| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 6:57 am Post subject: Existence |
 |
|
Hello, Gnostic Types,
I just wanted to throw a few thoughts out there for some discussion and
maybe get a few ideas and thoughts from the resident Gnostics here.
I have been thinking about existence and all, as I had a debate with a
friend regarding freedom of will and predestination. This debate got me
thinking about the one thing that we as people had no choice about: our
existence.
Even from an orthodox Christian view point, an existence brought into this
world is a pretty immoral choice to be made. We get brought into a world
that is filled with suffering interspersed with brief periods of joy.
Considering that no one consulted us, (and how could they if we do not
exist), then that makes the decision to bring someone into existence an
immoral choice. Especially as there is this threat of "hell" at the end, (if
you lean toward a conservative understanding of "hell"). So, with existence
as an immoral choice made by God, (even in Christianity), where does that
leave it?
One could argue, (as some philosophers have), that existence is inherently
better than not existing. However, I disagree. There is little to suggest
it, except from the hope of something better at the end, which makes this
world pointless. It still leaves us with an immoral act on the part of God,
I think.
However, the Gnostic idea of creation, and the emanations, is not without
merit in this case. Of course, there was no deliberate choice to trap us in
this world, except by the Demiurge, who is ignorant and sadistic anyway.
This system seems to solve the inherent immorality that this world's
existence seems to have.
What you think? I am interested in your thoughts.
--
Mouldy Jester
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:19 am Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Hello, Gnostic Types,
I just wanted to throw a few thoughts out there for some discussion and
maybe get a few ideas and thoughts from the resident Gnostics here.
I have been thinking about existence and all, as I had a debate with a
friend regarding freedom of will and predestination. This debate got me
thinking about the one thing that we as people had no choice about: our
existence.
Even from an orthodox Christian view point, an existence brought into this
world is a pretty immoral choice to be made. We get brought into a world
that is filled with suffering interspersed with brief periods of joy.
|
Followed by extinction possibly of self and certainly of the body.
I've never understood the endorphin-driven drive to parenthood - the
production of an innocent being who will suffer for no reason, and who
will carry the consciousness of its impending annihilation to its
grave.
| Quote: | Considering that no one consulted us, (and how could they if we do not
exist), then that makes the decision to bring someone into existence an
immoral choice.
|
It's immoral in that it presumes to evaluate for the offspring that
the offspring will find life just fine - given that the offspring's
suffering and death are inevitable.
| Quote: | Especially as there is this threat of "hell" at the end, (if
you lean toward a conservative understanding of "hell"). So, with existence
as an immoral choice made by God, (even in Christianity), where does that
leave it?
|
It's a parental choice, except in those cases where reproduction
occurs without choice or at least full choice. I'm not so sure where
God's choice fits in. Granted if a god exists, and that god is a
creator, then you've got a bad choice by a demiurge. However, if
creation is not really creation, i.e., an intentional product of an
artisan-deity, then there are other possibilities, such as that the
Abyss, the Silence, the True Father-Mother, the Manda de Hayye, etc.,
may be ultimately causative of existence, but not directly involved -
as is the case in certain Gnostic and Kabbalistic systems. God's
element of intention, motivation, and choice in emantating worlds
would then be very difficult to assign or pin down.
| Quote: | One could argue, (as some philosophers have), that existence is inherently
better than not existing. However, I disagree. There is little to suggest
it, except from the hope of something better at the end, which makes this
world pointless. It still leaves us with an immoral act on the part of God,
I think.
|
I've never understood the question, Why does something rather than
nothing prevail. Nothing or nothingness, I wonder, opposed to...what?
All we know is existence, all we experience is existence. All we see
and intuit and imagine is existence - not nothingness. (Obviously I'm
not talking about mystical experience of the Void or of
No-thing-ness.) How can nothingness be better or worse than
somethingness? We can't take the point of view of nothingness. If we
did, we'd not exist and therefore not be "there" to ponder such
considerations.
| Quote: | However, the Gnostic idea of creation, and the emanations, is not without
merit in this case. Of course, there was no deliberate choice to trap us in
this world, except by the Demiurge, who is ignorant and sadistic anyway.
This system seems to solve the inherent immorality that this world's
existence seems to have.
What you think? I am interested in your thoughts.
|
If we could remove the idea of an intermediary creator or demiurge,
what would existence be like? Naturally if we remove an active
creator, there would not have been a creation. But if the demiurge is
a being who _traps_ us in existence, then existence putatively could
be vastly different without the Trapper or Housebuilder. What would
existence be like as emanation (rather than creation) unmediated and
untampered-with by a creator-demiurge?
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
Hello, Gnostic Types,
I just wanted to throw a few thoughts out there for some discussion and
maybe get a few ideas and thoughts from the resident Gnostics here.
I have been thinking about existence and all, as I had a debate with a
friend regarding freedom of will and predestination. This debate got me
thinking about the one thing that we as people had no choice about: our
existence.
Even from an orthodox Christian view point, an existence brought into
this
world is a pretty immoral choice to be made. We get brought into a world
that is filled with suffering interspersed with brief periods of joy.
Followed by extinction possibly of self and certainly of the body.
I've never understood the endorphin-driven drive to parenthood - the
production of an innocent being who will suffer for no reason, and who
will carry the consciousness of its impending annihilation to its
grave.
|
Exactly right. A person has no say in it. There is no choice on the part of
someone being born to a life that will end, and can realistically involve
intense suffering, far above anything that those "fortunate" enough to be
born into a rich and confortable locality.
| Quote: | Considering that no one consulted us, (and how could they if we do not
exist), then that makes the decision to bring someone into existence an
immoral choice.
