I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We have had two graduations and a lot of other stuff going on that has taken up a lot of my time. I went to your blog, but realized that you might not read this if I posted it to the original string and it was inappropriate to comment to anything else so I just thought I would take it off-line.
I have pondered the conversation to this point and I have tried to figure out what exactly would be the best course to take. I propose again that we are dealing with the details and missing the real issue:
What I am trying to address is not proof and evidence of God as much as a more fundamental question; that being ‘the meaning of life’. Obviously, this is no trivial question as it has occupied man for thousands of years. It seems that there are two basic views:
1. All of this – the physical universe, is simply the accumulation of atoms and molecules into an orderly form, that sprang from ‘the singularity, played upon by external forces and manipulated through trial and error into the various and changing forms that we have today. There is no external force that is guiding this process. It is random. Life on some other planet(s) may be totally different in it’s basic structure and behavior. Our existence is simply the result of all of this interplay and there is no real ‘reason’ behind it. The cold, sterile laws of nature are the only ‘force’ at work, and they are oblivious to us, and our search for understanding. Science is continually coming up with new theories to explain the questions of the origin of the universe and everything in it. We are simply the highest form that has evolved and there will supposedly be higher forms that will evolve from us. The current model is string theory which would suggest that there are infinite parallel universes that exist in which every possible scenario is being played out at the same time as this one. There is no limit to the number of universes and the form they take.
The only thing that is missing is an answer to why, not how. Is there a reason for this? Are we just organized molecules and chemical reactions? Is emotion nothing more than the sparks of electricity in a brain that has evolved over millions of years as a survival mechanism? What makes us different from the other life forms that inhabit the earth? How is it that we are the only species that contemplates it’s own existence? It is true that other animals have emotion – they grieve the loss of a mate, and feel fear and in some cases demonstrate a rudimentary form of love, or affection. They can learn and develop ways to interact with their environment to benefit them, but they never contemplate their existence. They never wonder about their universe and their place in it.
I look at this scenario and must conclude that there is no meaning to life beyond the simple activity of functioning within the parameters that I am given within the universe I inhabit. All I can do is choose to explore my universe and try and understand how it works. Beyond that, there is no higher meaning. Knowledge of how it works is the highest goal. There is no reason to ask ‘why’ I exist, and if there is something beyond this (other than the other universes that spring into being every moment as the strings undulate and collide in the quantum soup), or if all of this has some higher purpose. There obviously isn’t anything more, and I will live until I die and that is it. The most I can attain to while I am here is to better myself through knowledge and understanding of this existence, and try to leave something to those who follow to build on. Life is nothing more than awareness of my existence until I cease to exist. Knowledge gained through science and ones own intellectual reasoning are what one must hold onto, because that is all there is to try and understand the universe. It becomes the ultimate end and reason for life. Emotion is a waste and detracts from the reasoning. (Spock was really well suited for this universe.)
The one who holds this point of view will always come to the question of the meaning of life and specifically, the question of whether there is a God, and demand proof and evidence. Since, as I have already stated, it is impossible to prove the existence of God, then you will never find him through your reasoned search, and requests for evidence from those who do believe. That is why we hold out to you the idea of faith. God says that without it, it is impossible to please Him. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. The only problem with our argument is that you want proof before you can exercise faith. There is none I can offer you beyond what I have proffered in previous correspondence, which you have dismissed as poor logic and myth. Faith only comes into play when you look for the reason behind everything and want the answer to ‘why do I exist’, and is there something more than what I can perceive with my intellect and senses?
If this, in fact is the ‘truth’, then why bother wondering about God? Just enjoy what you can, while you can. Take what you can get and don’t look back. This is it! Stop worrying about whether or not there is a God. It serves no purpose. Live your life and make the most of your time here. To try and find God through this method is like trying to paint air.
