeremy continues: "...if someone has reached the point of just being tired of re-assigning meaning to something else and decides to terminate their own life there would be no good reason to stop them."

    Why do you want to stop them? If they have come to that conclusion of sound mind - a relatively rare occurance btw - then let them. Most sane people have a self preservation gene though and suicide is normally done by the very sick (which I'm fine with) or the mentally ill (tragic).

    I don't see "being tired of re-assigning meaning to something else" being a problem for most people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. J_A said: "...if someone has reached the point of just being tired of re-assigning meaning to something else and decides to terminate their own life there would be no good reason to stop them.

    Why do you want to stop them?"

    I want to stop them because their life does have meaning, inherent value. To be consistent with what I believe to be true, I am compelled to live in the light of the truth that all humankind has inherent worth and believe that every life is precious. That's why I see more meaning and value in your life than you do yourself. In fact, even if we had never crossed paths that would still be the case.

    I believe you have a bigger problem, however. You also stated the following: "But that's the point - in the end it ~is~ all pointless. You have to live life for the moment, find meaning in your life at that moment, because in the end you're simply dead and nothing will matter." Why do you feel compelled to find meaning in the moment? Based on what you believe to be true life is pointless. Why not live according to your belief and live life with no meaning, teach others that life is completely devoid of meaning (except to continue the species genetically). What is pointless is trying to assign meaning to the moment when you believe that no meaning exists. Based on your view of things, you are insignificant, meaningless, pointless and you should treat yourself and everyone and everything else with complete and utter indifference.

    Yet admittedly you do care for yourself. You care for your wife. You precribe meaning to little things in your life arbitrarily. The question is why are you living a life contradictory to your belief of what is true.

    Meaninglessness is the logical outworking of a purely naturalistic belief. However, life is unliveable without contradicting that belief. You have been honest to this point with your belief and its outworkings, you should also acknowledge this inconsistancy between your belief and your life. You have commented that several views on these posts are ridiculous. It seems to me that saying life is meaningless and then trying to live life by assigning meaning to it is a truly ridiculous notion.

    In the meantime, i'll continue to hold your life in higher regard than do you, and per the Schaeffer quote in the previous post weep for all those in our contemporary culture who choose to live in such a way.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jeremy wrote: "Why not live according to your belief and live life with no meaning"

    Because (as I said previously) I don't believe life is ~without~ meaning. There are lots of things people can find meaningful in life - I've pointed to a couple of things in my own life (kids, wife).

    jeremy continues: "...teach others that life is completely devoid of meaning (except to continue the species genetically)."

    Again, this is not what I believe. You make the leap from 'assign personal meaning to one's own life' to 'life has no meaning'. I have not stated that and don't believe it.

    jeremy continues: "What is pointless is trying to assign meaning to the moment when you believe that no meaning exists."

    Your assertion that I believe no meaning exists is without grounds... this seems to be a point that you're stuck on.

    jeremy continues: "Based on your view of things, you are insignificant, meaningless, pointless..."

    In the grand scheme of things, yes. But in reality (here and now) I am very significant, meaningful and with point.

    "...and you should treat yourself and everyone and everything else with complete and utter indifference."

    Why?

    You make some huge leaps to get to this last statement. It doesn't follow that because I think meaning in one's life is whatever the individual finds meaning in that I should therefore treat everyone like a complete jerk. It doesn't follow at all...

    Jeremy continues: "The question is why are you living a life contradictory to your belief of what is true."

    It's like I'm talking to Richard Ball all over again... Your conclusion is faulty because of the giant leaps of logic you take to get there. Starting with your assertion that I don't think life has any meaning. That's not what I think and any ideas you arrive at from that starting point will be flawed.

    Jeremy continues: "It seems to me that saying life is meaningless and then trying to live life by assigning meaning to it is a truly ridiculous notion."

    You don't seem to get it. Life ~isn't~ "meaningless". I just happen to believe that the meaning ISN`T derived from any god(s) - it's personal.