It's immoral in that it presumes to evaluate for the offspring that
the offspring will find life just fine - given that the offspring's
suffering and death are inevitable.
|
More people living in circumstances of questionable survival than don't. I
have noticed that those who have proposed the morality of bringing something
into existence have either done so from a position of relative comfort or
from economic necessity. Those here who do so have a wealth of comforts at
their disposal. Those in more agrarian cultures have necessity to drive
them, despite their less than certain survival in areas of high infant
mortality.
| Quote: | Especially as there is this threat of "hell" at the end, (if
you lean toward a conservative understanding of "hell"). So, with
existence
as an immoral choice made by God, (even in Christianity), where does that
leave it?
It's a parental choice, except in those cases where reproduction
occurs without choice or at least full choice. I'm not so sure where
God's choice fits in. Granted if a god exists, and that god is a
creator, then you've got a bad choice by a demiurge.
|
I think God's choice fits in with beginning the whole process right at the
start. Of course, in our time, there is a parental choice involved. However,
if you believe that God decides who is born and when, then He still has some
influence, (this view is quite current among some mainstream Christians).
However, completely apart from this, God's involvement in the creation of
humans is also something to be evaluated as possibly immoral.
However, if
| Quote: | creation is not really creation, i.e., an intentional product of an
artisan-deity, then there are other possibilities, such as that the
Abyss, the Silence, the True Father-Mother, the Manda de Hayye, etc.,
may be ultimately causative of existence, but not directly involved -
as is the case in certain Gnostic and Kabbalistic systems. God's
element of intention, motivation, and choice in emantating worlds
would then be very difficult to assign or pin down.
|
Agreed. The Gnostic ideas regarding emanation, and the dramas played out by
the Sophia and Demiurge, would go a long way to resolve these issues. Of
course, they do seem to remove some of the intention from the equation.
However, what intentional aspects remain are those of the Demiurge, who is
acknowledged as an immoral being anyway.
| Quote: | One could argue, (as some philosophers have), that existence is
inherently
better than not existing. However, I disagree. There is little to suggest
it, except from the hope of something better at the end, which makes this
world pointless. It still leaves us with an immoral act on the part of
God,
I think.
I've never understood the question, Why does something rather than
nothing prevail. Nothing or nothingness, I wonder, opposed to...what?
All we know is existence, all we experience is existence. All we see
and intuit and imagine is existence - not nothingness. (Obviously I'm
not talking about mystical experience of the Void or of
No-thing-ness.) How can nothingness be better or worse than
somethingness? We can't take the point of view of nothingness. If we
did, we'd not exist and therefore not be "there" to ponder such
considerations.
|
I am not really asking why we exist rather than we do. Obviously, we have
some level of existence, and, as you say, that is all we know.
What I am asking, is whether existence is inherently "better" than
non-existence. This is the issue that I am trying to deal with. Should we be
happy to exist, regardless of the circumstances of that existence?
I think this where we get into some really interesting issues. Can we posit
what "non-existence" would be like? I think we can, but only in terms of
what it is not. Even the language we use for it is couched in terms of "what
it is not", rather than what it is.
| Quote: | However, the Gnostic idea of creation, and the emanations, is not without
merit in this case. Of course, there was no deliberate choice to trap us
in
this world, except by the Demiurge, who is ignorant and sadistic anyway.
This system seems to solve the inherent immorality that this world's
existence seems to have.
What you think? I am interested in your thoughts.
If we could remove the idea of an intermediary creator or demiurge,
what would existence be like? Naturally if we remove an active
creator, there would not have been a creation. But if the demiurge is
a being who _traps_ us in existence, then existence putatively could
be vastly different without the Trapper or Housebuilder. What would
existence be like as emanation (rather than creation) unmediated and
untampered-with by a creator-demiurge?
|
You really like the difficult questions! I am not sure what to answer, and I
am sure that whatever answer could be offered would be woefully inadequate.
Positing what non-existence would be like is one thing, but this is an
entirely different ball game!
Are there any Gnostic writers who attempted to speculate or describe this?
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
Hello, Gnostic Types,
I just wanted to throw a few thoughts out there for some discussion and
maybe get a few ideas and thoughts from the resident Gnostics here.
I have been thinking about existence and all, as I had a debate with a
friend regarding freedom of will and predestination. This debate got me
thinking about the one thing that we as people had no choice about: our
existence.
Even from an orthodox Christian view point, an existence brought into
this
world is a pretty immoral choice to be made. We get brought into a world
that is filled with suffering interspersed with brief periods of joy.
Followed by extinction possibly of self and certainly of the body.
I've never understood the endorphin-driven drive to parenthood - the
production of an innocent being who will suffer for no reason, and who
will carry the consciousness of its impending annihilation to its
grave.
Exactly right. A person has no say in it. There is no choice on the part of
someone being born to a life that will end, and can realistically involve
intense suffering, far above anything that those "fortunate" enough to be
born into a rich and confortable locality.
Considering that no one consulted us, (and how could they if we do not
exist), then that makes the decision to bring someone into existence an
immoral choice.
It's immoral in that it presumes to evaluate for the offspring that
the offspring will find life just fine - given that the offspring's
suffering and death are inevitable.
More people living in circumstances of questionable survival than don't. I
have noticed that those who have proposed the morality of bringing something
into existence have either done so from a position of relative comfort or
from economic necessity. Those here who do so have a wealth of comforts at
their disposal. Those in more agrarian cultures have necessity to drive
them, despite their less than certain survival in areas of high infant
mortality.
Especially as there is this threat of "hell" at the end, (if
you lean toward a conservative understanding of "hell"). So, with
existence
as an immoral choice made by God, (even in Christianity), where does that
leave it?
It's a parental choice, except in those cases where reproduction
occurs without choice or at least full choice. I'm not so sure where
God's choice fits in. Granted if a god exists, and that god is a
creator, then you've got a bad choice by a demiurge.
