What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Dubious]

I honestly don't mean this in a disrespectful or dismissive way, IC, but that doesn't seem like much of a purpose to me. God created us so we can have a relationship with him, I just don't get it.

I understand: that simple explanation raises a whole lot of questions, to be sure. Fair enough. But I can't anticipate precisely which one of them is creating the first hesitation for you. So if I may ask, what is it you "don't get" about it?

The rank absurdity of it which reminds of a child's nursery rhyme:

Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

Ok for little ones for a while until reality gradually sets in to clear the fog.

[davidm]

IC has been for many years a first class verbal contortionist. He will completely twist every sentence into something you never said, meant or even thought of. This is his sole means of defending his beliefs when challenged by counter views. He professes to love god and yet manages to insert lies into every argument which doesn't conform to his own. Regardless of my position toward or god or theism in general the apologetics offered by him is replete with subterfuge, lies and distortions. If I were to believe in god, I would also have to consider his means of justification as total anathema.

I noticed this right from the start. But it's just par for the course for Christian apologetics, which is founded on rank dishonestly. His goal is of course not to convince me, but to baffle with bullshit others who may not know as much as I and you and others do.

[Immanuel Can]

I love sunshine and blue sky and green leafy trees and nature in general. If God created all these things then I am grateful to him but I'm afraid I don't love him.

Well, I think you're not wrong to point out that the world is capable of an interpretation that attributes the natural blessings we have not to the randomness of chance, but to the providing of a loving God...not that I think that IS how you interpret them -- I'm not running ahead of you here -- but it's interesting that you can see how that COULD be interpreted.

I think a lot more of the world is just like that...equivocal. You can view it as the product of the most fortuitous good luck imaginable, (and I do understand that's how some non-Theists choose to see it) or you can say, "Hey, what if this stuff isn't just here by accident? What if Someone is trying to tell me something...?"

But to love God...you're right: that would take more.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's simply evident that if ethics is "an exclusively human concern with not superhuman authority," then there is no objectivity to ethics. It is then, as Nietzsche said, just a tawdry power grab. There are no real ethics: nothing guarantees right and wrong. It's not even wrong, then, to lie about ethics.

Until very recently I used to think that the objective basis for ethics was human nature. I thought that human nature was founded upon cooperation. Now I am not so sure. Competition seems more prevalent than cooperation.

My personal affections are for cooperation because I was immersed for most of my life in a culture which is founded upon Christianity. After I discarded the sort of God that the liberal religionists taught I still believed in the same morality of the Golden Rule. I still do. However there is so much cruelty and deliberate infliction of suffering now and in the past that it very likely outweighs all of the kindness and justice. It's impossible that there is objective justice .

Since the historical advent of modern ethics as exemplified by such as Jesus, Socrates, and Confucius many of us who have been taught these ethics want to support them. Violent culture clashes. Maybe the end of civilisation.The whole picture is very much bigger than that of the supernatural Authority that Immanuel Can preaches.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's simply evident that if ethics is "an exclusively human concern with not superhuman authority," then there is no objectivity to ethics. It is then, as Nietzsche said, just a tawdry power grab. There are no real ethics: nothing guarantees right and wrong. It's not even wrong, then, to lie about ethics.

Until very recently I used to think that the objective basis for ethics was human nature. I thought that human nature was founded upon cooperation. Now I am not so sure. Competition seems more prevalent than cooperation.

I'm interested. What experience or observation changed your mind?

My personal affections are for cooperation because I was immersed for most of my life in a culture which is founded upon Christianity. After I discarded the sort of God that the liberal religionists taught I still believed in the same morality of the Golden Rule. I still do. However there is so much cruelty and deliberate infliction of suffering now and in the past that it very likely outweighs all of the kindness and justice. It's impossible that there is objective justice .

You mean that the world is unjust? Yes, I agree. I think that's pretty apparent.

Since the historical advent of modern ethics as exemplified by such as Jesus, Socrates, and Confucius many of us who have been taught these ethics want to support them. Violent culture clashes. Maybe the end of civilisation.The whole picture is very much bigger than that of the supernatural Authority that Immanuel Can preaches.

I don't think, from this comment, you're sure what I "preach," actually. It's certainly not what you represent me as "preaching."