    You find ~your~ meaning of life from the bible and I find ~my~ meaning of life from my own wants/desires. I don't see why your meaning is any more real than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  18. J_A. Let me try to deal just with my logic here.

    If there is no point in the grand scheme (as you said), what possible reason could you give for point or meaning in the here and now? Just because you say so? You are assigning locally what you have already stipulated does not exist globally. All my other points and statments follow from that logic.

    It would be like me saying "Humans are incapable of rational thought" and then continuing on to say "The particular point X is a rational thought". Once you stipulate a negative in the global sense, it is ridiculous to then attempt to posit the same point in the affirmative in a local sense.

    As for our differences here, you say "You find ~your~ meaning of life from the bible and I find ~my~ meaning of life from my own wants/desires. I don't see why your meaning is any more real than mine." I'm not saying the Bible provides some arbitrary meaning, i'm saying the Bible is objectively true (i.e. where we find all truth {"I am the way, the truth, the life...}). I'm beginning with objective truth. I may be wrong, what I believe may be untrue, but it is not subjective.

    Put another way, you are saying meaningfulness is subjective or relative. This includes your belief that what you assign as meaningful just for you is subjective or relative. This means your arbitrary definition of meaning is meaningless. It is self-defeating and illogical.

    You said: "You don't seem to get it. Life ~isn't~ "meaningless". I just happen to believe that the meaning ISN`T derived from any god(s) - it's personal." I do get it. What i'm saying is that meaning, whether it comes from "god" or not must be objective to have real meaning. Your personal assignment is subjective and therefore has no real meaning.

    I also take exception to your statement:
    "It doesn't follow that because I think meaning in one's life is whatever the individual finds meaning in that I should therefore treat everyone like a complete jerk." Here you are the one making a leap. I have not once suggested your position results in "bad" behavior. It doesn't seem so in all the discussins we've shared, but I have no idea whether you act like a "jerk" or not. You may live a life that we both agree is "good" and "right", it will just be that that life is ultimately pointless and meaningless.

    It seems to me you see all of life as being under an umbrella of meaninglessness and so just to cope and get by you feel it necessary to assign individual meanings in your life. Even if this is the case, what hope could you possibly live with, knowing that no matter what you do day to day for yourself it ultimately remains under that umbrella?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jeremy asks: "If there is no point in the grand scheme (as you said), what possible reason could you give for point or meaning in the here and now? Just because you say so?"

    And I should believe that all life has intrinsic value "just because you say so?"... it works both ways. You say the bible gives the answer to 'meaning', and I say ~I~ have the answer to meaning. Either way it's because 'we say so'.

    That there is not some universal "meaning" to life (other than spreading one's genes) does not mean that there isn't valid personal meaning. You don't seem to believe this but it's what I believe.

    Jeremy wrote: "You are assigning locally what you have already stipulated does not exist globally."

    So? I don't care who wins the Australian rugby championship this year, very few Canadians do. Does that mean that Australian rugby fans don't have a genuine, real desire to see their team win? Even though there isn't a global/universal push for this does this mean that the local (Australian) one is invalid?

    That the universe does not care if I live/die does not invalidate my desire to live. That god does not exist does not invalidate my desire to play basketball with my kids.

    Jeremy continues: "It would be like me saying 'Humans are incapable of rational thought' and then continuing on to say 'The particular point X is a rational thought'."

    Not quite. It would be like a student realizing that nobody else in the entire school cared about his physics test results, but realizing the ~he~ cared and that was enough.
    That the universe, in general, doesn't care doesn't invalidate the local caring.

    jeremy wrote: "I'm not saying the Bible provides some arbitrary meaning, i'm saying the Bible is objectively true."

    Of course you are. I know that. You're wrong of course, but I know that's what you think.

    Jeremy wrote: "I'm beginning with objective truth. I may be wrong, what I believe may be untrue, but it is not subjective."