2. On the other hand, I am one who holds onto the idea that this isn’t just the interplay of atoms, chemical reactions and mindless natural laws. I believe that there is something more to all of this. I cannot ignore the question of why. I want to know the answer to the meaning of life. Science has no way to answer that question. It is totally outside the realm of the sciences to even formulate a hypothesis that could be tested to grapple with this question. That is the real dilemma, isn't it? You can look to all the evidence, study all the theories and formulas, and you won’t find an answer to why. Why are we here? Why is it that we are the only creature who can question his own existence? Why is it we are the only creatures that contemplate spiritual things? Why do we grieve so heavily the loss of someone and long to believe there is something more and better beyond this? Why are we the only creatures that create art in an attempt to convey something more than the piece itself because we are firmly convinced that there is something more than atoms floating in space? Why do we want to manipulate the material world to our betterment, and fashion philosophical debates about the world, the universe and everything. Why are we the only creatures that can speak in analogy and allegory and insight and find deeper meaning in doing so? Why are we the only ones who use humor and insult? Why do we create poetry? Why do we feel remorse, contemplate forgiveness, speak of love and compassion. Why are we the only ones that want to believe there is something more to all of this then filling a brief moment in time with our individual collection of molecules? Why are we so driven to find other ‘life’ in the vastness of space? Why are we the only creatures that will engage in the conversation you and I are having? I believe it is because we are inherently wanting to regain something we lost – and what we lost was the answer to the reason why. It is only in answering that question that life finds deeper, more satisfying meaning, and will ever make sense. (To make sense as in seeing it as part of the whole, not just understanding the workings of it.)
We lost it when we chose to believe that we could be like God, knowing good and evil. It happened when our desire to ‘know’, became more important than knowing the one who satisfied our every need and walked with us in the garden in unhindered fellowship that was completely satisfying and fulfilling. We chose to reject the source of life and the one who gives it meaning and purpose, and thought we could do without Him, or equal with Him. He is the answer to why, not just how. The meaning of life isn’t found in understanding the universe in which we live, but knowing the one who made it, and us.
Jesus is the way back to who we were always meant to be and to regain the relationship that gives life meaning and purpose. You can only grapple with that ‘truth’ when you choose to stop looking to yourself, your intellect, and science and man for the answers that only God can provide. Faith is the doorway to the meaning of life.
So you have to decide what you really want. Are you interested in the how or the why? Do you want to simply understand the universe you inhabit, choosing to reject that which cannot, by its very nature, be quantified and verified by intellectual study and scientific method? Or do you want to know the meaning of and the reason for life and specifically your own? That will shape the quest you are on to know the truth. It will determine how you will live. So which one is it, Kevin?
If you choose the former – I can’t help you much other than to wish you a good life while it lasts.
If you choose the latter, we may have something more to talk about.
(Feel free to post this if you want those who may have been following our discussion to catch up.)
I’m sorry, but as I read your email I can’t help but wonder if you even read my responses. You’ve chosen to change your base to what, I think, is a much harder-to-defend position, and then to support it, you bring up the same arguments as before. One’s I have addressed. Yet you don’t bring any rebuttal to my arguments that – the testimony of Jesus in the Bible is unreliable, knowledge that is by definition outside understanding is nonsensical to us, to begin with the assumption that a knowable God exists is less probable than the alternative, etc. I feel almost inclined to just copy and paste pieces of my previous posts and ask, “Did you miss this the first time?”
I understand that if you’re still holding the position you are, you obviously disagree with me, but the question is WHY do you disagree? Are my answers flawed or inadequate? This is the way to have a productive conversation. If my arguments are sound then the conclusions derived from them are worth consideration. Ignoring them is a path only for blind dogma.
To your post then. I think this will be shorter than my other responses as you don’t raise many new points.
“You can look to all the evidence, study all the theories and formulas, and you won’t find an answer to why. Why are we here?”
“I believe that there is something more to all of this.”
“I believe it is because we are inherently wanting to regain something we lost – and what we lost was the answer to the reason why. It is only in answering that question that life finds deeper, more satisfying meaning, and will ever make sense.”
It is succinct as it is inadequate, I think, for two reasons.
1: You demand that life has an answer to why beyond what is apparent – as in, you are here BECAUSE the nature of life is to reproduce and further itself. It is through that process that you were created and by that process that you are defined.
But you demand that there be more than this. You give no reason why this should be so, why we must be more than “atoms and molecules into an orderly form.” You simply state that we are. And you claim to come to this conclusion BEFORE encountering God’s “revelation.”
