THE BIG QUESTIONS #2

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daniel Ian Richardson on May 10, 2009 at 7:30pm

I believe we are here to glorify and honour God with our lives. Practically that means making the most of our gifts, abilities, relationships, possessions, desires and goals and giving God the glory for them. Whilst proclaiming the glorious good news that is the gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ. Humanist points of view often make such statements as 'we create our own meaning', 'life is what you make of it', 'we are here to pass on our genes' or even 'there is no meaning'. All of these theories offer no real hope. Death is the end. Death removes any real meaning from life, many people live to survive; they live to try and live longer. Either way death will come sooner or later. The message of Christianity is the only message which offers very real hope, meaning and purpose both for life here on earth and beyond the grave!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shaun Daws on May 11, 2009 at 4:25am

I find that really interesting Daniel. It seems to me that you're a man of faith, and that it is fairly central to who you are. I'm actually quite curious what it is that drives your faith? I grew up going to church and catechism, and all that, but as I got older, I drifted away from the church. I could never make that leap of faith that many Christians make, despite agreeing with many of the views expressed in the bible. Perhaps it's the views I don't share that have pushed me away?

I know this is a bit off topic, but I find faith and religion fascinating.

If this is too personal for a blog post, I understand if you would prefer not to discuss it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James! on May 11, 2009 at 10:18am

Our purpose isn't completely clear to me. I doubt it is completely clear to any atheist or any deist or spiritual religious types either. The idea of purpose that we've each individually embraced only serves to move us forward as a whole. Meaning, the religious person's "hope" as incentive scenario and an atheist's "fear" or deadline initiative, both serve to move those individuals forward through life efficiently producing, consuming, and propagating the species as a whole when added to rest of the individuals that believe they are working on an independent level. So the question from there moves to; what is our role as human beings as a whole? I think that question would best answered by what changes would occur if human beings were removed from the big picture.

We sit at the top of the food chain or the center of it due to opposable thumbs and high intelligence. With high intelligence we gained sentience. Knowing that we are alive we no longer operate on instincts and survival as animals do. Now we need answers! "Okay I want to survive, I need to eat, I want to mate...why? Whats the purpose beyond that?" If the answer is that there is no reason then there is no point to continue and we are possibly either less efficient in our role by apathy or defective by suicide. Our failsafe/defense mechanism for this is religion and philosophy. I hold that if any species became sentient it would create its own relgion and philosophies in a very short period of time. These beliefs don't have to be accurate or true, they simply have to serve to occupy and distract us, to keep us moving forward in our role.

Religion and philosophy divide us and make us cull and thin our numbers through conflict so it serves the purpose of population control which is a necessity in any species and at the same time it drives us forward by binding huge groups together with a common agenda which aids in survival and effeciency the whole. While individualism and ego inside the group make it impossible to discern the truth and validity within the group.

We are here. There is a reason we are here. I don't believe anyone knows the reason. I don't believe anyone including myself, is looking in the right place. Also I'm not sure that if we discovered our true purpose that we would be content with it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Hawkins on May 11, 2009 at 11:32am

Daniel,
I find it interesting that you reject the idea that we give ourselves our own meaning. What would your reponse be to my observation that you have done just that by adopting the doctrines of a religion to form your own purpose. Furthermore your specific doctrines are yours less by reason and more by the chance location of your birth and inheritance from your family and environment.

As for any alternatives to religion seeming too hopeless to you I offer these thoughts from Dr. Carl Sagan:

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."
—"In the Valley of the Shadow," Parade, March 10, 1996

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked and science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
— Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space)

If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.
-- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Hawkins on May 11, 2009 at 2:56pm

So far there has been no evidence to lead us to believe there is a reason or a purpose for anything so it is up to us to decide what we will be. This "do what you want" state of not knowing our purpose can cause a lot of anxiety, mostly because we will never know the degree of right and wrong that our choices are. Religion offers a supernatural dogma in an attempt to reduce this anxiety. Existential philosophy offers the hypothesis of "Existence precedes essence." This hypothesis acknowledges the anxiety that man feels because, once coming into existence without God, man has the freedom to decide who he is, or with God but has been given free will to decide who he is. This is not a hopeless fearful perspective or one so despairing that it leaves the suicide as the best course of action. In actuality, It is a free, robust, mindful, responsible, and motivational and extremely hopeful and optimistic view. It makes no difference if we were created without being told what our purpose is, or if we just came into existence. Nobody knows of an overlying purpose for any of it, including man's purpose, and we all feel the same anxiety over it. Some choose to delude themselves by denying their freedom and submitting to one of man's religions or some unknown supreme being while others embrace their freedom by enlightening themselves and seeking the truth.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James! on May 11, 2009 at 3:51pm

Assuming some "sub-purpose" in lieu of understanding our true purpose and presuming enlightenment is delusional as well. Freethinkers and deists alike serve their true purpose (whatever it may be and whether they choose to or not) and chase the carrot until they are no longer a physical asset to the larger machine and then they are recycled into it. Each persons mind, from the moron to the superintellect, has got to have a level of satisfaction or a promise of satisfaction to even make hope a viable motivator. We achieve this satisfaction at different levels.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Hawkins on May 12, 2009 at 4:09am