    Of course it's subjective! It's hard to find 2 christians who will agree on ~what~ the bible says, which parts to take as metaphore etc.
    It ~is~ subjective I'm afraid.

    Jeremy continues: "I do get it. What i'm saying is that meaning, whether it comes from 'god' or not must be objective to have real meaning."

    BS. For example, that I think pizza tastes great with anchovies is subjective. It has real meaning (I like anchovies).

    jeremy wrote: "I have not once suggested your position results in 'bad' behavior."

    You misunderstood me.

    When you wrote that the result of my views ~should~ logically lead me to treating everyone/everything with complete indifference I changed the "indifference" part with "act like a jerk". I didn't mean to suggest that you think I act like a jerk.

    Jeremy wrote: "It seems to me you see all of life as being under an umbrella of meaninglessness and so just to cope and get by you feel it necessary to assign individual meanings in your life."

    Not quite, but close. I don't think about the "big picture" much as it doesn't interest me much. I don't do anything "just to cope and get by" - life is both fun and rewarding!
    I also don't actively do anything in search of "meaning", but when asked what I find meaningful I can answer as I did.
    It's not terribly interesting or important to my day-to-day life though.

    That I'm simply worm-food when I die does not bother me in the least. It doesn't devalue my life one whit. It doesn't change the joy I find in life daily, nor take anything away from the experience.

    It seems to give theists plenty of problems though because they're always so horrified to learn that many of us just live our lives for the here and now without any need for universal meaning. It's not scary - it's liberating!

    ReplyDelete
  20. J_A said: "And I should believe that all life has intrinsic value "just because you say so?"... it works both ways. You say the bible gives the answer to 'meaning', and I say ~I~ have the answer to meaning. Either way it's because 'we say so'."

    Not quite. What I have said is that my starting point is God, an uncaused being, who has stated that everyone has intrinsic meaning and tht it is real and true and it applies to everyone regardless of what they think or believe personally. This may be a wrong starting point, but it is objective (true for all). Your starting point is that meaning does not exist and is subjective (not true for everyone). I can live consistantly with my starting point, you cannot.

    J_A said: "That the universe does not care if I live/die does not invalidate my desire to live. That god does not exist does not invalidate my desire to play basketball with my kids."

    This is my point. Your life has no ultimate meaning, so it is reduced to desires (living for the now). You may desire to live or play basketball with your kids, but according to your own starting point all that is without meaning. Again this makes life unliveable. Supposing I believed as you and desired to live caringly and lovingly with my family, but my neighbor desired to murder my entire family. On your view there is equal meaning. Do you really think that's right?

    J_A said: "Not quite. It would be like a student realizing that nobody else in the entire school cared about his physics test results, but realizing the ~he~ cared and that was enough.
    That the universe, in general, doesn't care doesn't invalidate the local caring."

    Not quite. It's like the boy saying that school doesn't exist. Then taking and turning in a physics test because he said it had meaning for him to do it. Universally there still is no school, even if locally he deludes himself into believing there is.

    J_A said: "For example, that I think pizza tastes great with anchovies is subjective. It has real meaning (I like anchovies)."

    Again, not quite. It's like you stipulating the sense of taste doesn't exist, then saying pizza tastes great with anchovies. You still desire anchovies locally, pizza still doesn't exist globally.

    J_A said: "That I'm simply worm-food when I die does not bother me in the least. It doesn't devalue my life one whit. It doesn't change the joy I find in life daily, nor take anything away from the experience.

    It seems to give theists plenty of problems though because they're always so horrified to learn that many of us just live our lives for the here and now without any need for universal meaning. It's not scary - it's liberating!"