“Faith only comes into play when you look for the reason behind everything and want the answer to ‘why do I exist’, and is there something more than what I can perceive with my intellect and senses?”
You’ve decided there must be an answer to the why, and yet such an answer is not available to the senses or to the rational mind, apparently, so you leap to the conclusion, like the guy in Office Space. I’m tempted again to copy and paste from my previous posts, but I won’t, I’ll just state again.
What is faith if not the license you give yourself to say something is true when you have no reason to think it is? You said: “The only problem with our argument is that you want proof before you can exercise faith.” As though I have a choice in the matter, or that this is out of place in an argument. Are you able to say you “know” things to be true even if you haven’t been convinced they are by reason? I’ve shown the reasons given to be poor logic is because they are. I’m not making this up or defining logic in a new way. Subjective experience is not a reliable source for information about the outside world – you recognize this in every arena but your religion. Adding variables to an equation after the equation is already balanced makes the entire proposition less likely (you believe the milk in your refrigerator came from a cow, not a cow plus an invisible milk-guardian dwarf) – you recognize this in every arena but your religion. Ancient books that make fantastical, magical claims should not be taken at face value. – you recognize this in every arena but your religion.
2: Even if Christianity provides a comfort that “makes sense” of the “why,” that does not make it one bit more likely. For all the comfort and peace of mind systems of faith produce, it doesn’t add to their likelihood.
I could say that there are alien souls that live in your brain and make you think bad thoughts. In order to get rid of these, you have to take classes and focus your mental energy on positivity. And I’m sure I could develop classes and exercises that would relieve mental stress, and make people feel more confident and productive, and maybe they’d go on to do great things for humanity. Does this mean there were really alien souls in their brain? Of course not! And I’m sure you agree me in saying the scientologists are bonkers for believing this stuff. But what does it do for them? It lets them make sense of the world. Does this make it more likely? Of course not. All it does is show that activities of the mind (prayer, meditation, positive reinforcement) produce results in the same mind.
So, as we see, the argument that Christianity answers the “why” is a non-argument. Even if it didn’t have the kaleidoscope of other religions and answers to the “why” to compete with, even if it was the only one in the world, it doesn’t make it more likely. We derive the why from the how, when, where, etc. Why is this rock here? Because it was formed by cooling magma, worn by erosion, and rolled here by the wind. To demand a higher meaning from it is to invent a different world we have no reason to assume in the first place.
Because, of course, that’s the real issue. It’s not “Is there a God,” or “Is there a Higher Meaning,” it’s, how can we know if there is a God or is a higher meaning? As I’ve already said, reason or revelation has to pass thru your gray matter. I think that you are applying reason, in a way. You see a prayer answered favorably as a confirmation of God. You see a specific old text as a confirmation of God. You see this specific method of relieving your desire to know “why” as a confirmation of God. You see the feelings invoked in you at certain times or as certain activities as confirmations of God. Am I missing anything?
As far as I can tell, faith is either 1: using these reasons to conclude God exists, or 2: simply deciding God exists despite reasons. “Faith is the evidence of things unseen.” No, Randy, I’m sorry. Faith is evidence of nothing. The day that you can say you believe something – therefore it exists – is the day when 2+2=5 and that’s double plus good. If you subscribe to the 2nd definition of faith, then this conversation is obviously pointless and anything can be true if you decide that it is. If you ascribe to the first definition of faith, then the evidence is in the evidence and the reasons, and should stand or fall whether you believe it or not. That’s what we’ve been talking about, and what I have been examining.
So I am curious as to what you really mean when you say “faith.” When someone says, “I believe in God.” I say “Why?” They say, “It’s based on faith.” I say, “You mean you don’t have a reason you believe it?” They say, “No, it’s based on faith.” I don’t even understand what that means. If it’s because of special revelation, you felt God’s presence, or “I should have died so many times, there must be a God,” we can look at that, examine it, and subject it to all the rigors we would any other proposition. If there are no reasons behind it, and yet you claim it’s somehow different from madness, I do not understand what you mean by faith.