In fact, I think you probably have it quite wrong -- maybe because I haven't managed to be clear enough, but wrong nonetheless. It seems we actually agree on the state of justice in this world, and I can't ever remember telling anyone that any human attempt to adopt any ethic, no matter how laudable, was going to turn this around. I'd also say that if you thought Jesus, Socrates and Confucius taught the same ethics...well, the facts just won't bear that out, and I certainly never said that either.

Maybe you're surprised that there is no generic "human" ethics, just different cultures clashing. If that comes as a surprise to you, it doesn't to me, or to anybody who's lived in vastly differing cultures. To know the world is to know that this is so. What you now call the clash of civilizations was inevitable; only the the form it would take was up for grabs.

[Nick_A]

Luke 13: 13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

People have the idea that the world can be other than what it is and that God has something to do with the world. Jesus tried to explain but it went over their heads. Leaving the madness requires first a change of mind, a reorientation of the soul towards the light Plato referred to. This experience in Christianity is called metanoia poorly translated as repent. But people insist on believing the purpose of Christianity is to change the world. No it is to leave attachment to the world or Plato’s cave if you prefer so as to become human.

[Belinda]

I had written:Until very recently I used to think that the objective basis for ethics was human nature. I thought that human nature was founded upon cooperation. Now I am not so sure. Competition seems more prevalent than cooperation.


(Belinda): Recent talks with a left wing, atheist, intellectual. Recent and historical world events.That was the occasion of and the reason for my changing my mind.

It is not apparent to everyone that the world is unjust. Many people believe that God is in His Heaven and rules the world with mercy and justice. Such people have presumably neither read the papers or lived outside of a protective wall.

(Belinda) Since the historical advent of modern ethics as exemplified by such as Jesus, Socrates, and Confucius many of us who have been taught these ethics want to support them. Violent culture clashes. Maybe the end of civilisation.The whole picture is very much bigger than that of the supernatural Authority that Immanuel Can preaches.

(IC) I don't think, from this comment, you're sure what I "preach," actually.


(Belinda) It's what this thread is about, and your take on it is that God is the Author of objective ethics.

(IC) fact, I think you probably have it quite wrong -- maybe because I haven't managed to be clear enough, but wrong nonetheless. It seems we actually agree on the state of justice in this world, and I can't ever remember telling anyone that any human attempt to adopt any ethic, no matter how laudable, was going to turn this around. I'd also say that if you thought Jesus, Socrates and Confucius taught the same ethics...well, the facts just won't bear that out, and I certainly never said that either.

Maybe you're surprised that there is no generic "human" ethics, just different cultures clashing. If that comes as a surprise to you, it doesn't to me, or to anybody who's lived in vastly differing cultures. To know the world is to know that this is so. What you now call the clash of civilizations was inevitable; only the the form it would take was up for grabs.

(Belinda) My claim that Jesus, Socrates, and Confucius taught the same ethic , and IC's denial of my claim, is a matter of how we view the history of ideas. My claim includes that those were great men who had the courage of their convictions and whose convictions were applicable to the whole of the human condition and to all men at all times and places. This ethic does not include local rules and regulations, however this ethic informs local rules and regulations with justice, although it's often difficult to apply the ethic, even for justiciciaries that have been informed by the ethic as mediated though the centuries by mainstream religions.

I doubt if power- seeking politicians, arms dealers, oppressive religionists, and stupid billionaires even try to imitate those good men of the past.

[Immanuel Can]

Until very recently I used to think that the objective basis for ethics was human nature. I thought that human nature was founded upon cooperation. Now I am not so sure. Competition seems more prevalent than cooperation....Recent talks with a left wing, atheist, intellectual. Recent and historical world events.That was the occasion of and the reason for my changing my mind.

Which "world events"?

(IC) I don't think, from this comment, you're sure what I "preach," actually.


(Belinda) It's what this thread is about, and your take on it is that God is the Author of objective ethics.

"Ethics" was the subject of a different strand. This post is about two prior concepts: "meaning" and more recently, "purpose." They share the adjective "objective," but the latter are primary concepts, and ethics are derivative from them. So we're a step deeper than any previous conversation.

(Belinda) My claim that Jesus, Socrates, and Confucius taught the same ethic , and IC's denial of my claim, is a matter of how we view the history of ideas. [/quote]
Actually, it's a factual claim, not an interpretive one. There simply is no plausible range of interpretation sufficiently elastic to put these three ethical perspectives into a single one. At least, not once you read the particulars of what the former said and the latter claimed.

I doubt if power- seeking politicians, arms dealers, oppressive religionists, and stupid billionaires even try to imitate those good men of the past.