    This is not the view of the theist. Your view of life is not scary for me, it is unliveable. It is defined in the Bible as being a bondage. My heart breaks for you because you feel liberated, when in fact you are believing a lie. How do I know? Because this same attitude that you take, that is so liberating, to live for the now has you ending up as worm-food. You are created in the very image of God and have therefore been given incomparably more value and worth and meaning than that. My heart breaks for you because on your view there is no hope, what does someone who knows he/she is walking worm-food hope for? pleasure for today? How good could a last meal possibly taste for someone hours before execution even if it is his/her favorite? My heart breaks for you because you think so little of your own life, and must think the same of everyone else.

    It does not appear we will come to agreement on this issue in this string on this post, but I do pray that you will take a hard look at the starting points, the true outworkings of those starting points and see that you are much more valuable, your life filled with much more meaning than you believe.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jeremy wrote: "Supposing I believed as you and desired to live caringly and lovingly with my family, but my neighbor desired to murder my entire family. On your view there is equal meaning. Do you really think that's right?"

    I don't know what you're asking here.

    Jeremy wrote: "My heart breaks for you because you feel liberated, when in fact you are believing a lie."

    Back at you... except for the heart breaking part. I don't much care that you, or other theists, believe lies. That's ~your~ business and no skin off my nose.

    jeremy continues: "this same attitude that you take, that is so liberating, to live for the now has you ending up as worm-food."

    It doesn't matter ~what~ we believe... the reality of life is that we all end up as worm food anyway. It's not my liberated thinking that results in this, it's life. Thinking otherwise does not change reality.

    jeremy continues: "You are created in the very image of God and have therefore been given incomparably more value and worth and meaning than that."

    This is where you descend into religious babble. Ignoring that god doesn't exist for a moment... how does my being made "in the very image of god" lead you to the conclusion that I've been given "more value and worth and meaning" than ultimately being worm-food?
    It doesn't follow.

    jeremy continues: "My heart breaks for you because on your view there is no hope, what does someone who knows he/she is walking worm-food hope for? pleasure for today?"

    You answered your own question. What do I "hope" for? Essentially it comes down to happiness. I hope for happiness. Today. Tomorrow. Until death (forever).

    It doesn't make me "hopeless" because I know I'll cease to exist after I die... where would you get such an idea? I have hopes and dreams - none involve an afterlife with ZERO evidence of existence. They involve reality - real things.

    jeremy continues: "How good could a last meal possibly taste for someone hours before execution even if it is his/her favorite?"

    Pretty good I'd image. I don't understand what you're getting at with this statement.

    jeremy continues: "My heart breaks for you because you think so little of your own life."

    That's entirely of your own doing. I don't think "little" of my life. I'd posit that I think ~more~ of my life than you do yours - because I know this is my ~only~ life while you live for some (fantasy) after-life that will (IMO) never materialize. It is your opinion that is sad (IMO).

    jeremy finishes: "It does not appear we will come to agreement on this issue..."

    Agreed. I've been through some of this stuff with RK_Ball and been thoroughly unconvinced by his arguments - I doubt you've got anything new to add.

    And: "I do pray that you will take a hard look at the starting points, the true outworkings of those starting points and see that you are much more valuable, your life filled with much more meaning than you believe"

    Again - you're wrong. I find your "starting points" utterly unconvincing. I don't believe in god. I value my life immensely already. You are under the misunderstanding that I don't value my life enough - but that's all it is: your mistaken take on things.

    ReplyDelete
  22. J_A. You don't accept any religious beliefs and being relavent on any issue. I understand this, my last paragraph was only to express my concern for you, you may take it or leave it (quite obviously you will leave it).

    Let me just focus then on the logic and get your comment on just the one example I gave in response to your illustration, namely:

    The sense of taste does not exist. Pizza with anchovies tastes good to me. If the global stipulation on the non-existence of taste is correct, then the local appeal to the tastiness of pizza is non-sensical.

    In your mind this does not follow?

    ReplyDelete
  23. jeremy wrote: "The sense of taste does not exist. Pizza with anchovies tastes good to me. If the global stipulation on the non-existence of taste is correct, then the local appeal to the tastiness of pizza is non-sensical.

    In your mind this does not follow?"