I think God's choice fits in with beginning the whole process right at the
start. Of course, in our time, there is a parental choice involved. However,
if you believe that God decides who is born and when, then He still has some
influence, (this view is quite current among some mainstream Christians).
However, completely apart from this, God's involvement in the creation of
humans is also something to be evaluated as possibly immoral.
However, if
creation is not really creation, i.e., an intentional product of an
artisan-deity, then there are other possibilities, such as that the
Abyss, the Silence, the True Father-Mother, the Manda de Hayye, etc.,
may be ultimately causative of existence, but not directly involved -
as is the case in certain Gnostic and Kabbalistic systems. God's
element of intention, motivation, and choice in emantating worlds
would then be very difficult to assign or pin down.
Agreed. The Gnostic ideas regarding emanation, and the dramas played out by
the Sophia and Demiurge, would go a long way to resolve these issues. Of
course, they do seem to remove some of the intention from the equation.
However, what intentional aspects remain are those of the Demiurge, who is
acknowledged as an immoral being anyway.
One could argue, (as some philosophers have), that existence is
inherently
better than not existing. However, I disagree. There is little to suggest
it, except from the hope of something better at the end, which makes this
world pointless. It still leaves us with an immoral act on the part of
God,
I think.
I've never understood the question, Why does something rather than
nothing prevail. Nothing or nothingness, I wonder, opposed to...what?
All we know is existence, all we experience is existence. All we see
and intuit and imagine is existence - not nothingness. (Obviously I'm
not talking about mystical experience of the Void or of
No-thing-ness.) How can nothingness be better or worse than
somethingness? We can't take the point of view of nothingness. If we
did, we'd not exist and therefore not be "there" to ponder such
considerations.
I am not really asking why we exist rather than we do. Obviously, we have
some level of existence, and, as you say, that is all we know.
What I am asking, is whether existence is inherently "better" than
non-existence. This is the issue that I am trying to deal with. Should we be
happy to exist, regardless of the circumstances of that existence?
I think this where we get into some really interesting issues. Can we posit
what "non-existence" would be like? I think we can, but only in terms of
what it is not. Even the language we use for it is couched in terms of "what
it is not", rather than what it is.
However, the Gnostic idea of creation, and the emanations, is not without
merit in this case. Of course, there was no deliberate choice to trap us
in
this world, except by the Demiurge, who is ignorant and sadistic anyway.
This system seems to solve the inherent immorality that this world's
existence seems to have.
What you think? I am interested in your thoughts.
If we could remove the idea of an intermediary creator or demiurge,
what would existence be like? Naturally if we remove an active
creator, there would not have been a creation. But if the demiurge is
a being who _traps_ us in existence, then existence putatively could
be vastly different without the Trapper or Housebuilder. What would
existence be like as emanation (rather than creation) unmediated and
untampered-with by a creator-demiurge?
You really like the difficult questions! I am not sure what to answer, and I
am sure that whatever answer could be offered would be woefully inadequate.
Positing what non-existence would be like is one thing, but this is an
entirely different ball game!
Are there any Gnostic writers who attempted to speculate or describe this?
|
I don't know if any Gnostic writers addressed the question you
raised, but it's a good one. I would think that a straight-on look at
life would encourage the conclusion that, No, it's not better to exist
than not to exist. Therefore, no, we should not be happy to exist
rather than not to exist. Even a life that has some happiness is
subject to impermanence, and happiness changes to unhappiness,
contentment changes to restlessness - then in the end, it all
disappears.
Some use religion as an opiate to escape from the horror of
existence. Religions promote of course that they are not opiates, but
are in fact actual means of dealing with and enhancing life. Some say
that's illusion, infantile regression - Marx and Freud, for instance.
Others say that's the whole point - seeing life in a spiritual context
and realizing one's spiritual self - Jung, for example.
I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on, without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have hobbies.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:6nh5tvs9tlv2lubqcqec9m14lpo4f84opg@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
|
[snipped for size]
| Quote: |
I don't know if any Gnostic writers addressed the question you
raised, but it's a good one. I would think that a straight-on look at
life would encourage the conclusion that, No, it's not better to exist
than not to exist. Therefore, no, we should not be happy to exist
rather than not to exist. Even a life that has some happiness is
subject to impermanence, and happiness changes to unhappiness,
contentment changes to restlessness - then in the end, it all
disappears.
Some use religion as an opiate to escape from the horror of
existence. Religions promote of course that they are not opiates, but
are in fact actual means of dealing with and enhancing life. Some say
that's illusion, infantile regression - Marx and Freud, for instance.
Others say that's the whole point - seeing life in a spiritual context
and realizing one's spiritual self - Jung, for example.
|
It would seem that Gnostics and Jung have some common starting points in
that both seem to hold that there is a spiritual aspect to be realised.
I am inclined to disagree with seeing religion as "an opiate", though
certianly there is some element of truth in the observation.
| Quote: | I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on, without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have hobbies.
|
True enough. The search for some meaning is part of human nature, I think.
We all like to feel that our lives are not pointless exercises in futility.
It reminds me of the mice and Slartibartfast in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy". Maybe that book was closer to the truth than we like to think.
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:20 am Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:50:39 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:6nh5tvs9tlv2lubqcqec9m14lpo4f84opg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped for size]
I don't know if any Gnostic writers addressed the question you
raised, but it's a good one. I would think that a straight-on look at
life would encourage the conclusion that, No, it's not better to exist
than not to exist. Therefore, no, we should not be happy to exist
rather than not to exist. Even a life that has some happiness is
subject to impermanence, and happiness changes to unhappiness,
contentment changes to restlessness - then in the end, it all
disappears.