There may be such. But I wonder if you've ever met power-seeking Leftists, dealers in politically-correct propaganda , oppressive Atheists, and poor people who remain poor through their own stupidity and veniality. I'm sure you have; and I can easily supply you some if you can't find them. And I wonder if you think they're any more likely to imitate "those good men of the past"?

And on that latter epithet, I'm always bemuse when people speak of Jesus Christ as a "good man of the past," and yet reject all that He actually said. He was a "good man" whose ethics were actually 'bad'? How does that work?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Which "world events"?

Are you serious?

I note that you believe that there exist the undeserving poor.
You are a damn poor apologist for objective ethics.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Which "world events"?

Are you serious?

Yes. Why? Are you afraid to identify them, for some reason?

I note that you believe that there exist the undeserving poor.

I do. I thought you did too. Why, do you think everybody who's poor deserves it?

Some do, some don't.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

(Belinda wrote):I note that you believe that there exist the undeserving poor.
(IC replied)I do. I thought you did too. Why, do you think everybody who's poor deserves it?

I'm socialist. To each according to his need from each according to his ability. I'd err on the safe side and give to all the poor as human judgements are imperfect.

[Harbal]

"Hey, what if this stuff isn't just here by accident? What if Someone is trying to tell me something...?"

I think "this stuff" is the end product of a process. If I used the word accident I meant that things could have been different in many ways but happened to turn out this way. How we came to be here may be a very interesting subject in an academic sense but does it really matter?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm socialist. To each according to his need from each according to his ability.

But not according to his deserving, his working, his creativity, his honesty...?

Given its track record, it always amazes me that anybody today can still want to be a socialist. I mean, think about it: can you point to one country made happy, well-to-do and blessed by socialism? I can't think of a single case. But if you want a country rendered poor, oppressive, backward and even a total human rights disaster area by socialism, I can sure point you to a handful.

But you must know about them, for sure. Everybody does. I have no idea why people want to keep trying the same old political strategy, when it's time and time again produced injustice, propaganda, extortion, oppression, persecution, poverty and death.

I suppose they must simply have run out of ideas.

I'd err on the safe side and give to all the poor as human judgements are imperfect.

I agree. And we ought to give something to all the poor, even the undeserving. What would you "give" them, though? Not mere money, surely. You wouldn't just give free money to addicts, criminals, terrorists, wastrels and the indolent, would you? What about therapy, opportunity, retraining, education, health care, and above all, the expectation of personal achievement that would actually justify a better, happier self-image? I think those are better "gifts" than financial handouts to people who will abuse them, don't you?

P.S. -- You still haven't said what "world events" convinced you. You know, the world is a pretty big place, with a whole lot of events in it. It's pretty reasonable to suppose you'd have to point to something specific.

[Immanuel Can]

How we came to be here may be a very interesting subject in an academic sense but does it really matter?

I think so. And I think it matters a whole lot, actually. If we are here by accident, then we're on our own...purposeless, without meaning, a cosmic accident adrift (ultimately) for no reason at all. And our humanness, too, is all incidental: our loves, our hates, our joys, our tears, our hopes, our trials...are all just contingent impressions, insubstantial happenings within the dice-shaker of an indifferent universe. Things could have been different, but weren't.

In this connection, I've always kind of enjoyed Thomas Hardy's poem, "Hap." Hardy seems to have gotten the perspective of the accidental universe just right. He wrote:

HAP

By Thomas Hardy

If but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: “Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!”

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
—Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .

These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.

Hardy got it, you see. If even there were a vengeful god, then it might well be better than none at all; for at least then you could say, "I was mistreated, and had no choice; but at least I know why things happened to me as they did."

How much worse to be left with no one to blame at all! But that's what an accidental universe means: nothing happens to us for any reason. Nothing is moving to any purpose. There are no ultimate answers to why. It's just how it came out.

And tragically, it didn't have to be that way...but was.

[Harbal]

I think so. And I think it matters a whole lot, actually. If we are here by accident, then we're on our own...purposeless, without meaning, a cosmic accident adrift (ultimately) for no reason at all. And our humanness, too, is all incidental: our loves, our hates, our joys, our tears, our hopes, our trials...are all just contingent impressions, insubstantial happenings within the dice-shaker of an indifferent universe. Things could have been different, but weren't.

I'm fine with all that, really. That's probably why I've never bothered with religion.