Worldview discussion

Silmarien · Aug 19, 2018

Jane_the_Bane said:
The natural sciences did not start out in opposition to religious world views, nor is the divergence between scientific findings on the history of the world and the creation myths of the various religions the result of open enmity between them. In fact, religion PROMOTED learning over vast stretches of history, and was the principal preserver of knowledge.
The only reason is that we know and understand much, MUCH more about the planet, the universe, biology, and just about any other area of knowledge at this point. Creationism doesn't fall flat because a conspiracy sought to oppose it. It's been discarded because all data points in a different direction, on too many different levels to ignore.

The natural sciences are still not in opposition to religious worldviews, unless you have a previous commitment either to a naturalistic, materialistic interpretation of the science on one hand, or a literalist interpretation of the religion on the other. Neither extreme is particularly well supported by a careful examination of reality.

Jane_the_Bane · Aug 19, 2018

Silmarien said:
The natural sciences are still not in opposition to religious worldviews, unless you have a previous commitment either to a naturalistic, materialistic interpretation of the science on one hand, or a literalist interpretation of the religion on the other. Neither extreme is particularly well supported by a careful examination of reality.

I'm talking to a creationist who juxtaposes "trusting people who admit they are wrong" and "trusting GOD". I don't think I need to account for the saner part of the religious spectrum while specifically addressing creationists.

(Actually, you dig right into a pet peeve of mine here. Whenever you debate ANY issue on this forum, some believer will turn up and announce that you "don't understand it properly" because THEIR particular beliefs do not match the ones debated in that moment. Talking about the inherent atrociousness of Calvinist predestination coupled with a literal hell? Somebody belonging to another denomination is sure to pop up and tell you just how WRONG you are to depict Christianity like that, because "TRUE Christianity says that xyz". Yeah, I understand that you have abstracted the notion of a transcendental deity sufficiently to get away from literalist notions of a despotic ogre archetype like the one depicted in Jonathan Edwards's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". But the fact of the matter is that millions of believers, PARTICULARLY on these forums, believe in just that kind of god. Yes, that god looks like a strawman or a parody, too bad. It's still what people actually believe in, unfortunately.)

anonymous person · Aug 19, 2018

dlamberth said:
Today where I'm at I'd say that the Human Race will evolve into and be replaced by some type of higher form of consciousness. As to the Universe, I have to say the same. When putting on my Lover of God hat, I'd have to say that the highest form of Consciousness is God Consciousness. What the means in response to your question is that this Creation is being pulled towards the awakening of God Consciousness. This comes from the perspective that the only reality is God. And ALL is God. So I have no doubt that through out the Universe that there are many, many other forms of Consciousness bubbling up towards that same trajectory in an infinite number of ways.

Very profound indeed dlamberth! I have a follow-up question for you in the hopes that you may be able to clarify something for me. You have said that your beliefs about various issues regarding origin, meaning, morality, and destiny stem from your perspective that All is God and God is all. My question is this, how is it possible to speak of something from a particular "perspective" if ultimately no individual observers exist to observe reality from their perspectives?

Silmarien · Aug 19, 2018

Jane_the_Bane said:
I'm talking to a creationist who juxtaposes "trusting people who admit they are wrong" and "trusting GOD". I don't think I need to account for the saner part of the religious spectrum while specifically addressing creationists.

(Actually, you dig right into a pet peeve of mine here. Whenever you debate ANY issue on this forum, some believer will turn up and announce that you "don't understand it properly" because THEIR particular beliefs do not match the ones debated in that moment. Talking about the inherent atrociousness of Calvinist predestination coupled with a literal hell? Somebody belonging to another denomination is sure to pop up and tell you just how WRONG you are to depict Christianity like that, because "TRUE Christianity says that xyz". Yeah, I understand that you have abstracted the notion of a transcendental deity sufficiently to get away from literalist notions of a despotic ogre archetype like the one depicted in Jonathan Edwards's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". But the fact of the matter is that millions of believers, PARTICULARLY on these forums, believe in just that kind of god. Yes, that god looks like a strawman or a parody, too bad. It's still what people actually believe in, unfortunately.)