Some use religion as an opiate to escape from the horror of
existence. Religions promote of course that they are not opiates, but
are in fact actual means of dealing with and enhancing life. Some say
that's illusion, infantile regression - Marx and Freud, for instance.
Others say that's the whole point - seeing life in a spiritual context
and realizing one's spiritual self - Jung, for example.
It would seem that Gnostics and Jung have some common starting points in
that both seem to hold that there is a spiritual aspect to be realised.
|
Yep, Jung liked the Gnostics, he wore his "Gnostic ring" and wrote
Seven Sermons to the Dead...
| Quote: | I am inclined to disagree with seeing religion as "an opiate", though
certianly there is some element of truth in the observation.
|
And even if it sometimes functions as an opiate doesn't validate or
invalidate its truth.
The charge of "When are you going to grow up?" is leveled at
religious people, who nonreligious people see as infantile. It is
thought that religion is a child's attitude that a truly adult person
should have evolved beyond. However, as Paul Ricoeur (sp?) and Marcus
Borg have said, as in personality phases, there are also religious
phases of development:
First is pre-critical naivete, associated with childhood: the child
takes authoritative claims of elders literally without question, and
the religious person takes authoritative claims of
religion/scripture/church literally without question.
Second is the stage of critical thinking, associated with
adolescence and its rebelliousness: the adolescent questions
authoritative claims, thinks reductionistically/analytically, revolts
against authority, and the religious person does the same.
Most adult Westerners don't move beyond this adolescent phase of
religious critical thinking. This generates fact-fundamentalism,
wherein if an authoritative claim is not literally true, quantifiably
factual, it is seen to be false.
Third is the stage of post-critical naivete, associated with true
adulthood: the adult, while still retaining critical thinking as a
tool, realizes that authoritative claims can be seen as powerfully
true on a metaphorical, symbolic, parabolic level. This stage is not
a return to pre-critical naivete, since it uses critical thinking when
necessary, but does not fetishize it as an end-all/be-all. This
perspective annuls fact-fundamentalism - now a religious claim or
narrative or doctrine can be seen as true even if it is not factual.
William James called the difference between stages "the first
innocence" and "the second innocence."
| Quote: | I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on, without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have hobbies.
True enough. The search for some meaning is part of human nature, I think.
We all like to feel that our lives are not pointless exercises in futility.
|
Yeah, even those who say life has no meaning manage to immerse
themselves in some absorbing activity to which value is attached.
| Quote: | It reminds me of the mice and Slartibartfast in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy". Maybe that book was closer to the truth than we like to think.
|
Haven't read any of them, although I know they're highly
recommended.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:4v17tv4q59q61glk00jhods1a6ec4f5ttl@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:50:39 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:6nh5tvs9tlv2lubqcqec9m14lpo4f84opg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped for size]
I don't know if any Gnostic writers addressed the question you
raised, but it's a good one. I would think that a straight-on look at
life would encourage the conclusion that, No, it's not better to exist
than not to exist. Therefore, no, we should not be happy to exist
rather than not to exist. Even a life that has some happiness is
subject to impermanence, and happiness changes to unhappiness,
contentment changes to restlessness - then in the end, it all
disappears.
Some use religion as an opiate to escape from the horror of
existence. Religions promote of course that they are not opiates, but
are in fact actual means of dealing with and enhancing life. Some say
that's illusion, infantile regression - Marx and Freud, for instance.
Others say that's the whole point - seeing life in a spiritual context
and realizing one's spiritual self - Jung, for example.
It would seem that Gnostics and Jung have some common starting points in
that both seem to hold that there is a spiritual aspect to be realised.
Yep, Jung liked the Gnostics, he wore his "Gnostic ring" and wrote
Seven Sermons to the Dead...
I am inclined to disagree with seeing religion as "an opiate", though
certianly there is some element of truth in the observation.
And even if it sometimes functions as an opiate doesn't validate or
invalidate its truth.
The charge of "When are you going to grow up?" is leveled at
religious people, who nonreligious people see as infantile. It is
thought that religion is a child's attitude that a truly adult person
should have evolved beyond. However, as Paul Ricoeur (sp?) and Marcus
Borg have said, as in personality phases, there are also religious
phases of development:
First is pre-critical naivete, associated with childhood: the child
takes authoritative claims of elders literally without question, and
the religious person takes authoritative claims of
religion/scripture/church literally without question.
Second is the stage of critical thinking, associated with
adolescence and its rebelliousness: the adolescent questions
authoritative claims, thinks reductionistically/analytically, revolts
against authority, and the religious person does the same.
Most adult Westerners don't move beyond this adolescent phase of
religious critical thinking. This generates fact-fundamentalism,
wherein if an authoritative claim is not literally true, quantifiably
factual, it is seen to be false.
Third is the stage of post-critical naivete, associated with true
adulthood: the adult, while still retaining critical thinking as a
tool, realizes that authoritative claims can be seen as powerfully
true on a metaphorical, symbolic, parabolic level. This stage is not
a return to pre-critical naivete, since it uses critical thinking when
necessary, but does not fetishize it as an end-all/be-all. This
perspective annuls fact-fundamentalism - now a religious claim or
narrative or doctrine can be seen as true even if it is not factual.
William James called the difference between stages "the first
innocence" and "the second innocence."
|
Much of what you say resonates with me at an experiential level. I wonder,
could you tell me more about the two authors whom you mentioned above,
please? Among the other reams of reading I need to do, I would like to add
some books on this topic.
| Quote: | I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on, without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have hobbies.
True enough. The search for some meaning is part of human nature, I
think.
We all like to feel that our lives are not pointless exercises in
futility.