It seems that man needs a purpose in order to provide himself some direction in making choices and attempt to relieve his anxiety. Rejection of the idea that we have some “true or divine” purpose leaves only one choice. Our purpose must come from us and be for us. Assigning ourselves a purpose is not something that is secondary or delusional in and of itself, but responsible, practical and necessary to function as an individual or a society. This is not to say that specific purposes are not viewed as greater or less than, good or bad, right or wrong, delusional or sound. However, we have no way of absolutely knowing if our self-assigned purpose and the choices from it are ultimately right or wrong because they may only be judged by ourselves and other contemporaries while we are here and those that come after us after we are gone. Our hope, satisfaction and thus our motivation can only come from the balance between our own judgment of ourselves and the judgments of others while we are here and that we will be remembered by other people when we are gone and never know. We will also never know even if those judgments of ourselves are ultimately right or wrong because outside the context of man, there is no other right or wrong that we are aware of to have any concern over or pretend to.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James! on May 12, 2009 at 8:21am

Rejection of one sort of motivator (religion) for another is simply falling into a different failsafe. Neither is superior to the other. They just appeal to differently minded and differently egoed individuals. There is really no difference between the cadaver of a christian or atheist, or in the carbon dioxide they breathe out, or in the food they consume. Our bodies live in the big picture with the universe and our minds live in the small picture with religion, philosophy, and desire for satisfaction and there is no way around it. There is a strong partition between those two places. I guess that our role as whole is probably not a grand one and we would not be satisfied with life if we completely understood our true role/purpose for existence. Philosophy and religion are most likely evololutionary defense mechanisms and motivators for higher intellegence sentient animals and neither would be superior as they both serve that same purpose just as red and blue are both colors neither are superior.

That isn't to say we shouldn't chose our own path, or decide on our own how we wish to live our lives. We actually have no other choice, do we? We will simply occupy our years with our seemingly important self given tasks and purpose until our bodies deteriorate. The world would keep on turning even if every christian in the world died or if every atheist on the planet died. So it is just delusional for either party to believe that they are on the more meaningful path. So my question to an atheist would be; Assuming all of the religious convert to atheism, what then? What happens then? Forge ahead with no restricitons on science and development of the "true" nature of humanity? Nope. The answer is that everyone divides into factions and devise new conflicts based on the nuances of atheism, ethics, and morality. It would be the same dynamic just painted a different color.

David Hawkins-"However, we have no way of absolutely knowing if our self-assigned purpose and the choices from it are ultimately right or wrong because they may only be judged by ourselves and other contemporaries while we are here and those that come after us after we are gone. Our hope, satisfaction and thus our motivation can only come from the balance between our own judgment of ourselves and the judgments of others while we are here and that we will be remembered by other people when we are gone and never know. We will also never know even if those judgments of ourselves are ultimately right or wrong because outside the context of man, there is no other right or wrong that we are aware of to have any concern over or pretend to."

With that in mind then it would be unconscionable to pass judgement on those with religious beliefs. Just because one man has satisfaction with the answer of whether or not a higher power exists doesn't mean that another's pursuit of that answer is right or wrong no matter what stage they are at or what their final conclusion is. Unless of course the one passing judgement wishes to be the ultimate authority and manipulate the lives of others for some reason.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Will on May 13, 2009 at 11:03am

I'm staying out of this one. Once the word "delusion" came out, meaning not "psychotic belief maintained despite incontrovertible evidence" but "something I don't agree with," this discussion was doomed to produce heat rather than light.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James! on May 13, 2009 at 2:41pm

I don't really agree with it either but it can still be addressed and properly nullified without having to dismiss the topic as well. For instance stating an idea as delusional still has a slight but strong enough distance from calling a person delusional. It offers a person an opportunity to defend or really explain in detail their ideas without having to defend a personal attack or retaliate to some barb. But I totally get you.

Will said:

I'm staying out of this one. Once the word "delusion" came out, meaning not "psychotic belief maintained despite incontrovertible evidence" but "something I don't agree with," this discussion was doomed to produce heat rather than light.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Hawkins on May 14, 2009 at 4:39pm

Ok, I see I’ve raised some defensive responses. I had rather hoped to challenge than to raise a call to arms. I will change the tone of my presentation somewhat in hopes of presenting a kinder and more gentle viewpoint. I am in total agreement with James that we can and should be able to discuss the full range of topics regardless of level of difficulty or disagreement with civility. We must realize that our aim is more to explore and learn rather than to convert, win, or even simply resolve anything. But what we don’t need, is unjustified back patting and mindlessly saying, “Hey, nice viewpoint, here’s mine.” Disagreements, criticisms, explanations, etc., are all part of the process. Everything can be addressed, and most everything can be nullified too. Gadflies are welcome.