It is, yes, which is why I think it's important to avoid presenting dichotomies to people, particularly in this sort of situation. If you insist on the narrative whereby faith is opposed to science and reason, you'll only reinforce the idea that modern science is the enemy. Which I don't think is a desirable outcome.

anonymous person · Aug 19, 2018

Silmarien said:
Eh, I'm not a physicalist so it's not really an issue that interests me very much. The idea that the universe is going to die is only depressing if you think that reality can be reduced to the physical universe, and even there, it depends upon your theory of time. If we take a block universe view and see past, present, and future as equally real, then the universe will always have been full of creative purpose from a certain perspective. (Or have always been eternally pointless, as the case may be.)

Camus said the opposite, actually. He was a critic of Sartre's existentialism and held that meaning could not be created, but that we ought to continue in the attempt anyway. Myth of Sisyphus.

Interesting! Thanks for the clarification on Camus. I have never read any of his works, only about his views through the works of others.

So tell me, do you have any hope for the future? What will become of Silmarien once Silmarien dies?

anonymous person · Aug 19, 2018

ananda said:
1. Yes, discontentment and contentment are relative on a continuum, like "hot" and "cold" on the temperature continuum.

There are various actions which can temporarily suppress feelings of discontentment and/or temporarily fortify feelings of contentment in some individuals, yet those same actions can create the opposite effect in other individuals.

However, permanently addressing discontentment itself by uprooting its causes (as opposed to suppressing or papering it over) is one of the primary goals of Buddhism.

2 & 3. The answer to these questions is unconceivable. Why ask them in the first place?

Thanks ananda for your thoughtful responses. They do tend to raise questions for me though. For example, you speak of what is the case for individuals. This is interesting. How can there be "individuals" if all is one and one is all?

In addition to my question about the ultimate fate of the universe and of humanity, you answered by saying that the answer is inconceivable. If it is true that it is inconceivable, then you would not know that it was inconceivable. This is thus a self-refuting view is it not?

anonymous person · Aug 19, 2018

Jane_the_Bane said:
Given that we are talking about astronomical categories here (literally), the end of the universe is so far removed that even our sun will be long gone by then. If sapient beings are still around at that point, they will be further removed from us than we are from dinosaurs, or even the earliest forms of life on this planet. Maybe they will remember us as a pioneer species, the way we look at the first lung fish who colonised dry land. Provided we don't kill ourselves through environmental degradation, overconsumption and pollution within the next few hundred years, that is.
But back to the universe: I do not really know which hypothesis is currently best supported by astrophysics: the big crunch? Heat death? I bet they are still far too simplistic , and it's all about twelve-dimensional superstrings vibrating in harmony with a cosmic symphony or something like that.

Very interesting Jane_the_Bane! In all of this I have gathered that you hold to some form of pantheism, is that correct?

anonymous person · Aug 19, 2018

Robban said:
What?

Nearest we can come to person is voice.
The origin of the universe/s is way out of my limits,

So, what is there to say?

Why not a thought?

So the Lord of hosts in His humbleness presented a thought before the heavenly hosts,

"Let us make man in our image."

"No"

So if the Lord is the Lord, what happened?

He made man in His own image, in His own image He made them man and woman.

So there we have a kind thought to begin with.

A couple more standing on one leg,
Psalms 33:11,
"The counsel of the Lord stands forever,
the thoughts of His heart throughout all generations."

(Isaiah)
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are My ways higher than your ways,
and My thoughts than your thoughts."

You are an adherent of Judaism no? If so, do you not agree with the Genesis account that God created the universe?

anonymous person · Aug 19, 2018

Zoness said:
I'm part of grid computing efforts sponsored by CERN and Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Networ k Computing. Both software projects are easy enough to join. Reading up at https://boinc.berkeley.edu is a good place to start.