Yeah, even those who say life has no meaning manage to immerse
themselves in some absorbing activity to which value is attached.
|
Yeah, that is true. There is always a sense of self-validation in the way we
live lives. However, I would wonder if anyone could ever truly live as if
life was meaningless,(short of prematurely ending their own lives, that is).
| Quote: | It reminds me of the mice and Slartibartfast in "The Hitchhiker's Guide
to
the Galaxy". Maybe that book was closer to the truth than we like to
think.
Haven't read any of them, although I know they're highly
recommended.
|
Absolutely a "must read". Some interesting ideas and very funny in the
meantime. They can be enjoyed on many different levels. I loved them!
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:34 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:54:59 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:4v17tv4q59q61glk00jhods1a6ec4f5ttl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:50:39 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:6nh5tvs9tlv2lubqcqec9m14lpo4f84opg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped for size]
I don't know if any Gnostic writers addressed the question you
raised, but it's a good one. I would think that a straight-on look at
life would encourage the conclusion that, No, it's not better to exist
than not to exist. Therefore, no, we should not be happy to exist
rather than not to exist. Even a life that has some happiness is
subject to impermanence, and happiness changes to unhappiness,
contentment changes to restlessness - then in the end, it all
disappears.
Some use religion as an opiate to escape from the horror of
existence. Religions promote of course that they are not opiates, but
are in fact actual means of dealing with and enhancing life. Some say
that's illusion, infantile regression - Marx and Freud, for instance.
Others say that's the whole point - seeing life in a spiritual context
and realizing one's spiritual self - Jung, for example.
It would seem that Gnostics and Jung have some common starting points in
that both seem to hold that there is a spiritual aspect to be realised.
Yep, Jung liked the Gnostics, he wore his "Gnostic ring" and wrote
Seven Sermons to the Dead...
I am inclined to disagree with seeing religion as "an opiate", though
certianly there is some element of truth in the observation.
And even if it sometimes functions as an opiate doesn't validate or
invalidate its truth.
The charge of "When are you going to grow up?" is leveled at
religious people, who nonreligious people see as infantile. It is
thought that religion is a child's attitude that a truly adult person
should have evolved beyond. However, as Paul Ricoeur (sp?) and Marcus
Borg have said, as in personality phases, there are also religious
phases of development:
First is pre-critical naivete, associated with childhood: the child
takes authoritative claims of elders literally without question, and
the religious person takes authoritative claims of
religion/scripture/church literally without question.
Second is the stage of critical thinking, associated with
adolescence and its rebelliousness: the adolescent questions
authoritative claims, thinks reductionistically/analytically, revolts
against authority, and the religious person does the same.
Most adult Westerners don't move beyond this adolescent phase of
religious critical thinking. This generates fact-fundamentalism,
wherein if an authoritative claim is not literally true, quantifiably
factual, it is seen to be false.
Third is the stage of post-critical naivete, associated with true
adulthood: the adult, while still retaining critical thinking as a
tool, realizes that authoritative claims can be seen as powerfully
true on a metaphorical, symbolic, parabolic level. This stage is not
a return to pre-critical naivete, since it uses critical thinking when
necessary, but does not fetishize it as an end-all/be-all. This
perspective annuls fact-fundamentalism - now a religious claim or
narrative or doctrine can be seen as true even if it is not factual.
William James called the difference between stages "the first
innocence" and "the second innocence."
Much of what you say resonates with me at an experiential level. I wonder,
could you tell me more about the two authors whom you mentioned above,
please? Among the other reams of reading I need to do, I would like to add
some books on this topic.
|
You might try Marcus J. Borg's "The God we Never Knew" - that was my
chief source. You might find Borg's footnotes helpful, as well.
| Quote: | I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on, without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have hobbies.
True enough. The search for some meaning is part of human nature, I
think.
We all like to feel that our lives are not pointless exercises in
futility.
Yeah, even those who say life has no meaning manage to immerse
themselves in some absorbing activity to which value is attached.
Yeah, that is true. There is always a sense of self-validation in the way we
live lives. However, I would wonder if anyone could ever truly live as if
life was meaningless,(short of prematurely ending their own lives, that is).
|
Good question. I think psychs have a term for the avoidance of
death-considerations, a principle or mechanism which allows us to go
through most of our conscious lives with a seeming sense of
immortality. If we looked death square in the face daily, the
population's quotient of cock-eyed optimists might be happily reduced.
| Quote: | It reminds me of the mice and Slartibartfast in "The Hitchhiker's Guide
to
the Galaxy". Maybe that book was closer to the truth than we like to
think.
Haven't read any of them, although I know they're highly
recommended.
Absolutely a "must read". Some interesting ideas and very funny in the
meantime. They can be enjoyed on many different levels. I loved them!
|
Someday I probably will get into them...
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:s869tvs70ltubu7kv9ssa3nn6femmokva2@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:54:59 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:4v17tv4q59q61glk00jhods1a6ec4f5ttl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:50:39 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:6nh5tvs9tlv2lubqcqec9m14lpo4f84opg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
|
[snipped for size]
| Quote: |
You might try Marcus J. Borg's "The God we Never Knew" - that was my
chief source. You might find Borg's footnotes helpful, as well.
|
Thanks. Much obliged.
| Quote: | I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on,
without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have hobbies.
True enough. The search for some meaning is part of human nature, I
think.
We all like to feel that our lives are not pointless exercises in
futility.
Yeah, even those who say life has no meaning manage to immerse
themselves in some absorbing activity to which value is attached.
Yeah, that is true. There is always a sense of self-validation in the way
we
live lives. However, I would wonder if anyone could ever truly live as if
life was meaningless,(short of prematurely ending their own lives, that
is).
Good question. I think psychs have a term for the avoidance of
death-considerations, a principle or mechanism which allows us to go
through most of our conscious lives with a seeming sense of
immortality. If we looked death square in the face daily, the
population's quotient of cock-eyed optimists might be happily reduced.
|
While true in some respects, I would have to also ask just what a "life
lived as if it was meaningless" would actually look like. This is something
that I failed to ask previously. I personally think "prematurely ending it"
might be one option to begin defining this.