    No, in my mind that ~does~ follow.

    What doesn't follow is the idea that there has to be a universal meaning of life for any local and personal meaning of life to have any validity.

    We (humans) are an insignificant blip in the universe. This doesn't diminish our existence at all even though you seem to think it does.

    ReplyDelete
  24. J_A said: "No, in my mind that ~does~ follow."

    It cannot if you follow that statement with:

    "What doesn't follow is the idea that there has to be a universal meaning of life for any local and personal meaning of life to have any validity.

    We (humans) are an insignificant blip in the universe. This doesn't diminish our existence at all even though you seem to think it does."

    I'm not saying our existence is dimished. We exist or not irrespecive of meaning. Again, what I am saying is that if something doesn't exist anywhere it cannot exist here. You begin with ultimate meaning being non-existent then posit meaning for you. How is that different from saying ultimate taste being non-existent by tastiness for pizza existing for you?

    If we (humans) are an insignificant blip in the universe, then we are an insignificant blip in our homes too. I'm not more significant at home because I attribute more significance to myself at home.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sorry, that middle paragraph should read:

    "I'm not saying our existence is dimished. We exist or not irrespecive of meaning. Again, what I am saying is that if something doesn't exist anywhere it cannot exist here. You begin with ultimate meaning being non-existent then posit meaning for you. How is that different from saying ultimate taste is non-existent but tastiness for pizza exists for you?"

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's like the whole morals issue. Morals are subjective - there are no universal morals like 'do not kill', they exist locally. As a society we've developed morals like 'do not kill', but they don't exist universally. That the universe doesn't recognize our moral standards doesn't make those moral standards any less valid - it just makes them subjective and local.
    It's the same with "meaning". Meaning is subjective and the universe doesn't care one way or the other.

    jeremy wrote: "If we (humans) are an insignificant blip in the universe, then we are an insignificant blip in our homes too."

    Not at all. Just because we're insignificant universally speaking doesn't mean we aren't VERY significant locally.
    If I kill my wife the universe doesn't care. It is utterly insignificant to the universe at large - and yet it's VERY significant to my (now dead) wife right?! Locally significant, universally indifferent.

    ReplyDelete
  27. J_A, we've discussed morals before and I will agree with you that the two issues are similar. That is because what we are discussing is logical consistancy. I do not believe you can believe in subjectivity with regard to meaning or morals and be consistent logically.

    If there is not a universal understanding of "thou shalt not kill", then you are left to live (if you choose to believe that way) hoping that everyone around you does too. You could not, however, be consistent and say your neighbor ought not murder you. It's just subjective. It's an unliveable position.

    The same with meaning, you said: "If I kill my wife the universe doesn't care. It is utterly insignificant to the universe at large - and yet it's VERY significant to my (now dead) wife right?!" I would say wrong. If there is not a universal concept of caring for those to which we are married (i.e. there is no such thing as caring) it would be nonsensical to say that you care personally for your wife. That is to say, if you begin by saying the sensory experience of caring does not exist, but I care deeply for my wife. This applies for actions that are either good or bad. In other words, caring that your wife loves you wouldn't exist either. They would both be nonsensical statements. You could not live that way and be logically consistant.

    Let me be clear, you could be logically consistant by saying that life is pointless, therefore everyday activities are pointless, but you just do them anyway. No problem. What I am saying is that to stipulate an absolute negative (i.e. there is no absolute meaning) but then posit an arbitrary local (i.e. I assign meaning for me).

    ReplyDelete
  28. jeremy wrote: "If there is not a universal understanding of 'thou shalt not kill', then you are left to live (if you choose to believe that way) hoping that everyone around you does too."

    Yup. That's exactly how everybody lives - with the understanding that (local) laws will be obeyed. Sometimes they are broken and murder happens - even by christians! Does the being who wrote the universal 'thou shall not kill' rule apply a punishment when the rule is broken? Of course not - it's the local law enforcement that does that because there is NO universal law.