After the formation of planet Earth, approximately 4.3 billion years ago, I understand that human beings came to be from a long process of evolution and natural selection and minute change that happened over many eons as we slowly adapted to our world and food chain. Our current species homo sapiens arose approximately 100,000-200,000 years ago in the horn of Africa, though there has been some research that suggests this could be much further west in Africa in the area of modern day Morocco or Algeria and it may be as far back as 300,000 years.

In short, I accept the consensus on biological evolution and the origin of our species.

Ahhh! Fascinating indeed!

I shall avail myself of the material you have linked to find out more about it.

So tell me Zoness, does life any purpose or meaning? What does it mean to live a significant life?

AskTheFamily · Aug 19, 2018

Jane_the_Bane said:
Still a false dichotomy, mixed with an appeal to authority.

What you are doing is taking the assertions of truth made by PEOPLE, attribute them to a specific deity, and then declare them unassailable in contrast to any differing point of view.

But it's not even about which people to trust.
(Although those who say "I could be wrong, so let's install this system of constant testing to weed out any errors as soon as possible, and try to eliminate bias and ego as factors as much as possible" still strike me as a LOT more reliable than those who claim "I SPEAK WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME BEING OF THE UNIVERSE; ALL WHO DOUBT ME WILL SUFFER UNSPEAKABLE HORRORS FOR THEIR IMPUNITY!!!")

It's about what to rely on: evidence and data, or blind assertions that must be accepted a priori.
The natural sciences did not start out in opposition to religious world views, nor is the divergence between scientific findings on the history of the world and the creation myths of the various religions the result of open enmity between them. In fact, religion PROMOTED learning over vast stretches of history, and was the principal preserver of knowledge.
The only reason is that we know and understand much, MUCH more about the planet, the universe, biology, and just about any other area of knowledge at this point. Creationism doesn't fall flat because a conspiracy sought to oppose it. It's been discarded because all data points in a different direction, on too many different levels to ignore.

I'm saying I'd rather give God a chance to speak and prove his case and explain things and prove things, than center my attention on people who rely on conjecture like evolutionists. I hope that is not too much for you to digest. It's a sound argument that no group of humans have proven themselves to be a guiding enlightened people independent of God nor can it ever happen.

You come with a confirmation bias and want people to center around people who are ignorant rather then for people to search for God's proofs and give God a chance to prove and guide people.

No one is saying one has to accept anything blindly. And if God doesn't exist, still, it's better to have lived a life search for possible guidance instead of settling for conjecture and desires and basing one's life on that.

holo · Aug 19, 2018

anonymous person said:
Then you, like Camus and Sartre, would say that while the universe and life itself has no objective meaning or purpose, individual human beings can create meaning and purpose for themselves. If this is an accurate summary of your view, then it puts you right along with many others here who think the same way. One thing caught my attention however in what you wrote. You alluded to certain propositions as being "positive" as opposed to "negative". Is not saying something is "positive" or "negative" to make an evaluative judgment? It seems to me that such evaluative judgments, taking your view of reality as true, are all equally valid, since what is good or bad, right or wrong, positive or negative, is simply determined by each individual's preference on the issue, and not by an appeal to an objectively existing standard by which to adjudicate between views. If that is indeed the case holo, then would you not agree that like meaning and purpose, morality too, is more or less a social convention?

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the universe is meaningless in and of itself, as in asserting that as a fact, just that if there is some sort of objective purpose, I don't know what that might be. And since we can't seem to figure it out, it seems plausible that if it exists, it's hidden from us for some reason. So if there is a "higher purpose", it doesn't seem to include humans knowing what that purpose is.