Having said that, most religious people whom I have met or read about, (from
various traditions, not just Gnostic), share some element of what you termed
a "seeming sense of immortality". On the other hand, even in thos systems
where the meaning attached to this life is greatly reduced, there is still
some meaning to life. For example, (correct if I am mislead here), in some
branches of Gnosticism, one lives to liberate and raise sparks of the divine
light, (Lurianic Kabbalah uses similar language). Despite deep seated
criticism of this world, one's life within it still seems to have some level
of meaning.
This then brings me back to the previous question of whether living as if
life is meaningless is even possible. (Circles abound).
Anyway, I hope I made sense.
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:33:06 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:s869tvs70ltubu7kv9ssa3nn6femmokva2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:54:59 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:4v17tv4q59q61glk00jhods1a6ec4f5ttl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:50:39 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:6nh5tvs9tlv2lubqcqec9m14lpo4f84opg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped for size]
You might try Marcus J. Borg's "The God we Never Knew" - that was my
chief source. You might find Borg's footnotes helpful, as well.
Thanks. Much obliged.
|
You're welcome... I find Borg helpful, but then I'm prejudiced
because he was my teacher for a couple of semesters...
| Quote: | I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on,
without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have hobbies.
True enough. The search for some meaning is part of human nature, I
think.
We all like to feel that our lives are not pointless exercises in
futility.
Yeah, even those who say life has no meaning manage to immerse
themselves in some absorbing activity to which value is attached.
Yeah, that is true. There is always a sense of self-validation in the way
we
live lives. However, I would wonder if anyone could ever truly live as if
life was meaningless,(short of prematurely ending their own lives, that
is).
Good question. I think psychs have a term for the avoidance of
death-considerations, a principle or mechanism which allows us to go
through most of our conscious lives with a seeming sense of
immortality. If we looked death square in the face daily, the
population's quotient of cock-eyed optimists might be happily reduced.
While true in some respects, I would have to also ask just what a "life
lived as if it was meaningless" would actually look like. This is something
that I failed to ask previously. I personally think "prematurely ending it"
might be one option to begin defining this.
Having said that, most religious people whom I have met or read about, (from
various traditions, not just Gnostic), share some element of what you termed
a "seeming sense of immortality".
|
Actually what I meant was a false sense of immortality - the kind
that teenagers are purported to have. People don't think that they
could die at any moment - in fact this thought is pushed so far into
the background that it's virtually nonexistent and people live as if
they take life for granted and have any number of tomorrows.
| Quote: | On the other hand, even in thos systems
where the meaning attached to this life is greatly reduced, there is still
some meaning to life. For example, (correct if I am mislead here), in some
branches of Gnosticism, one lives to liberate and raise sparks of the divine
light, (Lurianic Kabbalah uses similar language). Despite deep seated
criticism of this world, one's life within it still seems to have some level
of meaning.
This then brings me back to the previous question of whether living as if
life is meaningless is even possible. (Circles abound).
Anyway, I hope I made sense.
|
There are some people live as though life is meaningless, but they
make a fetish of living in that way - ya know, the "stoic" stuff where
"It's all just crap, the universe is crap, we're all crap, we come out
of nothing and go back to nothing, but look how brave and tough I am -
I don't let it get to me." Other than this affected, egotistic sense
of living life as meaningless, I would think it impossible to do the
real thing for long without sticking your head in the oven.
Literally, what would be the point - what would be the "meaning" of
living as if life is meaningless? Most people I've heard of who find
life meaningless don't live out/act out this conclusion - they retreat
into immersion in physical pleasure or intellectual pursuits, or
sports mania or drugs and alcohol. I never could follow Camus's
conclusion that life, even with its absurdity and assurance of death,
is still worth living.
My own personal feeling is that without some kind of
transcendental, sacred factor, life is without meaning, although of
course many others don't share my view.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:aspatvcikpv10n5qcb2ei67064kid6l4tb@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:33:06 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:s869tvs70ltubu7kv9ssa3nn6femmokva2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:54:59 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:4v17tv4q59q61glk00jhods1a6ec4f5ttl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:50:39 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:6nh5tvs9tlv2lubqcqec9m14lpo4f84opg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:12:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:9cv4tvkod79tid149ei2p0u30t431671da@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped for size]
You might try Marcus J. Borg's "The God we Never Knew" - that was my
chief source. You might find Borg's footnotes helpful, as well.
Thanks. Much obliged.
You're welcome... I find Borg helpful, but then I'm prejudiced
because he was my teacher for a couple of semesters...
|
The truth emerges. ;-)
| Quote: | I'm not aware of anybody who simply takes life straight-on,
without
engaging in a meaning-game. Even non-religious people have
hobbies.
True enough. The search for some meaning is part of human nature, I
think.
We all like to feel that our lives are not pointless exercises in
futility.
Yeah, even those who say life has no meaning manage to immerse
themselves in some absorbing activity to which value is attached.
Yeah, that is true. There is always a sense of self-validation in the
way
we
live lives. However, I would wonder if anyone could ever truly live as
if
life was meaningless,(short of prematurely ending their own lives,
that
is).
Good question. I think psychs have a term for the avoidance of
death-considerations, a principle or mechanism which allows us to go
through most of our conscious lives with a seeming sense of
immortality. If we looked death square in the face daily, the
population's quotient of cock-eyed optimists might be happily reduced.
While true in some respects, I would have to also ask just what a "life
lived as if it was meaningless" would actually look like. This is
something
that I failed to ask previously. I personally think "prematurely ending
it"
might be one option to begin defining this.