    "You could not, however, be consistent and say your neighbor ought not murder you."

    Of course I can... as far as ~I~ am concerned he "ought not murder" me - it's perfectly logical for me to feel that way and express it. I don't feel that he "ought not murder" me because of some universal law but because I don't want to die. It's personal.

    If he ~does~ want to murder me then as far as ~he~ is concerned it's the "right" thing to do, as far as I'm concerned it's the "wrong" thing to do, there is no "universal" decree on the matter though, the universe is indifferent.

    jeremy continues: "If there is not a universal concept of caring for those to which we are married (i.e. there is no such thing as caring) it would be nonsensical to say that you care personally for your wife."

    Wow. I never get used to how messed up some people's thoughts are. I really can't believe anyone could possibly come to the conclusions you (and Ball incidentally - it's like you're channeling him!) do. It's absurd to me - completely absurd.

    To restate your words above with a slight twist, you're saying that if there is NOT a "universal concept of caring for those to which we are married" it would be nonsensical for you to care for your wife.
    Does your wife know that ~you~ require universal laws to love her? I'd be offended if I were her.

    There is no universal requirement to feel love for one's spouse. There are no universal "good" laws. There is no "absolute good" or absolute morals. There are only things which we make for ourselves... and there is nothing wrong or unlivable with that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. J_A said: "Does the being who wrote the universal 'thou shall not kill' rule apply a punishment when the rule is broken? Of course not - it's the local law enforcement that does that because there is NO universal law."

    We have already stipulated that we approach matters in different ways and this issue is a prime example. You say the giver of the "thou shalt not kill" rule does not punish when it is broken. Because you begin by saying He doesn't exist. I say He does exist, and that He does punish when it is broken. Your belief system is purely temporal, i.e. the only authority we are obliged to obey is the current local law enforcement body. On my view murder is wrong whether local law says it is or not. On your view, if local law said it is OK to murder then it is. That's why I say it's unlivable.

    J_A said: "I really can't believe anyone could possibly come to the conclusions you (and Ball incidentally - it's like you're channeling him!) do. It's absurd to me - completely absurd."

    Whether you can understand how I came to my conclusions, no matter how many people see things the way I do, and whether or not you think the ideas to be absurd are irrelevant to whether they are true or not. I'm not sure what this means other than you are frustrated. I am talking about a logical consist approach to meaning.

    J_A said: "Does your wife know that ~you~ require universal laws to love her?"

    You have again misunderstood what I am saying. This discussion is about meaning. My wife knows that loving her is meaningful to me because God defined marriage as a picture of the covenant He made with His people which can never be broken, and that I see my loving my wife, caring for her, providing for her needs as the same type of commitment. It is a part of who I am. When I purpose to live that way every day as best I can it is an act of worship to God. She sees a great deal of meaning and comfort in that understanding.

    Since you asked about my wife I will press you on the same point. You have said that meaning in your marriage exists because you chose it. Have you told her that although life is ultimately pointless your marriage is meaningful to you because you chose it to be? What if she were to ask you something like, "Well what if tomorrow you decide that meaning for you is no longer loving me, but leaving me for someone else?" Wouldn't you have to respond by saying that you'd simply leave her and find that meaningful, and that your advice to her would be to find something else in her life to define as meaningful?

    It seems to me you would have to answer in that way, and because you do there is no real meaning there, just some fabricated reason for doing it rather than not, all based on your current feelings.

    Think of this illustration and tell me if you agree with the assesment.

    There is no island called Jeremy Island. But supposing I decide that I am going to live on Jeremy Island so I buy a boat and every morning I wake up and row from sun-up to sun-down. Am I making a logical choice here? Am I making progress? If there is no end result possible, then even though I am doing work every day, even though I am covering a certain number of nautical miles each day, I will never reach the destination that never exists. Would you think me a logical person who is making progress, or would you see me as at best delusional?