Morality is a tricky one. I can't appeal to some sort of objective morality except in the sense that we all agree that there is a difference between right and wrong. It's deep down in the core of all of us. It can be explained by evolutionary theory, but as far as I can understand, religion doesn't have a better answer. If something is right because God said so, then it's not right in and of itself, it's just what happens to be God's will. It looks like at least some animals also have a sense of morality or justice.

AskTheFamily · Aug 19, 2018

Zoness said:
You seem to be coming from the a priori assumption that God exists. There's no reason to automatically assume that's true, unless you were raised in a religion of your parents, usually Christianity or Islam, which many people are, but that doesn't speak to the truth claim. Religion is literally about conjecture, hence taking things on faith.

If God doesn't exist, we would not know he didn't, and if he does exist, he is best to provide guidance and prove himself and the path humans should walk.

If you center your attention on people who cannot have proof but will conjecture about evidence and having proof, then it's up to you.

And everyone can claim showing one sided evidence that is based on circular reasoning and put lenses to their theory, and argue they prove their case.

At the end, God is the only being that can possible guide to the truth, and if he doesn't exist, I'd rather search for him and his guidance then live a life making up reality as I desire, and if he exists, then certainly guidance and showing the way can only be done by him, and would be done in him on his terms and not our terms.

If we are misguided, we shouldn't choose our leaders call them enlightened or righteous our desires, nor call to mythologies such as evolution without sure knowledge, rather, we are to strive and work with what we are certain till we leave our way of error.

Discard what you don't know and rely on what you know and build on that. Silence your argumentative tongue when coming to holy books and all of a sudden their wonders and miracles begin to manifest.

AskTheFamily · Aug 19, 2018

Silmarien said:
It is, yes, which is why I think it's important to avoid presenting dichotomies to people, particularly in this sort of situation. If you insist on the narrative whereby faith is opposed to science and reason, you'll only reinforce the idea that modern science is the enemy. Which I don't think is a desirable outcome.

If you don't let God and his designated chosen ones who are coupled as rope of God with his books speak, then, the reason is why?

It's because we all want to settle for normal people to guide us and take on the task of representing the truth and what ought to be valued most.

God is the one who set the successor of Adam, Seth, and it's people who named themselves with the name of God that caused corruption while such people existed, and they are to blame, but so are the followers who love them as much as God to the extent they oppose God's chosen ones and ascribe God what they do not know.

Irreducible complexity is a fact of biology as well as other things like the earth (Gaia theory), as well as the galaxies and structure of the universe.

Design is more than apparent, but humans are so bullied by deceivers and misguided people claiming to know things, that we don't see what is so apparent and clear.

It's the same reason people don't see the family of Mohammad in Quran, they are bullied by others, and as well the sorcery on the hearts.

Those who are aware of clear proofs, they know of the dark magic that has overtaken humanity for a very long time now.

Robban · Aug 19, 2018

anonymous person said:
You are an adherent of Judaism no? If so, do you not agree with the Genesis account that God created the universe?

Gen 1:1,
In the beginning of God,s creation of the heavens and the earth.

"In the beginning": Said Rabbi Isaac,

"It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from Exodus 12:2
which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded"

A more intelligent question would be not how but why?

Even so something to think about could be;

"If you wait until you find the meaning of life,
will there be enough life left to live?"

(The Rebbe)

Silmarien · Aug 19, 2018

anonymous person said:
So tell me, do you have any hope for the future? What will become of Silmarien once Silmarien dies?

I don't know. I am actually more of an Eternalist, which means that I accept the view that the past, present, and future are equally "real" from the perspective of a completed physics, which has some serious implications for how we view life and death. I think a Nietzschean Eternal Recurrence, whereby we live our lives eternally, with no variation, is a fairly strong contender--moreso, perhaps, than annihiliation--given this view of time, since while our lives are finite, they are eternally so.

My preference would be transcendental union with God in the Hindu sense, though the Christian Resurrection of the Dead probably makes more sense in the long run.

Zoness · Aug 19, 2018

anonymous person said:
Ahhh! Fascinating indeed!