2 comments:
Kevin,
I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We have had two graduations and a lot of other stuff going on that has taken up a lot of my time. I went to your blog, but realized that you might not read this if I posted it to the original string and it was inappropriate to comment to anything else so I just thought I would take it off-line.
I have pondered the conversation to this point and I have tried to figure out what exactly would be the best course to take. I propose again that we are dealing with the details and missing the real issue:
What I am trying to address is not proof and evidence of God as much as a more fundamental question; that being ‘the meaning of life’. Obviously, this is no trivial question as it has occupied man for thousands of years. It seems that there are two basic views:
1. All of this – the physical universe, is simply the accumulation of atoms and molecules into an orderly form, that sprang from ‘the singularity, played upon by external forces and manipulated through trial and error into the various and changing forms that we have today. There is no external force that is guiding this process. It is random. Life on some other planet(s) may be totally different in it’s basic structure and behavior. Our existence is simply the result of all of this interplay and there is no real ‘reason’ behind it. The cold, sterile laws of nature are the only ‘force’ at work, and they are oblivious to us, and our search for understanding.
Science is continually coming up with new theories to explain the questions of the origin of the universe and everything in it. We are simply the highest form that has evolved and there will supposedly be higher forms that will evolve from us. The current model is string theory which would suggest that there are infinite parallel universes that exist in which every possible scenario is being played out at the same time as this one. There is no limit to the number of universes and the form they take.
The only thing that is missing is an answer to why, not how. Is there a reason for this? Are we just organized molecules and chemical reactions? Is emotion nothing more than the sparks of electricity in a brain that has evolved over millions of years as a survival mechanism? What makes us different from the other life forms that inhabit the earth? How is it that we are the only species that contemplates it’s own existence? It is true that other animals have emotion – they grieve the loss of a mate, and feel fear and in some cases demonstrate a rudimentary form of love, or affection. They can learn and develop ways to interact with their environment to benefit them, but they never contemplate their existence. They never wonder about their universe and their place in it.
I look at this scenario and must conclude that there is no meaning to life beyond the simple activity of functioning within the parameters that I am given within the universe I inhabit. All I can do is choose to explore my universe and try and understand how it works. Beyond that, there is no higher meaning. Knowledge of how it works is the highest goal. There is no reason to ask ‘why’ I exist, and if there is something beyond this (other than the other universes that spring into being every moment as the strings undulate and collide in the quantum soup), or if all of this has some higher purpose. There obviously isn’t anything more, and I will live until I die and that is it. The most I can attain to while I am here is to better myself through knowledge and understanding of this existence, and try to leave something to those who follow to build on. Life is nothing more than awareness of my existence until I cease to exist. Knowledge gained through science and ones own intellectual reasoning are what one must hold onto, because that is all there is to try and understand the universe. It becomes the ultimate end and reason for life. Emotion is a waste and detracts from the reasoning. (Spock was really well suited for this universe.)
The one who holds this point of view will always come to the question of the meaning of life and specifically, the question of whether there is a God, and demand proof and evidence. Since, as I have already stated, it is impossible to prove the existence of God, then you will never find him through your reasoned search, and requests for evidence from those who do believe. That is why we hold out to you the idea of faith. God says that without it, it is impossible to please Him. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. The only problem with our argument is that you want proof before you can exercise faith. There is none I can offer you beyond what I have proffered in previous correspondence, which you have dismissed as poor logic and myth. Faith only comes into play when you look for the reason behind everything and want the answer to ‘why do I exist’, and is there something more than what I can perceive with my intellect and senses?
If this, in fact is the ‘truth’, then why bother wondering about God? Just enjoy what you can, while you can. Take what you can get and don’t look back. This is it! Stop worrying about whether or not there is a God. It serves no purpose. Live your life and make the most of your time here. To try and find God through this method is like trying to paint air.
2. On the other hand, I am one who holds onto the idea that this isn’t just the interplay of atoms, chemical reactions and mindless natural laws. I believe that there is something more to all of this. I cannot ignore the question of why. I want to know the answer to the meaning of life. Science has no way to answer that question. It is totally outside the realm of the sciences to even formulate a hypothesis that could be tested to grapple with this question. That is the real dilemma, isn't it? You can look to all the evidence, study all the theories and formulas, and you won’t find an answer to why. Why are we here?