Having said that, most religious people whom I have met or read about,
(from
various traditions, not just Gnostic), share some element of what you
termed
a "seeming sense of immortality".
Actually what I meant was a false sense of immortality - the kind
that teenagers are purported to have. People don't think that they
could die at any moment - in fact this thought is pushed so far into
the background that it's virtually nonexistent and people live as if
they take life for granted and have any number of tomorrows.
|
Ah! My apologies for misunderstanding you there. What you say is true. I am
guilty of it myself.
| Quote: | On the other hand, even in thos systems
where the meaning attached to this life is greatly reduced, there is
still
some meaning to life. For example, (correct if I am mislead here), in
some
branches of Gnosticism, one lives to liberate and raise sparks of the
divine
light, (Lurianic Kabbalah uses similar language). Despite deep seated
criticism of this world, one's life within it still seems to have some
level
of meaning.
This then brings me back to the previous question of whether living as if
life is meaningless is even possible. (Circles abound).
Anyway, I hope I made sense.
There are some people live as though life is meaningless, but they
make a fetish of living in that way - ya know, the "stoic" stuff where
"It's all just crap, the universe is crap, we're all crap, we come out
of nothing and go back to nothing, but look how brave and tough I am -
I don't let it get to me."
|
I think then the "stoicism" becomes the meaning of their lives. They will
invariably measure their lives against some standard which will be garnered
from some source, whether it be philosophy or religion or some other. The
fetish then becomes the meaning, or at least, provides the context of
meaning.
Other than this affected, egotistic sense
| Quote: | of living life as meaningless, I would think it impossible to do the
real thing for long without sticking your head in the oven.
|
Absolutely agreed.
| Quote: | Literally, what would be the point - what would be the "meaning" of
living as if life is meaningless? Most people I've heard of who find
life meaningless don't live out/act out this conclusion - they retreat
into immersion in physical pleasure or intellectual pursuits, or
sports mania or drugs and alcohol. I never could follow Camus's
conclusion that life, even with its absurdity and assurance of death,
is still worth living.
My own personal feeling is that without some kind of
transcendental, sacred factor, life is without meaning, although of
course many others don't share my view.
|
To be honest, I am right with you on this one. I find something akin to
atheism to be absurd due to the actual pointlessness it reduces life to. In
an atheistic framework, you are born, (in a body that will undoubtedly crap
out at various points through its hack of a life), you work like a dog to
get a whole bunch of shit that you don't actually need, you suffer a whole
lot of shit all through this process, and then to cap it all, you die. And
all that shit you worked so hard to get stays right here. Why bother? Why
not just stick a barrel in your mouth a pull for all you're worth?
I think that no matter what, life has meaning or at least needs that
meaning. You are right, I am sure, when you say that there needs to be a
transcendental factor to it. However, I still think that it could be soundly
argued that existence is immoral, despite any meaning that may be attached.
--
Mouldy Jester
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:52:50 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
size snip
| Quote: | You're welcome... I find Borg helpful, but then I'm prejudiced
because he was my teacher for a couple of semesters...
The truth emerges. 
|
Yeah, he's a fascinating thinker and speaker...
size snip
| Quote: | Actually what I meant was a false sense of immortality - the kind
that teenagers are purported to have. People don't think that they
could die at any moment - in fact this thought is pushed so far into
the background that it's virtually nonexistent and people live as if
they take life for granted and have any number of tomorrows.
Ah! My apologies for misunderstanding you there. What you say is true. I am
guilty of it myself.
|
No problem... I didn't make myself clear.
| Quote: | On the other hand, even in thos systems
where the meaning attached to this life is greatly reduced, there is
still
some meaning to life. For example, (correct if I am mislead here), in
some
branches of Gnosticism, one lives to liberate and raise sparks of the
divine
light, (Lurianic Kabbalah uses similar language). Despite deep seated
criticism of this world, one's life within it still seems to have some
level
of meaning.
This then brings me back to the previous question of whether living as if
life is meaningless is even possible. (Circles abound).
Anyway, I hope I made sense.
There are some people live as though life is meaningless, but they
make a fetish of living in that way - ya know, the "stoic" stuff where
"It's all just crap, the universe is crap, we're all crap, we come out
of nothing and go back to nothing, but look how brave and tough I am -
I don't let it get to me."
I think then the "stoicism" becomes the meaning of their lives. They will
invariably measure their lives against some standard which will be garnered
from some source, whether it be philosophy or religion or some other. The
fetish then becomes the meaning, or at least, provides the context of
meaning.
|
Yeah, that's the impression I get at least on the newsgroups - a lot
of atheists find their meaning in rebellion and advertising how much
smarter they are than theists. This holds true also for contributors
to The Skeptical Inquirer and its parent org, CSICOP - people
desperately needing to drive what they wish are the final nails into
the coffin of religion.
| Quote: | Other than this affected, egotistic sense
of living life as meaningless, I would think it impossible to do the
real thing for long without sticking your head in the oven.
Absolutely agreed.
Literally, what would be the point - what would be the "meaning" of
living as if life is meaningless? Most people I've heard of who find
life meaningless don't live out/act out this conclusion - they retreat
into immersion in physical pleasure or intellectual pursuits, or
sports mania or drugs and alcohol. I never could follow Camus's
conclusion that life, even with its absurdity and assurance of death,
is still worth living.
My own personal feeling is that without some kind of
transcendental, sacred factor, life is without meaning, although of
course many others don't share my view.