I shall avail myself of the material you have linked to find out more about it.

So tell me Zoness, does life any purpose or meaning? What does it mean to live a significant life?

Cool, let me know what you think, if you have any thoughts on it.

You ask a good question, and its one that I've pondered for much of my 20s so far. My answer so far is this: Life has no cosmic or supernatural meaning. That is, there is no divine plan that explicitly guides all beings on a track towards an end destiny. Some people see this as a hopeless nihilism, I utterly disagree, and also think nihilists are misrepresented, but that's a different discussion.

Life has meaning to humans contextually. I get meaning from my family, friendships, interests and hobbies and media I consume. I get meaning from having fun, enjoying music, walking in nature, having drinks and a good meal with friends. I get meaning from trying to better the world for other humans and pushing technology forward and being politically active to change the oppressive status quo.

A significant life to me is one where a person leaves this world better than one found it. Just a short list of examples for this may be; being charitable to others and improving their station in life, mitigating an environmental problem that's impacting people and nature, fighting for political change to aid more people or just simply giving your descendants a better life than you had and instilling values in them to care for humanity and carry on your work.

Being good for goodness sake, and not fear of divine torture, is one of my principal ideas.

AskTheFamily · Aug 19, 2018

My life is for God and I withhold setting any bars as the journey to him is endless. He is the only possible judge that can keep score of our souls and without score and us inheriting actions and value on truth, appreciation and praise to others loses meanings, and so do then love and relationships, it becomes a falsely grounded reality.

Silmarien · Aug 19, 2018

Zoness said:
Being good for goodness sake, and not fear of divine torture, is one of my principal ideas.

What do you mean by "good for goodness sake," precisely? I ask because this language is very Platonic. Are you assigning the notion of goodness a transcendental reality, or do you mean it in purely utilitarian or pragmatic terms? In other words, do you think that caring for humanity is a good that has genuine value in and of itself, or is it simply a matter of personal preference and societal utility?

2PhiloVoid · Aug 19, 2018

Jane_the_Bane said:
I'm talking to a creationist who juxtaposes "trusting people who admit they are wrong" and "trusting GOD". I don't think I need to account for the saner part of the religious spectrum while specifically addressing creationists.

(Actually, you dig right into a pet peeve of mine here. Whenever you debate ANY issue on this forum, some believer will turn up and announce that you "don't understand it properly" because THEIR particular beliefs do not match the ones debated in that moment. Talking about the inherent atrociousness of Calvinist predestination coupled with a literal hell? Somebody belonging to another denomination is sure to pop up and tell you just how WRONG you are to depict Christianity like that, because "TRUE Christianity says that xyz". Yeah, I understand that you have abstracted the notion of a transcendental deity sufficiently to get away from literalist notions of a despotic ogre archetype like the one depicted in Jonathan Edwards's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". But the fact of the matter is that millions of believers, PARTICULARLY on these forums, believe in just that kind of god. Yes, that god looks like a strawman or a parody, too bad. It's still what people actually believe in, unfortunately.)

** ** pop ** ** Jane, you're WRONG to depict Christianity like that................!!!! :ahah:

Have a nice day!

awitch · Aug 19, 2018

anonymous person said:
Thank you for your insight awitch. I have one last question for you that is related to the last. This time, instead of the question being about the destiny of the human race, it will be about the destiny of the universe. What do you think will be the ultimate fate of the universe?

There are a few different possible scenarios; The Big Rip (the Universe continues to expand until it's nothing but free floating particles that are so far apart they never interact), The Big Crunch (the Universe collapses), or Heat Death (temperature equilibrium). I'm not really sure which will happen. It's fun to consider them but I tend not to worry about it since I won't be around.

Worldview discussion

Existentialist

Gaia's godchild

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

former Christian

Junior Member

Junior Member

-----------

Existentialist

667, neighbor of the beast

Junior Member

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Retired from Christian Forums

Similar threads