Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

> Rape and torture are not necessary for heroism, but heroism by definition requires a desperate situation that is overcome by courageous goodness and the willingness to sacrifice for another.

Sure, but that's different. A family can provide for each other without the existence of a slip into depravity.

[Book Mitten]

That's fine, but I'm not sure this answers my point. I'm using it as an example of God displaying himself to a large number of people, to show that there's no issue with him doing so. Therefore I'd argue that it's not unreasonable for an appearance of him today to be a criteria for me believing he is real.

[jimwalton]

We weren't talking about God displaying Himself to a large number of people. I (nor God or Jesus) have no qualms with that. The question on the table is whether God does such things for show or to conform to our demands. This miracle was one of the most significant things Jesus did to reveal His identity, and it is filled with rich symbolism. It has virtually nothing in common with God responding to a science experiment we set up to demand evidence.

> Therefore I'd argue that it's not unreasonable for an appearance of him today to be a criteria for me believing he is real.

I guess the question is whether or not you would believe your eyes and brain, or would you doubt the authenticity of that experience and phenomenon?

[Book Mitten]

> I question the deity of a "god" who is still becoming and must overcome previous iterations or a circumstantial ontological identity.

This is why definitions are important. I would find such a conception of God more easy to respect than a God that claims to be perfect but has the issues I object to, stated earlier.

> Our view is necessarily personal and not universal.

How is God's different in that respect?

> we don't have a deep enough understanding of all the causes and effects at play to be able to assess what the conflicts at issue are, let alone what the whole picture looks like.

Sorry to be brash, but doesn't this argument essentially boil down to "you are not omniscient, so don't ever question anything God does or make judgements about anything". ?

I don't agree with this. We may not be omniscient, but that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable guesses. I could just as well ask what makes you think you can judge with certainty that there is this "bigger picture" in the first place, or that you are correct on the matter of God.

[jimwalton]

> How is God's different in that respect?

Because He is omniscient and omnipresent.

> but doesn't this argument essentially boil down to "you are not omniscient, so don't ever question anything God does or make judgements about anything". ?

No. We are always welcome to question; it's how we learn. But it only makes sense for us to recognize the limitations of (1) human knowledge, and (2) our personal knowledge. If we were to make a list of all possible disciplines of knowledge (astronomy, biology, chemistry, literature, law, philosophy, physics, etc etc etc), all of us would quickly and readily admit that our personal knowledge was minuscule in comparison to all knowledge. Given that unarguable reality, we have to be cautious in drawing conclusions in areas (such as metaphysics and spiritual matters) where our knowledge is even smaller than in the natural sciences. I just ask for tempered humility rather than brash confidence (and condemnation of God).

> We may not be omniscient, but that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable guesses.

Oh, I agree very strongly. It's what science, philosophy, theology, and a host of others are about. We study, measure, evaluate, reason, hypothesize, and draw conclusions. But we have to follow the evidence where it leads. When we make reasonable guesses about the natural world, weighing hypotheses of explanation, even if you consider the intrinsic probability of theism to be low, it is still significantly greater than any other hypothesis on the table, unless you a priori dismiss the possibility of God. It's the evidence that leads me to the conclusion of God. People are personal. Even though you think it's a weak case, it's still more plausible that personality came from a personal source than an impersonal one. The same with teleology, morality, causality, and ontology. There is a natural connection between theism and what we see (order, regularity, purpose, power, laws, beauty, etc.). Theism has sufficient prior probability, explanatory power, and simplicity of explanation. Naturalism's case is weaker (that order came from disorder, personality from the impersonal, etc.). The intrinsic probability of theism is, relative to other explanations, high. That's what makes me a theist.

> I could just as well ask what makes you think you can judge with certainty that there is this "bigger picture" in the first place,

So much around us seems invested with purpose. Science is even based on the "why" query. "What's the reason? We know there is more to life than just ourselves because we are part of a big, purposeful, beautiful world. We know there is more than just this world because the Hubble telescope allows us to peer into the reaches of space with wonder and questions. Interestingly enough, it seems to be common to humanity to wonder why we are here, what life is about, and if there's more to life than just survival living and then dying. The bigger picture is unarguably there.

[Book Mitten]

> I guess the question is whether or not you would believe your eyes and brain, or would you doubt the authenticity of that experience and phenomenon?

There's always reason for a certain amount of doubt, but I also have a tendency to lean towards believing certain things and not others. I also can't step outside my eyes and brain, so my experience (including experience of knowledge and reality etc) are all I have to go on epistemologically.

[Book Mitten]

>The bigger picture is unarguably there.

I don't dispute this. All I'm saying is that certain things don't need to exist in order for the bigger picture to be beautiful.