From my own study of philosophy I have come to learn that the basis for a man’s thought and action spring from his metaphysics and ontological views. This is why I stated them as the background justifying my answer to Big Question #2. For now some time now I have been examining for myself the concepts of Existentialism. So far the viewpoint of existentialism seems to make the most sense to me. If anyone knows of refutations of it I would welcome them to share it for consideration.

Here are a few relevant definitions for clarity.

Atheist.
When I say I am an atheist there are two possibilities. I could mean that I am convinced that God does not exist. Or, I could mean that I am not convinced that God does exist. These are too completely different statements. My view is more agreeably held by the latter and not the former.

Atheistic existentialism
States that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. – Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism

Belief - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Before the next definition I would like to state I do not use the term delude or its derivatives to say I disagree, but I use it to explain why I do. It is fair game if anyone wishes to label my views or even me as delusional. I only ask that if you do, you argue the perspective with reason and not more belief.

Delude
1) – v. to decieive or mislead (usually without actually telling lies)
2) – tr.v. to deceive the mind or judgment of
3) – v. To make someone believe something that is not true.
Delusion
1) a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact

So now, after the definitions above, help me with the following questions:
1) A devoutly religious woman kills her young children and claims in court that God told her to. Is it acceptable to call her delusional?
2) A group of devoutly religious men fly planes into buildings killing themselves and nearly 3,000 other people. Is it acceptable to call them delusional?
3) A man becomes a serial killer known to be responsible for at least 6 deaths at the command of a demon in possession of his neighbor’s dog. Is it acceptable to call him delusional?
4) A woman works tirelessly and selflessly her entire life to minister to the poor, sick, orphaned and dying in the name of her God and she is revered by the world like a saint. Is it acceptable to call her delusional?
Obviously the first 3 examples are of criminals and the 4rth is an example of selfless service to others. Is it the morality of the actions (A version of the ends justifying the means.) that determines if it is acceptable to call a person delusional? Or is it the motivation behind the actions? Or is there some combination of the two together that determines the applicability of delusion? Or, maybe these claims of divine commands are simply human excuses for their actions. From my perspective, they must be human excuses for human behavior because God does not exist and therefore he cannot suggest actions for humans to take, they are all four delusional.

So, IF God does not exist (and by that I mean I am not convinced he does exist), then the belief in Him is false or at least untrue and delusional.

Or maybe we could just leave it at this: I cannot rationally prove the existence of God so I choose not to 1) delude myself, 2) deny reason and spite truth, 3) act in bad faith, 4) take a leap of faith, or otherwise go with the mere unsubstantiated belief that he does exist. Pick one.

Now maybe you can help me with these:

Existentialism is nothing less than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to plunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing. Jean-Paul Sartre

Finally to restate my answer the big question #2 again for your consideration:

I see 3 solutions to facing the great “Silence of the Universe”.
1) We can remove ourselves from the world (physical suicide).
2) We can replace the world with a more agreeable world of magic and superstition (philosophical suicide).
These first two are some combination of cowardly, lazy, self-destructive, self-deceptive, utterly submissive, teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world, lacking in any responsibility, and deny reason. Because this is the AOM site I will call attention to the fact that these characteristics are not the traits that have been deemed manly or even good and therefore do not advocate these choices.

3) The third and only acceptable solution is to embrace the man’s desire for order, meaning and purpose, and the big blank of indifference of the Universe. This bond of incompatibility between man and the universe is probably man’s most unavoidable and thus most defining characteristic along with his mortality. To rise each day to fight a battle you know you cannot win, and do it with wit, grace, compassion for others, with some sense of mission is exemplary of the spirit of heroism and bravery. For the sake of this site, these are the characteristics and behaviors identified in other discussions on AOM to be manly traits or at least desirable ones and I submit they are supportive of choosing this 3rd. choice.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James! on May 15, 2009 at 10:03am

In response to your first set of questions:
1. Deanna Laney was psychotically insane, mentally delusional and her motives are moot.
2. Yes.
3. David Berkowitz recanted the talking possessed dog story and revealed it as a ruse to create an insanitydefense.
4. Mother Theresa wrestled with her faith in God's existence and performed her works in spite of what
internal struggles she suffered. Far from delusional she could be seen as a humanistic saint as well.


A delusional person doesn't know they are deluded. An atheist could quite possibly be deluded through demonic interference. According to the story of Job we are just as open to satanic influence as we are to divine influence. It could be that you are deluded and just because you think that you are not doesn't mean that you are not. You may just be waiting some spiritual awakening. And that possiblity could possibly make it irresponsible for you to espouse delusional atheistic beliefs. The catch-22 is that if the existence of God were proven to you then God's test of men through faith would be broken.

As far as despair in the face of a godless world is concerned, I do experience despair and dread. Not due to the attempted social engineering by believers though. I simply can't comprehend not existing except in the most abstract manner of thinking thinking about it. Existence is all I know and once I can wrap my mind around the idea of not existing, I'll be fine.

I believe you left solution #4 out. Attempt to reduce my ego and live in appreciation of life and be content and humble. Don Quixotes impossible dream isn't for eveyone. ;)

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last