Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Polymath257]

In a sense, yes. Though it’s my perception that there are profound, perhaps ineffable truths buried in the myth. And that in any case, some truths can only ever be approached obliquely.

I disagree. At most, myths reveal psychological tendencies. I don't see such as very profound. Myths are a form of literature: imaginative writings meant to convey a story.

 

[Polymath257]

Rather than a filter for truth, a concept of divinity which makes sense to the individual, may be a gateway to deeper understanding.

That sounds very unlikely. Far more likely to get confirmation bias and dogmatic assertions.

That much about our world appears, upon examination, to make little sense, is reason to be imaginative when trying to make sense of it.

Absolutely. And after imagination, test the ideas trying to show where they fail. Also, question our assumptions about how much reality should make sense for untrained intuition.

 

[Polymath257]

That we hold all such works to the same standard of criticism.

And yet, when such criticism has been done, those following the religion don't take it seriously.

 

[Rival]

And yet, when such criticism has been done, those following the religion don't take it seriously

Actually it's been my experience that many do. I'm mostly talking about nominal Anglicans and Catholics though, in England.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually it's been my experience that many do. I'm mostly talking about nominal Anglicans and Catholics though, in England.

In the US, they tend to be dismissive of anyone that isn't their particular sect. For example, Aslan wrote a nice book about Jesus that was widely condemned here because he isn't Christian.

 

[Polymath257]

That we hold all such works to the same standard of criticism.

I think it is clear that the gospels are NOT that similar to the writings of Seutonius, Tacitus, or even Josephus. Those are all broad historical narratives, not simply biographies of a single individual. Nor are the moral qualities the central theme of the narratives.

They are closer in some ways the the Platonic writings about Socrates.

 

[Polymath257]

That we hold all such works to the same standard of criticism.

How about we hold them to the same standard as we do the writings of Bede? His writings are certainly not taken at face value.

 

[PureX]

By the term “existential purpose”, do you mean “a purpose of all existence/all that exists”, or rather “a purpose of a personal or individual existence”?

Why would you presume these not to be the same purpose? We are, after all, part of all that exists. And our ability to question, and then answer for our own purpose is likewise an integral part of all that exists. One would logically surmise that it's why we developed the ability to do so in the first place.

I, an atheist, believe very much in purpose. I discern purpose as perhaps the most important aspect of human life, but rather than a general or universal bequeathment, I view purpose as a personal determination.

Again, it is not logical to presume that your ability to determine your own purpose is something separate and apart from the purpose of existence as a whole since you are an integral expression of existence as a whole. So ... why are you making this presumption?

As much is clear in the Latin verb from which English purpose derives: propono, “I put forward/I set forth”…such an action is necessarily a personal one, not one which can be imposed from without.

Not "imposed from without", but "enabled from within". There is no "without".

Each man determines what the purpose of his own existence is to be, or not, in which case the individual existence is ultimately meaningless (Kierkegaard, Either/Or). One of my primary beliefs is that each man must discern his own purpose in life, that which gives his life meaning and renders a sense of fulfillment.

You say, "each man" but you mean "all humans". That the purpose of humanity within the existential event is to recognize the question of existential purpose, and try to work out an answer for themselves. That almost sounds Biblical!

In this, purpose, being a mental conception, does not exist apart from, or more generally than, the individual man.

But that's not what you said. And it's not what you meant. The question of purpose is universal among humanity. It's only the answers that we choose that are individualized. And that starts to look a lot like an overall intent. The intent being that we developed an ability to ask questions that we then had to develop our own answers for. And in doing so, we have essentially determined who we are now as individuals. And that sounds exactly like an existential purpose.

 

[Zwing]

Why would you presume these not to be the same purpose?

Because the purpose formulated by each individual person is idiosyncratic and so such purposes differ wildly. Mother Theresa’s purpose may have been to display what she thought was the “love of Christ” by caring for the poorest and most needy among us, while that of Osama Bin Laden may have been to destroy those temporal forces which represent a barrier to the reestablishment of the Islamic Caliphate in this world. These are purposes which are not necessarily at odds, but yet differ from one another tremendously. Purpose derives from intelligence…from an individual mind, and the purpose of each mind is going to be different from all others.

Do you suggest that there is a purpose for the entire universe which we should all come to recognize? Of course, the only way that this could be is if the universe were the creation of some mind, some intelligence (to wit, a God), which could conceive such a purpose, because the material universe itself has no mind to conceive a purpose. In that case, the universe would represent a purposed system, not entirely unlike a vegetable garden. However, since I have no evidence that there is any kind of God or other form of creator-intelligence that exists, I naturally have trouble accepting the notion of a purposeful universe.

 

[Zwing]

the purpose of existence

Again, what is this? From whence does it derive? There is no mind connected with “existence”, which being an abstraction is not even a discrete, concrete entity capable of mental formulation. Of course (despite the oxymoronic stories we were told as children about an omnipresent God which has a mind which is omniscient in nature), we have no examples of minds being the product of non-discrete entities, but have only examples of minds which are the products of brains. Without a brain there can apparently be no mind, and without a mind, there can be no purpose.

 

[Nimos]

That we hold all such works to the same standard of criticism.

I mean does it make a difference whether it is one or the other, or why was that important to mention?

 

[PureX]

Because the purpose formulated by each individual person is idiosyncratic and so such purposes differ wildly.

And yet each is given awareness of the samy greart mystery, and therefor the same set of questions to ask. And then each defines him/herself by how they choose to answer. Why are you trying so hard to ignore the universal nature of this phenomena? We all get to define ourselves as individuals by how we choose to face and respond to the great mystery of (our, and all) being. That certainly appears to be an example of "existential purpose" to me.