> Interestingly enough, it seems to be common to humanity to wonder why we are here, what life is about

I don't think life needs "meaning" in order to have value. Life IS the meaning, I think.

> if there's more to life than just survival living and then dying.

There is. There's flourishing, eudaimonia, relationships with family and friends etc, creativity, and so forth. There's people that don't get to experience these things in life however due to them being enslaved, oppressed, diseased, and more. That's what makes me doubt.

> So much around us seems invested with purpose. Science is even based on the "why" query. "What's the reason?

I think there's a difference between reason and cause, and I think they sometimes get mixed up. I don't think life needs a purpose as a wholesome experience of thriving, creating, and so on. The purpose of a fork is to get food. The purpose of food is to help you live. Living is THE purpose on the whole.

> I just ask for tempered humility rather than brash confidence (and condemnation of God).

If it is brash confidence to be indignant at certain people's freedoms being taken away (those who are trafficked etc) then yes I'm brash. I don't demand a utopia where everything is at a constant state of ease. That's what some people hoping for heaven demand. I just demand a world where the horrible stuff isn't there.

[jimwalton]

If I'm reading you right, you believe that life has meaning because we give it meaning or perceive it as having meaning. I guess I would say that isn't meaning, but rather attribution. We can attribute to life whatever we wish, but its subjectivity is its demise. Hitler attributed "meaning" in life with Aryan supremacy and the murder of handicapped people and Jews, and the deprecation of blacks. (I know. Hitler is always the extreme negative example.) I have to honestly ask, "Was his life THE meaning?" Some people spend their lives accumulating as much wealth as possible. Some attribute value to as many sexual encounters as possible, or a life of unmitigated partying and wildness. You may claim those count—whatever feeds your fire is the meaning for you, but I would claim those are all misdirections that don't truly result in meaning.

I also agree that there's a difference between reason and cause, and I think science looks for both: what caused it and why?

> Living is THE purpose on the whole.

Where is that taking you? To what greater picture? To what noble end? And if the end isn't noble, is it really meaning?

> If it is brash confidence to be indignant at certain people's freedoms being taken away (those who are trafficked etc) then yes I'm brash.

Oh, me too. That's not what I'm talking about.

> I don't demand a utopia where everything is at a constant state of ease.

Yeah, me either.

> That's what some people hoping for heaven demand (a life of ease)

That's not the biblical picture of heaven.

[Book Mitten]

> That's not the biblical picture of heaven.

Really? Could you expand on your idea of how it's depicted? I'm not being lazy here, I ask because of there being so many interpretations.

> If I'm reading you right, you believe that life has meaning because we give it meaning or perceive it as having meaning.

It's more that we experience life as valuable, not that we create meaning out of thin air as such.

> Hitler attributed "meaning" in life with Aryan supremacy and the murder of handicapped people and Jews, and the deprecation of blacks.

Hitler was objectively bad. I don't care if anyone says something to the contrary. They're wrong. Often people debating these kind of topics with me will say "What if someone has a different opinion on what is moral to you? How could you say they're wrong?". I answer "easy, they cause harm". By harm I mean a depreciation of being. Someone might theoretically disagree, but in practice, most people don't want to be harmed unless (in cases of guilt, masochism, etc) some kind of previous defect has occurred.

> Oh, me too. That's not what I'm talking about.

Ok. Could you expand? Again, sorry if this is frustrating. I just don't want to misinterpret you.

> Where is that taking you? To what greater picture? To what noble end? And if the end isn't noble, is it really meaning?

I don't see life as taking me anywhere. Life itself is the where. A good life is the place I want to be at.

> I also agree that there's a difference between reason and cause, and I think science looks for both: what caused it and why?

We will need to get back to this, but a point I'd raise is that some demand a reason when it is in fact about cause, and vice versa.

> Some people spend their lives accumulating as much wealth as possible. Some attribute value to as many sexual encounters as possible, or a life of unmitigated partying and wildness.

I'm not a hedonist in this sense. I don't look down upon people doing that some of the time, but I think we'd both agree that excess in this kind of activity, like many things, is bad news. Either way, these things on their own aren't the meaning of life. A good life consists of balance of different activities, creations, associations, thoughts, etc.

> I would claim those are all misdirections that don't truly result in meaning.

What results in meaning for you, and why is that meaning the most objective? (I think objective morality exists, whilst also believing that different people have different lives and preferences of activity due to differing personalities. I don't think the two views conflict.)

[jimwalton]

> Could you expand on your idea of how [heaven] is depicted?

