is meaning required?

[cedric1200]

I am trying to find meaning in my life. So this is a toughy for me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Certainly, when a philosophy seems to suggest a negative outlook on the world, I tend to question its ethics. And given how often atheists bring up ethical issues, I feel apt to do the same.

Well maybe we can debate it sometime...which has a more negative effect on the world, a philosophical system that is negative but completely true, or one that is positive but completely false?

By the way...on a completely unrelated note...as a christian, how important is this world compared to the next?

 

[poolerboy0077]

Certainly, when a philosophy seems to suggest a negative outlook on the world, I tend to question its ethics. And given how often atheists bring up ethical issues, I feel apt to do the same.

Imagine the following hypothetical exchange:

poolerboy0077: Rape is a real occurrence that happens around the world.

FireDragon76: My goodness! That's a very negative and depressing thing to believe. Why don't you believe instead that this doesn't happen and that people just hold hands and sing Kumbayah instead? That's a much more pleasant outlook on life!

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well maybe we can debate it sometime...which has a more negative effect on the world, a philosophical system that is negative but completely true, or one that is positive but completely false?

I see truth and negativity as completely contradictory. Negativity has the effect of imprisoning the mind, and as Jesus said, the truth will set us free.

By the way...on a completely unrelated note...as a christian, how important is this world compared to the next?

It depends on what you mean by important, and "next world". I would tend to say our actions in this present world are extremely important, but our hope must ultimately be in the world to come.

Imagine the following hypothetical exchange:

poolerboy0077: Rape is a real occurrence that happens around the world.

FireDragon76: My goodness! That's a very negative and depressing thing to believe. Why don't you believe instead that this doesn't happen and that people just hold hands and sing Kumbayah instead? That's a much more pleasant outlook on life!

I actually know people that have been sexually assaulted. Several of them, people that I care about. In one case it was quite traumatic.

I don't see how denying God's existence would help me reconcile their pain with my sensibilities. In fact it would make their suffering all the more pointless. As Christians, we are entering the season of Lent, a season of bright sadness, when we remember the Passion of our Lord and we acknowledge that life has brokenness, misfortune, and suffering, and that Jesus has taste that for us all, has conquered the world, and promises to make all things new. That puts our suffering in perspective when we have faith. Our grief is contained by hope.

 

[TillICollapse]

nm

 

[poolerboy0077]

I actually know people that have been sexually assaulted. Several of them, people that I care about. In one case it was quite traumatic.

I don't see how denying God's existence would help me reconcile their pain with my sensibilities. In fact it would make their suffering all the more pointless. As Christians, we are entering the season of Lent, a season of bright sadness, when we remember the Passion of our Lord and we acknowledge that life has brokenness, misfortune, and suffering, and that Jesus has taste that for us all, has conquered the world, and promises to make all things new. That puts our suffering in perspective when we have faith. Our grief is contained by hope.

Either you missed the point of the analogy or you're being deliberately difficult here.

The point was to show how no one in their right mind merely accepts beliefs because they are pleasant. We both accept negative beliefs (such as rape occurring in the world) not because we wish to persist in unpleasantness but because we think said beliefs are true. You said you see negativity and truth as contradictory. How is believing rape is a real occurrence in the world (a negative belief) contradictory to truth? Are we both not accepting such a belief precisely because it is true?

 

[FireDragon76]

Believing that rape is real is not negativity, it's realism, and furthermore that could be easily verified by knowing enough people who have been raped.

Believing that God doesn't exist because there is suffering in the world is negativity, however, and of the worst kind, especially because Christianity does have answers to those challenges. They just are not easy answers.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Believing that rape is real is not negativity, it's realism,

It's both. It's negative in the sense that it is quite depressing and morally terrible. It's real in the sense that it maps reality.

My larger point, which you didn't address head-on, is that you cannot determine whether a belief is true or moral merely on the basis that it makes you uncomfortable or that it can be construed as negative or depressing (hence the rape example).

and furthermore that could be easily verified by knowing enough people who have been raped.

That particular dissimilarity in the analogy is inconsequential to the point being made.

Believing that God doesn't exist because there is suffering in the world is negativity, however, and of the worst kind, especially because Christianity does have answers to those challenges. They just are not easy answers.

Or the answers are insufficient or terrible. In any event, it isn't at all clear that it is negative objectively. Only you have given it that construction because you value God as a moral good. That is exactly what a Muslim would likely say if you say to them that you do not accept their specific God. It's a very subjective diagnosis.

Not having a cosmic objective meaning to existence doesn't preclude individuals from having meaning for themselves. It is only in people who believe that claim (objective, cosmic meaning) who view is as negative.

 

[FireDragon76]

My larger point, which you didn't address head-on, is that you cannot determine whether a belief is true or moral merely on the basis that it makes you uncomfortable or that it can be construed as negative or depressing (hence the rape example).

If that's the case, then the atheist objection to God's existence disappears, since they are emotivist in nature as well. If you didn't intend to shock emotionally, why bring up rape, after all?

On what non-emotional basis can you say that rape is terrible? The atheist has no Lawgiver to tell them such things and must resort to emotivism. You find rape abhorrent, to the point that it must preclude a divine plan. And yet, no doubt many individuals out there are the products of rape. So... when you look at it truly "objectively"- rape is just a sex act, one without consent. It could be said to further an individual's genes like any other kind of sex. On what real objective basis can you object to that?

Or the answers are insufficient or terrible. In any event, it isn't at all clear that it is negative objectively. Only you have given it that construction because you value God as a moral good.

Terrible answers? More emotivism

God isn't valued as a moral good- God is the moral good.

