(Note added after rest of post: If you can't be bothered reading my ramblings, my essential points are summarised at the end, as briefly as I can. If they seem unclear, try reading the parts of the ramble that relate, if you wish.)
Quote:
Originally posted by TIO
Lerre, you're missing my point. I don't believe in Atheism because it makes me comfortable. Believing that I have some idea about how the universe works makes me comfortable; I would get the same comfort in Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. I believe in Atheism because I think it is the truth. I bother to believe in anything because that makes me comfortable.
|
As an aside, it's not an L, it's an i, like the personal pronoun. My name ierre il, not king Lerre the second, means angry hedgehog in Old English, and is entirely irrelevant to our discussion.
I think perhaps you might also be comfortable with the belief that nothing can truly fall within the field of your understanding, which is more likely to be true. "I know that I know nothing"?
Quote:
Originally posted by TIO
As for the Great Scheme of Things; I believe that there is no Great Scheme of Things. Don't you think that belief pretty clearly defines what role I may or may not have in the GSoT?
|
In other words, none whatsoever. Thanks for clarifying.
Quote:
Originally posted by TLA
And as to the moral code and unmeaning (nice word!): I believe that there is no absolute meaning, no absolute right or wrong. But from there, I have come to the conclusion that if my life means nothing to The Universe, then I'd best start making sure that my life is meaningful to myself and everyone around me. So I build myself an artifical moral code, and a sense of right and wrong, which helps me to live my life in a way which may end up having some subjective meaning.
|
But subjective meaning is no meaning at all. I could call myself a tortoise, wander around the city believing I carry the world on my back, and attach to it meaning. I could attach to it all the meaning I have at my disposal. Does that mean ANYTHING in
objective terms? No. Is there any point to it? No. If there is no objective meaning, and you try to convince yourself of your own subjective meaning, you are no less living in a fantasy than I would be if I took up my shell and headed for Central.
On the point of Atheism and Agnosticism, I think it's a fascinating distinction... While niether outright believes in God, Agnostics acknowledge that they know nothing, which is a nice start if you are going to learn anything, be it philosophy, metaphysics, science, ballet, whatever. If you think about it, it is an entirely philosophically indefensible position to hold that something absolutely does not exist, anywhere, unless it can be proved to be inherently self-contradictory (purple invisibility, anyone? =P). Maybe it is equally foolish to believe that something DOES exist, and it certainly is if one has no knowledge on the subject. Agnosticism would seem to be the best position to hold. An agnostic that is trying to find out more, even better. If they are truly looking, they can't find what isn't there, and if they do find it, they have found the only thing that can last... we all know physical stuff goes pretty quick. I would say devoting one's life to trying to find out if there is anything more would be the best way to spend it. If you find nothing, and die, and have achieved nothing in your life, so what? NOONE achieves anything in their life,
objectively, if there is nothing but stuff. If you do find something, and it is something that really exists, that is the ONLY way they can achieve anything. Jesus stated it something like this (I'm not asking you to take this on authority because it's Jesus, that would assume my conclusion. I'm just giving you another way of putting it.): "The kingdom of God [the spiritual world, God, that which is more lasting than the physical world] is like a buried treasure in a field. If a man finds that treasure, he will go away and sell all he owns to buy the field." In the context I'm giving it, 'all he owns' may definitely be interpretted as far higher than it is. It's more like all he has is a similar field, perhaps a little larger, but growing nothing... just a dry, dusty patch of earth, from which he can gain nothing but the knowledge it is his. Then he swaps that for the very similar one with the treasure. I'm not entirely sure why I quoted this parable... it seemed appropriate at the time... but perhaps it gives you another way of visualising what I'm saying. You don't have anything to lose in this world, because you'll lose it all anyway. You may as well look around to see if theres something you can keep.
To sum up my rambles, which have a tendency to bury their own treasure (or at least, points) very deeply in manure,
1) You got my name wrong =P
2) You can make up any subjective meaning you want, if it makes you feel better. It's still an illusion.
3) Agnostics don't build up the illusion of believing they can disprove the existence of something, and are hence closer to the truth than atheists. They may also be closer to the truth than theists, but this is yet to be proved.
4) This life is meaningless. There might be more, and you CANNOT prove beyond doubt there isn't. You may as well look, and give all you have in looking if necessary, because eventually you will lose it all anyway.
5) If there is something more, it's worth finding, and if you sit in your comfortable atheism all your life, you will miss it, and lose the only thing you could have kept.
Summary of my summary:
You can't know there is nothing "out there", you CAN know there is nothing here. It is not folly to give what you cannot keep to obtain what you cannot lose.