Why is it that we are the only creature who can question his own existence? Why is it we are the only creatures that contemplate spiritual things? Why do we grieve so heavily the loss of someone and long to believe there is something more and better beyond this? Why are we the only creatures that create art in an attempt to convey something more than the piece itself because we are firmly convinced that there is something more than atoms floating in space? Why do we want to manipulate the material world to our betterment, and fashion philosophical debates about the world, the universe and everything. Why are we the only creatures that can speak in analogy and allegory and insight and find deeper meaning in doing so? Why are we the only ones who use humor and insult? Why do we create poetry? Why do we feel remorse, contemplate forgiveness, speak of love and compassion. Why are we the only ones that want to believe there is something more to all of this then filling a brief moment in time with our individual collection of molecules? Why are we so driven to find other ‘life’ in the vastness of space? Why are we the only creatures that will engage in the conversation you and I are having? I believe it is because we are inherently wanting to regain something we lost – and what we lost was the answer to the reason why. It is only in answering that question that life finds deeper, more satisfying meaning, and will ever make sense. (To make sense as in seeing it as part of the whole, not just understanding the workings of it.)
We lost it when we chose to believe that we could be like God, knowing good and evil. It happened when our desire to ‘know’, became more important than knowing the one who satisfied our every need and walked with us in the garden in unhindered fellowship that was completely satisfying and fulfilling. We chose to reject the source of life and the one who gives it meaning and purpose, and thought we could do without Him, or equal with Him. He is the answer to why, not just how. The meaning of life isn’t found in understanding the universe in which we live, but knowing the one who made it, and us.
Jesus is the way back to who we were always meant to be and to regain the relationship that gives life meaning and purpose. You can only grapple with that ‘truth’ when you choose to stop looking to yourself, your intellect, and science and man for the answers that only God can provide. Faith is the doorway to the meaning of life.
So you have to decide what you really want. Are you interested in the how or the why? Do you want to simply understand the universe you inhabit, choosing to reject that which cannot, by its very nature, be quantified and verified by intellectual study and scientific method? Or do you want to know the meaning of and the reason for life and specifically your own? That will shape the quest you are on to know the truth. It will determine how you will live. So which one is it, Kevin?
If you choose the former – I can’t help you much other than to wish you a good life while it lasts.
If you choose the latter, we may have something more to talk about.
(Feel free to post this if you want those who may have been following our discussion to catch up.)
Your friend,
Randy
Randy,
I’m sorry, but as I read your email I can’t help but wonder if you even read my responses. You’ve chosen to change your base to what, I think, is a much harder-to-defend position, and then to support it, you bring up the same arguments as before. One’s I have addressed. Yet you don’t bring any rebuttal to my arguments that – the testimony of Jesus in the Bible is unreliable, knowledge that is by definition outside understanding is nonsensical to us, to begin with the assumption that a knowable God exists is less probable than the alternative, etc. I feel almost inclined to just copy and paste pieces of my previous posts and ask, “Did you miss this the first time?”
I understand that if you’re still holding the position you are, you obviously disagree with me, but the question is WHY do you disagree? Are my answers flawed or inadequate? This is the way to have a productive conversation. If my arguments are sound then the conclusions derived from them are worth consideration. Ignoring them is a path only for blind dogma.
To your post then. I think this will be shorter than my other responses as you don’t raise many new points.
“You can look to all the evidence, study all the theories and formulas, and you won’t find an answer to why. Why are we here?”
“I believe that there is something more to all of this.”
“I believe it is because we are inherently wanting to regain something we lost – and what we lost was the answer to the reason why. It is only in answering that question that life finds deeper, more satisfying meaning, and will ever make sense.”
It is succinct as it is inadequate, I think, for two reasons.
1: You demand that life has an answer to why beyond what is apparent – as in, you are here BECAUSE the nature of life is to reproduce and further itself. It is through that process that you were created and by that process that you are defined.
But you demand that there be more than this. You give no reason why this should be so, why we must be more than “atoms and molecules into an orderly form.” You simply state that we are. And you claim to come to this conclusion BEFORE encountering God’s “revelation.”