That is exactly what a Muslim would likely say if you say to them that you do not accept their specific God. It's a very subjective diagnosis.

As a mainline Protestant, I have no problem affirming that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the same God.

Your arguments are full of so many logical holes as to lack intellectual integrity. But this is the case with atheism, it is not an intellectual response to the problems of life, it is an emotional one.

 

[poolerboy0077]

If that's the case, then the atheist objection to God's existence disappears, since they are emotivist in nature as well. If you didn't intend to shock emotionally, why bring up rape, after all?

Because it's an easy example to call into question your assertion about negative views. You and I both think rape is negative, yes? Put aside your other gripe about moral relativity on the part of atheists, as that is not the specific conversation here (we're having that on the other thread). My point in bringing up rape is that presumably we both think it is negative...and yet we don't discount its veracity simply because it is a negative belief. We accept it because we think it to be true. Nor does holding the negative view in itself call into question our ethical worldview. That's the point -- and you keep avoiding addressing it.

 

[Received]

Because it's an easy example to call into question your assertion about negative views. You and I both think rape is negative, yes? Put aside your other gripe about moral relativity on the part of atheists, as that is not the specific conversation here (we're having that on the other thread). My point in bringing up rape is that presumably we both think it is negative...and yet we don't discount its veracity simply because it is a negative belief. We accept it because we think it to be true. Nor does holding the negative view in itself call into question our ethical worldview. That's the point -- and you keep avoiding addressing it.

Thinking it's negative doesn't satisfy what seems to be his request in stating what standard you're using to determine that rape is negative. I'm assuming this is why he's talking about relativism.

I'm guessing his answer involves God as the standard, in that God gives down rules that we're to follow. Well, if that's the case, then what standard does God use to put down ethical rules? We're back at the same problem.

I think the problem can be answered by Virtue Ethics, which means looking at the type of person a rapist is and working from there. Rape is wrong because not only does it result in negativity for society (consequentialism), but also because a person who rapes by definition is a type of sub-par individual whose actions we shouldn't consider using as a goal in terms of imitation.

 

[quatona]

Thinking it's negative doesn't satisfy what seems to be his request in stating what standard you're using to determine that rape is negative. I'm assuming this is why he's talking about relativism.

I'm guessing his answer involves God as the standard, in that God gives down rules that we're to follow. Well, if that's the case, then what standard does God use to put down ethical rules? We're back at the same problem.

I think the problem can be answered by Virtue Ethics, which means looking at the type of person a rapist is and working from there. Rape is wrong because not only does it result in negativity for society (consequentialism), but also because a person who rapes by definition is a type of sub-par individual whose actions we shouldn't consider using as a goal in terms of imitation.

By which definitions?
I fail to see how this approach solves, answers or circumvents the problem of or request for a "standard" (Personally I don´t consider it a problem, in the first place - but that´s a different issue).

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm guessing his answer involves God as the standard, in that God gives down rules that we're to follow. Well, if that's the case, then what standard does God use to put down ethical rules? We're back at the same problem.

I don't believe God is arbitrary, he always has good reasons for ordaining what he does.

I think the problem can be answered by Virtue Ethics, which means looking at the type of person a rapist is and working from there. Rape is wrong because not only does it result in negativity for society (consequentialism), but also because a person who rapes by definition is a type of sub-par individual whose actions we shouldn't consider using as a goal in terms of imitation.

We're still back to talking about standards and the problem of relativism. In some societies rape is a perfectly justified punishment, after all, so its not clear to every human being that rape is immoral.

 

[quatona]

I don't believe God is arbitrary, he always has good reasons for ordaining what he does.

Yeah - but people who demand an objective standard aren´t satisfied with a claim that starts with "I believe...".

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah - but people who demand an objective standard aren´t satisfied with a claim that starts with "I believe...".

Well, God has spoken to us through the Torah, the Prophets, and finally in Jesus Christ... that is the basis for our standards as Christians. My point is that Christians have a corpus of literature and tradition to develop a virtue ethic, what do atheists have? Whatever is faddish or convenient? Sort of like the reign of terror during the French Revolution? Remake man and society from the ground up, no matter how much blood has to be spilled . There's a reason the most blood regimes in the 20th century were comitted to non-Christian ideologies. Once you throw out God, anything is permissible.

 

[quatona]

Well, God has spoken to us through the Torah, the Prophets, and finally in Jesus Christ...

That´s at least what you believe.

My point is that Christians have a corpus of literature and tradition to develop a virtue ethic, what do atheists have?

Are you submitting that literature and tradition make an opinion objective?

There's a reason the most blood regimes in the 20th century were comitted to non-Christian ideologies.

Which, even if it is true, is completely irrelevant when someone demands an objective standard (in that it is arguing from a certain standard itself).
On another note, history didn´t start with the 20th century, and you may want to look for a reason why most blood regimes prior to that were committed to theist ideologies.

Once you throw out God, anything is permissible.

With God or Gods everything is permissible, as well, obviously. Or else those atrocities you are complaining about (and even more those you would like to keep silent about) wouldn´t have happened with a God existing.

 

[bhsmte]

Once you throw out God, anything is permissible.

Why then, do many countries with higher levels of atheists, have a high quality of life and low crime rates?

 

[Received]

Why then, do many countries with higher levels of atheists, have a high quality of life and low crime rates?

Boom!

 

[Received]

I don't believe God is arbitrary, he always has good reasons for ordaining what he does.

Do you think these reasons are accessible to human beings? If not, why not?

We're still back to talking about standards and the problem of relativism. In some societies rape is a perfectly justified punishment, after all, so its not clear to every human being that rape is immoral.

I don't follow. How does this lead back to relativism?