To be honest, I am right with you on this one. I find something akin to
atheism to be absurd due to the actual pointlessness it reduces life to. In
an atheistic framework, you are born, (in a body that will undoubtedly crap
out at various points through its hack of a life), you work like a dog to
get a whole bunch of shit that you don't actually need, you suffer a whole
lot of shit all through this process, and then to cap it all, you die. And
all that shit you worked so hard to get stays right here. Why bother? Why
not just stick a barrel in your mouth a pull for all you're worth?
|
I agree. They substitute meaning for hobby - especially scientific
types like the late science popularizer C. Sagan. Having delineated a
meaningless, godless, soulless universe, they then proceed to lose
themselves in its study - and worse yet, to tell the world how
wonderful their specialties are. That's like studying the bars of a
prison and finding it simply grand.
| Quote: | I think that no matter what, life has meaning or at least needs that
meaning. You are right, I am sure, when you say that there needs to be a
transcendental factor to it. However, I still think that it could be soundly
argued that existence is immoral, despite any meaning that may be attached.
|
I feel the same way. I don't understand those who say they not only
do not need transcendence, but who actually pour disdain on the idea.
And I agree that even with meaning, it is morally questionable to
bring choiceless innocent beings into existence without their
permission.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:002ctv0kkllij14cnl4a8561udgmf525i2@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:52:50 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
|
[snipped again]
| Quote: |
Yeah, that's the impression I get at least on the newsgroups - a lot
of atheists find their meaning in rebellion and advertising how much
smarter they are than theists. This holds true also for contributors
to The Skeptical Inquirer and its parent org, CSICOP - people
desperately needing to drive what they wish are the final nails into
the coffin of religion.
|
And then they get pissed when no one else automatically subscribes to the
"irrefutable logic" of parroted phrases that they picked up on some hack-job
website claiming to prove that God is not real and that square holes are the
final argument.
I am of the opinion that they need to bash deists and religiously motivated
people of all kinds in order to make themselves feel secure and to somehow
justify their own preconceived notions. Sort of like the "bully at school"
thing.
[snipped]
| Quote: |
I agree. They substitute meaning for hobby - especially scientific
types like the late science popularizer C. Sagan. Having delineated a
meaningless, godless, soulless universe, they then proceed to lose
themselves in its study - and worse yet, to tell the world how
wonderful their specialties are. That's like studying the bars of a
prison and finding it simply grand.
|
I can certianly understand that from a Gnostic viewpoint. If you remove even
the Christian idea of God, then nothing has any purpose, really. What I mean
is that every aspect of life has no basis in reality: society, government,
and, in my opinion one of the most consequent, law.
Who are a bunch of dickhead politicians to tell me that killing is wrong??
They could have made an error! Maybe, by killing people, I am doing them a
favour? I mean, this is an extreme example, but I think the underlying
argument holds true, certainly in less extreme examples.
| Quote: | I think that no matter what, life has meaning or at least needs that
meaning. You are right, I am sure, when you say that there needs to be a
transcendental factor to it. However, I still think that it could be
soundly
argued that existence is immoral, despite any meaning that may be
attached.
:-)
I feel the same way. I don't understand those who say they not only
do not need transcendence, but who actually pour disdain on the idea.
And I agree that even with meaning, it is morally questionable to
bring choiceless innocent beings into existence without their
permission.
|
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:57 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:12:08 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
<Noway@getlost.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:002ctv0kkllij14cnl4a8561udgmf525i2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:52:50 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped again]
Yeah, that's the impression I get at least on the newsgroups - a lot
of atheists find their meaning in rebellion and advertising how much
smarter they are than theists. This holds true also for contributors
to The Skeptical Inquirer and its parent org, CSICOP - people
desperately needing to drive what they wish are the final nails into
the coffin of religion.
And then they get pissed when no one else automatically subscribes to the
"irrefutable logic" of parroted phrases that they picked up on some hack-job
website claiming to prove that God is not real and that square holes are the
final argument.
|
Yep, and they also get pissed when it's pointed out to them that
their "knowledge" of religion is misinformed, incomplete, and
antiquated. Many of them are stuck in the 19th century "schools of
religion" notion that Jesus was "only a myth" and that his "myth" is
derived from pagan myths. When pointed out to them that there is good
cross cultural evidence suggesting the plausibility of Jesus, and that
the NT's mythic elements are not pagan, but Jewish, "skeptics"
frequently react with childish tantrums and loopy "logic". The world
needs to conform to their biases, or else.
| Quote: | I am of the opinion that they need to bash deists and religiously motivated
people of all kinds in order to make themselves feel secure and to somehow
justify their own preconceived notions. Sort of like the "bully at school"
thing.
|
Yeah. Even the ones who have legitimate critiques of religion too
often couch their criticism in terms of adolescent rebellion and false
superiority.
| Quote: | [snipped]
I agree. They substitute meaning for hobby - especially scientific
types like the late science popularizer C. Sagan. Having delineated a
meaningless, godless, soulless universe, they then proceed to lose
themselves in its study - and worse yet, to tell the world how
wonderful their specialties are. That's like studying the bars of a
prison and finding it simply grand.
I can certianly understand that from a Gnostic viewpoint. If you remove even
the Christian idea of God, then nothing has any purpose, really. What I mean
is that every aspect of life has no basis in reality: society, government,
and, in my opinion one of the most consequent, law.
Who are a bunch of dickhead politicians to tell me that killing is wrong??
They could have made an error! Maybe, by killing people, I am doing them a
favour? I mean, this is an extreme example, but I think the underlying
argument holds true, certainly in less extreme examples.
|
Well, this is the primary issue that turned me away from a former
ally calling himself "Christian Mystic". He lays the welfare of the
nation (the U.S. and Israel) with "God's will". For him, the
politicians who tell us to kill people are doing God's will because
they are on the side of "God's two favorite countries", the U.S. and
Israel. All in complete ignorance of the prophetic biblical principle
that all too often the welfare of the nation _is_ in doing God's will
- and this means _rejecting_ the will of politicians, kings,
priests, and what cultural consensus thinks is the "right thing".
(snip old stuff)
- pl - |
|