Mother Theresa’s purpose may have been to display what she thought was the “love of Christ” by caring for the poorest and most needy among us, while that of Osama Bin Laden may have been to destroy those temporal forces which represent a barrier to the reestablishment of the Islamic Caliphate in this world. These are purposes which are not necessarily at odds, but yet differ from one another tremendously.

Gandhi once said that it doesn't really matter what any of us chooses to do with our lives. It only matters that we chose, and did it.

How we respond to the great mystery of being is how we define who we are as individuals within that being. We get to "create ourselves" thanks to our profound ignorance. I'd say that's a pretty good argument for the ignorance being a gift, given to us with the intent that we be able to determine our own natures.

Do you suggest that there is a purpose for the entire universe which we should all come to recognize?

The "universe" is extremely complex and highly organized. This is not likely to have become possible without some form of directing intent. But we humans have no idea if or what that intent would be, or if or what might be responsible for it. And that, itself, is an amazing gift to us. Because it allows us to invent our own source, and purpose, and then live by it.

 

[Zwing]

And yet each is given awareness of the samy greart mystery…

I apparently am unaware of this mystery. Is it “where does all that I see come from?” or “what will happen after I die?” or “what is the meaning of life?”… In all seriousness, I do not know what mystery you reference. Can you give me the “formulation for dummies” version?

 

[Zwing]

the great mystery of being

This one…what is the mystery?

 

[Zwing]

The "universe" is extremely complex and highly organized. This is not likely to have become possible without some form of directing intent.

Now we are getting somewhere, to the fact that you appear to believe in ‘intelligent design’ of the universe, therefore in a designer (whether you want to call that “God” or not is immaterial), and that you believe the universe has its particular organization, with the Earth as it is within that organization, for the particular benefit of human life. Is that about right? (Disabuse me if I mischaracterize your views!)

The universe could have adopted a state of dynamic constancy in a billion different ways depending on the arrangement of the matter involved, it just did so with the matter arranged as it naturally developed. I see no need for any type of “directing intent” or “designing intelligence” in this. The “physical laws” that we have discerned as being inherent in nature: thermodynamics, entropy, etc., have rendered the universe a self-directing system which behaves according to the ‘dictates’ of those generally operative tendencies throughout its life cycle. The emergence of biological life on Earth, including human life, seems to have occurred by chance, as an effect of probability and influenced by randomness. I am led to wonder why so many feel the need for such a ‘directing intent’, for which we have no apparent evidence.

I must say that I think that the notion of such a “directing intent” or “designing intelligence” ultimately derives from the need of human beings to think that their lives have an externally-derived significance which is operative apart from their own minds. We just seem unable to accept the truth that human life is of no significance to objective reality or to the universe…that if Homo sapiens were to become extinct tomorrow, that the universe, including our Earth, would go on acting according to the same physical laws as if we never existed in the first place. The need for a directing intent seems based upon the need to attribute a significance to human life which simply does not exist in objective reality.

Of course, this is the most important type of topic wherein we should distinguish between objective reality and subjective reality, for subjectively, a human being should be of great importance to an individual (human) mind. I must always strive to maintain the view that, though the life of PureX might be of no consequence to the life cycle of the universe, it is of great value to me, and in more ways than I am able to discern; I must remember that it is of tremendous significance within my subjective frame of reference. This is not hard to do; it is, in fact, harder to remember the objective viewpoint, which is as close to a blessing as anything I can think of.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Other religions which are more philosophically inclined tend to have texts but, again, historically few folks have cared to or couldn't read them. Knowledge of God thus comes from other sources which are then transmitted to writing.

Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

 

[Rival]

Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

No.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No.

It's such a simple book that I'm willing to bet illiteracy hasn't been much of an issue. It's more like a series of short, simple read sentences. But they are definitely meant to be thought, pondered and meditated on. I'd imagine that historically people have even quoted much like the West has been quoting a verse or two from the Bible for a couole thousand years.

 

[F1fan]

The problem is that not all atheists are like you.

I know. Others aren't as charming and attractive. That's bad luck.

You conflate atheism with other human behavior.

Too bad you didn't finish your thought and explain what you mean.

In effect you are not describing atheism as such. You are describing a certain limited group of people for which atheism is a secondary aspect of them.

Atheism is quite simple: people not believing any of the many god concepts are true as others claim. Of course atheists are individuals and will offer their own experiences and reasons for non-belief. Is that a problem?

Now if you can show me how I have to in the strong sense be an athiest to have a good life, I will listen to you.

I never claimed any such thing, so why would you ask me to do this? Those who believe in a supernatural have no basis in fact for their decisions and atheists respond to what believers say and claim.

But don't give me how I handle death, because I don't believe in souls and Heaven. Or that I must in fact believe in objective morality, because I am not an atheist.

Good thing I haven't done any of this. I guess you are really happy with me. High five.

 

[Yazata]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme.

I suspect that's because the word 'atheist' means a variety of things.

1. The one that most of them seem to favor is 'One who lacks belief in God or gods. They like this one because they believe (falsely in my opinion) that it frees them of any need to defend their atheism.

2. One who believes that the proposition 'God/gods exist' is False. Many of them are reluctant to admit this one, but they typically wear it on their sleeves. It's the definition of 'atheist' that I think best fits in most cases.

3. An anti-religious individual (which typically means anti-Christian in most cases in the US and Europe).

My guess is that holding to 3. (anti-Christianity) would motivate the kind of views that you criticise in the opening post.