For the most part, we don't get tired of life. We find meaningful relationships, meaningful education, meaningful interest pursuits (hobbies and fun), and meaningful work. And we go day after day, never thinking "I want this to stop." The only thing that makes life miserable is (1) the misery, and (2) old age that interferes with our meaningful relationships, education, interest pursuits and work. We would never want it to stop, especially if (1) we were meeting new and interesting people and growing in our relationships, (2) able to keep learning things that made life interesting, (3) able to pursue more and different interesting hobbies and fun, and (4) work that made us feel something significant. I've known people who got to the end of their lives and weren't anywhere near boredom, but wanted life to just keep going. People like Walt Disney and Steven Jobs are examples of that, but there are millions more examples of people like that.

Heaven is a place of growing interest. In Luke 19.11-27, Jesus tells a parable about "when the kingdom of God appears." Many people believe that he's talking about heaven and hell. In the story, people in "heaven" are rewarded with jobs and responsibility, much like we have here on earth. Since the book of Revelation describes heaven as being on this earth (Rev. 21.2), and it describes heaven as a city (Rev. 21.10), it makes sense to me that life in heaven will be filled with productive labor, meaningful activity, great relationships, and lots to do. It certainly won't be sitting around playing harps. Or worse yet, accordions. That would kill any of us. : )

Watchman Nee wrote, "Heaven is not a place of inactivity, but we shall be called to a greater work." The reward for responsibility is more responsibility. To him who has, more will be given.

Isaiah 65 makes it sound like people will build houses (v. 21) and do work that is productive and fulfilling (23). Zechariah 14.16 makes mention of worship, as does much of Revelation. Matthew 25.14-30 also mentions "I will put you in charge of many things."

In a speculative vein, what if God starts creating again (since it is his nature), and there are more worlds to explore, and new worlds to explore, and every day something new is popping up (since God is infinite in his creative nature) to do, see, and enjoy? It's a fascinating prospect—a God of infinite creative ability letting loose again for our continual enthusiasm and inspiration.

I actually think that Anne Rice tried to deal with these thoughts in her "Interview with a Vampire." It seemed to be about "What would it be like to live forever?" The ability to live for centuries took its toll on the characters, and we see them wandering in and out of interest and boredom, abusive and meaningful relationships, self-loathing and self-motivation. In essence, I think the book was about how meaningless life can be when it is founded on self-orientation. Interestingly, shortly after writing the book, Anne returned to Catholicism where she wrote several stories about Jesus, finding a whole different orientation to life that changed its purpose and inspiration. (To be fair, I believe that she has once again deserted the faith and describes herself as a secular humanist.) My point is, however, that life grounded on self-orientation too easily lapses into boredom and fear, but life grounded in an eternal Dimension (God) that knows no bounds or limitations only finds one fulfillment after another, and a continuing stream of interest and inspiration.

My anticipation of heaven is filled with excitement. It's going to be life as it was always intended to be.

> Hitler was objectively bad.

I know he was objectively bad, but not in his mind nor in the minds of at least some others. He was giving his life "meaning," and that was my point. Are we just free to give it whatever meaning we want, and they're all fair because we're just an agglomeration of chemicals anyway with no intrinsic meaning from an objective source?

> "brash confidence to be indignant at certain people's freedoms being taken away" Could you expand?

We all need to stand against the horrific atrocities of human trafficking as a cancer on humanity. But my reason for doing so is because we all have intrinsic value as being created in the image of God. In your view, however, if we're just evolved from chemicals with no intrinsic value or meaning, I wonder if there's truly a logical basis to object. (There's certainly an emotional one, but if we're just "survival of the fittest," and if we're just evolved matter, on what logical basis can I say such behavior is wrong?)

> A good life is the place I want to be at.

So is this subjective for everyone? Back to the previous example, supposed someone is making good money trafficking young girls, and he is happy and where he wants to be at. What makes that wrong in the grand scheme of things? (I know you have a visceral negative reaction to it, but what ultimately makes it wrong?) If there is no objective morality, but only "where I want to be at," and if we are evolved animals with no intrinsic worth, then objectively rape is no different from ordering out for Chinese food. They are biological responses to stimuli, and it doesn't matter where it takes us ("I don't life as taking me anywhere").

> I'm not a hedonist in this sense.

But some people are: hedonistic at the expense of others and narcissistic because it's where they want to be at. And I presume whatever people want to be is OK as long as it's where they want to be at?

> I don't look down upon people doing that some of the time, but I think we'd both agree that excess in this kind of activity, like many things, is bad news.

But why? I mean really why.

> What results in meaning for you, and why is that meaning the most objective?

Meaning in life is grounded in the character of God, the nature of our being in His image, and to be found in relationship with Him (what we were created for). As I conform to that worldview, my life has objective meaning completely outside of myself but involving every part of myself. It's perfect congruence.