“Faith only comes into play when you look for the reason behind everything and want the answer to ‘why do I exist’, and is there something more than what I can perceive with my intellect and senses?”
You’ve decided there must be an answer to the why, and yet such an answer is not available to the senses or to the rational mind, apparently, so you leap to the conclusion, like the guy in Office Space. I’m tempted again to copy and paste from my previous posts, but I won’t, I’ll just state again.
What is faith if not the license you give yourself to say something is true when you have no reason to think it is? You said: “The only problem with our argument is that you want proof before you can exercise faith.” As though I have a choice in the matter, or that this is out of place in an argument. Are you able to say you “know” things to be true even if you haven’t been convinced they are by reason? I’ve shown the reasons given to be poor logic is because they are. I’m not making this up or defining logic in a new way. Subjective experience is not a reliable source for information about the outside world – you recognize this in every arena but your religion. Adding variables to an equation after the equation is already balanced makes the entire proposition less likely (you believe the milk in your refrigerator came from a cow, not a cow plus an invisible milk-guardian dwarf) – you recognize this in every arena but your religion. Ancient books that make fantastical, magical claims should not be taken at face value. – you recognize this in every arena but your religion.
2: Even if Christianity provides a comfort that “makes sense” of the “why,” that does not make it one bit more likely. For all the comfort and peace of mind systems of faith produce, it doesn’t add to their likelihood.
I could say that there are alien souls that live in your brain and make you think bad thoughts. In order to get rid of these, you have to take classes and focus your mental energy on positivity. And I’m sure I could develop classes and exercises that would relieve mental stress, and make people feel more confident and productive, and maybe they’d go on to do great things for humanity. Does this mean there were really alien souls in their brain? Of course not! And I’m sure you agree me in saying the scientologists are bonkers for believing this stuff. But what does it do for them? It lets them make sense of the world. Does this make it more likely? Of course not. All it does is show that activities of the mind (prayer, meditation, positive reinforcement) produce results in the same mind.
So, as we see, the argument that Christianity answers the “why” is a non-argument. Even if it didn’t have the kaleidoscope of other religions and answers to the “why” to compete with, even if it was the only one in the world, it doesn’t make it more likely. We derive the why from the how, when, where, etc. Why is this rock here? Because it was formed by cooling magma, worn by erosion, and rolled here by the wind. To demand a higher meaning from it is to invent a different world we have no reason to assume in the first place.
Because, of course, that’s the real issue. It’s not “Is there a God,” or “Is there a Higher Meaning,” it’s, how can we know if there is a God or is a higher meaning? As I’ve already said, reason or revelation has to pass thru your gray matter. I think that you are applying reason, in a way. You see a prayer answered favorably as a confirmation of God. You see a specific old text as a confirmation of God. You see this specific method of relieving your desire to know “why” as a confirmation of God. You see the feelings invoked in you at certain times or as certain activities as confirmations of God. Am I missing anything?
As far as I can tell, faith is either 1: using these reasons to conclude God exists, or 2: simply deciding God exists despite reasons. “Faith is the evidence of things unseen.” No, Randy, I’m sorry. Faith is evidence of nothing. The day that you can say you believe something – therefore it exists – is the day when 2+2=5 and that’s double plus good. If you subscribe to the 2nd definition of faith, then this conversation is obviously pointless and anything can be true if you decide that it is. If you ascribe to the first definition of faith, then the evidence is in the evidence and the reasons, and should stand or fall whether you believe it or not. That’s what we’ve been talking about, and what I have been examining.
So I am curious as to what you really mean when you say “faith.” When someone says, “I believe in God.” I say “Why?” They say, “It’s based on faith.” I say, “You mean you don’t have a reason you believe it?” They say, “No, it’s based on faith.” I don’t even understand what that means. If it’s because of special revelation, you felt God’s presence, or “I should have died so many times, there must be a God,” we can look at that, examine it, and subject it to all the rigors we would any other proposition. If there are no reasons behind it, and yet you claim it’s somehow different from madness, I do not understand what you mean by faith.
Post a Comment