    ReplyDelete
  30. jeremy wrote: "On my view murder is wrong whether local law says it is or not. On your view, if local law said it is OK to murder then it is. That's why I say it's unlivable."

    But my view is backed up by reality. How do you explain killing in war being perfectly acceptable if it's universally wrong?

    jeremy wrote: "Have you told her (your wife) that although life is ultimately pointless your marriage is meaningful to you because you chose it to be?"

    We haven't talked about those specifics - but it doesn't need to be said. It's how life is.

    "What if she were to ask you something like, 'Well what if tomorrow you decide that meaning for you is no longer loving me, but leaving me for someone else?'"

    I would answer honestly - and she'd know the answer anyway - and say: 'yes, if I wake tomorrow and no longer feel love for you I will leave.'
    This is the understanding that millions of married couples live with... it's called real life.

    jeremy continues: "there is no real meaning there"

    This is the part I don't get. Why can't you understand that it ~is~ real meaning?

    As to your final analogy - ignoring the fact that it doesn't apply to what we're discussing - here's my take: you would be a deluded crazy person if you ~knew~ jeremy island didn't exist but rowed every day hoping to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  31. J_A said: "How do you explain killing in war being perfectly acceptable if it's universally wrong?"

    I was quite specific in saying that murder of the innocent is wrong. If you begin with the understanding that the world consists of sinful people then you understand that sometimes there is no good option but self defense, which goes to the potential legitimacy of going to war, but that is not at all related to the murder of an innocent life for frivolous reasons which I am addressing here. Even Christians make mistakes and can engage in wrong actions militarily. Again, just because people who say they are Christians do something that violates scripture does not make it Biblical or right. The issue of war is a different topic that we can get into another time.

    J_A said: "I would answer honestly - and she'd know the answer anyway - and say: 'yes, if I wake tomorrow and no longer feel love for you I will leave.' This is the understanding that millions of married couples live with... it's called real life."

    My friend, I give you credit for being honest, and it may be that in our culture that is the view that possibly even a majority hold; but it just doesn't seem to me there is any value to marriage or love if that is the truth.

    You said you can't understand why it is real meaning. Because real meaning isn't here today and gone tomorrow based on nothing more than whim and fancy. If that's what you want then you already have it in pleasure and desire. You desire a wife today. You desire a different woman tomorrow. That is different than a meaningful marriage. I don't understand why you can't see that.

    I suppose we are at an empasse.

    ReplyDelete
  32. jeremy wrote: "I was quite specific in saying that murder of the innocent is wrong"

    But you've just turned an absolute (thou shalt not kill) into a subjective statement. By using the qaulifier "innocent" you've introduced subjectivity (is that a word?) into it. What you think of as "innocent" might not align with my version of "innocent".

    It's the same with your use of "frivolous reasons" - what you think is "frivolous" is not what I would call "frivolous".

    jeremy wrote: "it just doesn't seem to me there is any value to marriage or love if that is the truth."

    That's fine and good. Millions of us live this way though and ~do~ value our marriages and love. It's reality.

    jeremy wrote: "If that's what you want then you already have it in pleasure and desire. You desire a wife today. You desire a different woman tomorrow. That is different than a meaningful marriage. I don't understand why you can't see that."

    It all ends up back at what is one's definition of "meaningful". I think you'd have to agree that millions of people live their lives with my version of "meaning" - thus making that position demonstrably "livable".

    ReplyDelete
  33. J_A: I'll respond quickly here but would suggest that we consolidate this discussion to the latest post. I think we are both banging the same gong in each and it would be easier for me to deal with one string at a time.

    My only comment here is on "thou shalt not kill" and it is to say it must be seen in context, otherwise one might get the idea that the intent is to not kill anything at all (plant, animal, idea, project etc.) I'll just leave it at that because i'm sure you are aware of the numerous discussions on the topic.

    I'll focus on language and continue this thread on the more recent post. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for contributing a comment to this site. Please keep the comments civil and respectful and the language clean.